Stuff I Disagree with Tea Partiers, Libertarians and Liberals On

[flacaltenn]

ShackledNation:

Sounds like you're getting testy here.. I said NOTHING about dictating "more regulations on foreign business" and I definitely didn't refer to "libertarian think tank" notes as BS.

The reason I'm not spewing numbers around is that I'm trying to get a handle on yours. And the ONLY number that's important to me right now for THIS discussion is the size of the American Manufacturing Labor sector.

And you should be more careful in what numbers you consume..

Jobs insourced to the US have been growing at 5.5% per year, whereas job loss to outsourcing is only growing at 1.5%

Careful interpretation of this could be that in (say) 1990 -- the number of foreign entity man. jobs was 3Mil and domestic man jobs was 15Mil. If the insourced jobs GREW at 5.5% and the domestic job loss to outsourcing GREW by 1.5% --- the NUMBERS say that (150,000 - 225,000) === a net job loss of 75,000outsourced jobs.. Be aware of the PHRASING of these claims.

But we don't sophisticated numbers to show the job loss in manufacturing sector. All we really need is Fig 1.. What Accounts for the Decline in Manufacturing Employment?

Agreed -- NOT all those losses after 1970s are due to off-shoring. You can literally see the productivity bump for the introduction of computers around 1980 or so.. Accounts for about -4Mill jobs shed and that period from 1980 to 2000 was the LARGEST jump in automation productivity the world has seen. But it's the curve after 2000 that I'm looking at. There are NO MAJOR technological explanations for the rapid decline after 2000 other than off-shoring. MAYBE jobs came back in from foreign entities, but they aren't landing in jobs concerning goods creation or products.

Sorry you don't see the obvious inyourface dangers of a service economy. The author of this thread, Mr. CountryCLub Independent is COMPLETELY correct (it hurts me to admit that) about taxes and regulation having NOTHING to do with competition or business decisions IF YOU ARE IN THE SERVICE BIZ.. Why?

1) You are competing ONLY with the guy across the table at the country club. The 2 of you are EQUALLY hobbled by the same taxation and regulation. It is a completely flat and "fair" playing field.

2) You have the ability to "pass-on" taxation and regulatory costs to your customers.

World class manufacturers have NEITHER of these luxuries. So you should spend a little more time pondering WHICH types of jobs can produce a growing innovative economy. And I'm NOT calling for govt aid/assistance here. I just want the debate on where the capital flows to include a NEWER analysis of salary preservation and job creation.

It's just the opposite of what you THINK I'm saying.. A service economy is the only weed that can grow in a govt micromanaged enviroment that we now have. And when you empty the manufacturing sector, you are downplaying the importance of science, technology, and innovation which are the factors that drive economic GROWTH...

See any diff now between job types???

And what do you mean stimulating the economy at the consumption level? You cannot consume what has not been produced. American consumer electronics are doing fine. Apple is the most successful and valuable country in the entire nation, to list just one.

American consumer electronics is EXTINCT except for a couple buildings in Cupertino Ca that hold the braintrust of Apple and RIMM. Our PC Board Production capacity is goin down the crapper. (that's my business to see these things). Nothing -- not even Apple or RIMM products made on our shores. Go to Best Buy and find me a TV or DVD player or ANY f'in MONITOR with an American name on it. The Japanese DID ace us completely OUT of the biz because of our arrogant "we own the IP" attitude.

[[[BTW: no way I consider "tablets" significant innovation.. They are nothing but laptops without a keyboard. mostly hype and boredom of plentitude.]]]

And what I mean by stimulating the economy at the consumption level is exactly the failed Bush/Obama stimulus theory that if you cut everyone a check to shop -- that you will grow new domestic jobs and industries. You cannot stimulate consumption anymore and expect that factories in Pennsylvania will staff up and grow.. All bottom-up stimulation does is to pump up Asian factories.

 

[ShackledNation]

ShackledNation:

Sounds like you're getting testy here.. I said NOTHING about dictating "more regulations on foreign business" and I definitely didn't refer to "libertarian think tank" notes as BS.

The reason I'm not spewing numbers around is that I'm trying to get a handle on yours. And the ONLY number that's important to me right now for THIS discussion is the size of the American Manufacturing Labor sector.

Sorry if I was getting testy. I got the impression that you were trying to discredit numbers simply because they disagreed with your assumptions.

And you should be more careful in what numbers you consume..

Jobs insourced to the US have been growing at 5.5% per year, whereas job loss to outsourcing is only growing at 1.5%

Careful interpretation of this could be that in (say) 1990 -- the number of foreign entity man. jobs was 3Mil and domestic man jobs was 15Mil. If the insourced jobs GREW at 5.5% and the domestic job loss to outsourcing GREW by 1.5% --- the NUMBERS say that (150,000 - 225,000) === a net job loss of 75,000outsourced jobs.. Be aware of the PHRASING of these claims.

That scenario would be true if there were more jobs outsourced than insourced, but there are not, as the other numbers I gave you showed. We have 5.5 million jobs insourced and 2 million outsourced. If insourced jobs are growing at 5.5% and those lost to outsourced at 1.5%, then all the better. Furthermore, even if in your scenario the number of insourced jobs was less, within a few years due to the percentage growth eventually more jobs would be insourced.

So either way, the trend is towards gaining more jobs from insourcing, not losing them to outsourcing. I am well aware of the phrasing, and it should have been obvious to you that if insourced jobs are increasing at a rate 3 times as fast as outsourcing jobs, obviously insourced jobs will in the future outnumber outsourced jobs. And that future is now, because we insource twice as many jobs than we outsource.

But we don't sophisticated numbers to show the job loss in manufacturing sector. All we really need is Fig 1.. What Accounts for the Decline in Manufacturing Employment?

The numbers are not sophisticated at all, really. They simply are telling us how much employment is lost to foreign countries and how much is gained from foreign countries. And we gain overwhelming more than we lose. And those gained jobs are higher paying jobs. As for your figure, that really is not helpful, because it talks about the loss of manufacturing jobs for whatever reason. The number tells us nothing about how outsourcing has affected manufacturing jobs.

Agreed -- NOT all those losses after 1970s are due to off-shoring. You can literally see the productivity bump for the introduction of computers around 1980 or so.. Accounts for about -4Mill jobs shed and that period from 1980 to 2000 was the LARGEST jump in automation productivity the world has seen. But it's the curve after 2000 that I'm looking at. There are NO MAJOR technological explanations for the rapid decline after 2000 other than off-shoring. MAYBE jobs came back in from foreign entities, but they aren't landing in jobs concerning goods creation or products.

No major technological explanations since 2000? I can hardly see how you believe that statement. There have been many technological innovations that enhance productivity since 2000. But all of this is irrelevant. We have the exact number of jobs outsourced to foreign countries. There is no maybe here. We insourced nearly 6 million jobs. And yes, the jobs are concerning products. They are concerning toyota and nesle manufacturing. And such new jobs result in Americans having higher wages, and thus purchasing power american goods. Employment is a means to produce, not an ends. The ends is consumption. It is silly to think we must have a large segment of our population employed in building products if the same output can be achieved using less workers. Those workers will be free to find other jobs, allowing production to expand in other sectors that otherwise would not have the human labor it needed.

The CBO source you cited said that since 1950 manufacturing output as percentage of GDP has remained virtually the same. If this is the case, why are we all crying about loosing our manufacturing base? We aren't. It just takes less people to produce the same output...in otherwords, we have become more productive. And higher productivity is not a bad thing.

Sorry you don't see the obvious inyourface dangers of a service economy. The author of this thread, Mr. CountryCLub Independent is COMPLETELY correct (it hurts me to admit that) about taxes and regulation having NOTHING to do with competition or business decisions IF YOU ARE IN THE SERVICE BIZ.. Why?

1) You are competing ONLY with the guy across the table at the country club. The 2 of you are EQUALLY hobbled by the same taxation and regulation. It is a completely flat and "fair" playing field.


2) You have the ability to "pass-on" taxation and regulatory costs to your customers.

I was talking about the manufacturing sector and the competitiveness of that sector. Also, not all businesses are equally affected by regulations even in the service sector. There are many loopholes and privileges granted by government to certain companies. That is why they all spend so much money on lobbyists.

World class manufacturers have NEITHER of these luxuries. So you should spend a little more time pondering WHICH types of jobs can produce a growing innovative economy. And I'm NOT calling for govt aid/assistance here. I just want the debate on where the capital flows to include a NEWER analysis of salary preservation and job creation.

Hence why we should reduce regulations of these industries so they are more competitive. Not sure what you are trying to prove here.

It's just the opposite of what you THINK I'm saying.. A service economy is the only weed that can grow in a govt micromanaged enviroment that we now have. And when you empty the manufacturing sector, you are downplaying the importance of science, technology, and innovation which are the factors that drive economic GROWTH...

See any diff now between job types???

So you think a manufacturing job is for some reason better than a service job. That is silly and untrue. Again, our manufacturing output has been the same since 1950, according to your own source. Employment has gone down simply because companies have grown more efficient and productive, and that is not a bad thing at all. Jobs are useful only if they add to the productive process and aid in creating what people want or providing services that people need at the lowest cost.

And what do you mean stimulating the economy at the consumption level? You cannot consume what has not been produced. American consumer electronics are doing fine. Apple is the most successful and valuable country in the entire nation, to list just one.

American consumer electronics is EXTINCT except for a couple buildings in Cupertino Ca that hold the braintrust of Apple and RIMM. Our PC Board Production capacity is goin down the crapper. (that's my business to see these things). Nothing -- not even Apple or RIMM products made on our shores. Go to Best Buy and find me a TV or DVD player or ANY f'in MONITOR with an American name on it. The Japanese DID ace us completely OUT of the biz because of our arrogant "we own the IP" attitude.

[[[BTW: no way I consider "tablets" significant innovation.. They are nothing but laptops without a keyboard. mostly hype and boredom of plentitude.]]]

I see what you are saying. You are saying that stuff is produced overseas and that is bad, not that we don't have any companies. I say...so what? For some reason you have this belief that if we outsource jobs we will forever have more unemployment or a weakened economy. This is simply not true.

And what I mean by stimulating the economy at the consumption level is exactly the failed Bush/Obama stimulus theory that if you cut everyone a check to shop -- that you will grow new domestic jobs and industries. You cannot stimulate consumption anymore and expect that factories in Pennsylvania will staff up and grow.. All bottom-up stimulation does is to pump up Asian factories.

That Keynesian theory will always fail, whether there is free trade or not. And again you are note thinking of the balance of payments. Even if trying to stimulate the economy like that ever worked to sustain long term growth, free trade would not change anything. The dollars that would end up in the hands of asian factories are useless to those factories because they cannot pay their workers or buy domestic goods with dollars. They must either invest those dollars back in the US or buy our exports.

But the idea that government can spend to grow the economy is simply not true. It will only misallocate resources and create waste. But that is a different topic entirely.

The problem with arguments against free trade always boils down to this key fallacy:
1. Trade across international borders is a zero sum game.

Trade across international borders is no different than trade across city and state borders. In fact, it is no different than trade between two individuals. Free and voluntary exchange is always beneficial. Dollars spent overseas will come back to the US in one form or another, if not now then in the future. The purpose of production is consumption, not employment. The fact that less people are employed in manufacturing is not a bad thing. Why? Output is the same. Consumers are getting what they want. And ultimately workers who are displaced find new jobs that are more productive serve to meet consumer demand and allow for the creation of new companies.

The reason we have computers and other technologies is precisely because there was less employment in agriculture and older types of employment. Less employment in one sector frees up employment in other sectors. Do you think we should go back to an economy where half the people are working in agriculture? I doubt it. And the output of agricultural products in the US is 158% higher than it was in 1948. So that is another example of less labor yet higher productivity and higher standards of living. For the same reasons is is unnecessary and even harmful to try to employ half the population in manufacturing when doing so would be less efficient.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/AgProductivity/

 

[flacaltenn]

ShackledNation:

First off -- I can believe the 5.3Mill jobs with foreign owned companies. But you also use that figure to balance the job loss in just ONE YEAR (2009). That doesn't fly.. We are not GAINING 5.3Mill foreign sponsored jobs in any one year -- but we are shedding multi-millions (mainly from the manufacturing sector) in each and every year to off-shoring.

No, that was not the job loss of one year, that was the total number of jobs outsourced up until that time. Let me cite this statistic once again.

Jobs insourced to the US have been growing at 5.5% per year, whereas job loss to outsourcing is only growing at 1.5%

Every year, we gain more jobs to insourcing than we lose to outsourcing. The notion that jobs are vanishing overseas and not being replaced is a myth.

Let's do this math again.. You didn't get it the 1st time or the 2nd time..

You quote 2 rates of growth. Rates of growth produce a number that is coupled to the base volume for each rate. For instance

A = 5.5% (the rate at which INSOURCING is growing due to foreign entities in America.

B = 1.5% (the rate at which OUTSOURCING is growing due to jobs exporting.

rate of growth = (NEW)/(base)

A * Abase = new jobs in. B * Bbase = US jobs out.

(B*Bbase - A*Abase) == net jobs lost (or gained) per period assuming those rates of growth.

A high "rate of growth" on a low base can equal a low "rate of growth" on a high base. Let's see what the relative base volumes have to be so that job trade is balanced.

For the number of resultant jobs to be EQUAL --- the base VOLUME of jobs for B has to 3.7times HIGHER than the base volume for A. Or equivalently that means with THOSE rates of growth -- that foreign owned companies would have to employ 21% of the American manufacturing workforce to create a net job stalemate. (1 out of 4.7 man. workers)

Any VOLUME of foreign employed US workers LESS than that would result in a net job loss.. I ran that in my head and alarm bells went off.

What I think is true here Shackledton is that the RATES are perfectly correct . There's no reason to doubt those -- but the job trade balance numbers you have are sketchy and dubious. Because I ain't gonna believe that more than 21% of American manufacturing workers are employed by foreign entities. Even with that sector absolutely tanking.

And to create a significant job GAIN like your other numbers WANT to show --- they would have to be employing upwards of 30% or more of American manufacturing workers. I doubt if foreign owned US manufacturing accounts for even 15% of the total workers in the sector..

So we have an impasse unless either of us comes up with numbers that don't clash with each other.. I have some notes I will check when I get a chance..

 

[flacaltenn]

PS:

Just to show you how fairly I'm trying to rationalize your assertion.. If those growth rates applied to ALL sectors (not just manufacturing) I could believe that outsourcing was being balanced with foreign sponsored replacement. Because with foreign banking/investment incursions, foreign retail incursions, and foreign entertainment incursions -- it COULD amount to 21% or greater of the US workforce.

BUt your link specifically applies to manufacturing. And that is the demographic that gonna reshape our entire US thinking on jobs.

 

[Texanmike]

* TPs and Libertarians: I don't believe that you speak to the dead and "know" what the Founding Fathers meant in the USC. No it is not to be taken literally and yes it is a living document - or else there would be no ability to amend it. I know all your reasons why you think you're right. I love the fact that you've done so much work and research on the two guys who really support your interpretation. They were big players but they weren't the only ones.

You are correct, we do not speak to the dead. (Libertarian doesn't really describe me, and neither does TP so I'm just responding to the things I feel are relevant to my opinions). That said, there are PLENTY of resources to give insight to the intentions of the founders. You can look and clearly see that Madison, early in his political career, had designs for a system of government that resembled the Monarchy. Later in life (after befriending and being influenced by Jefferson) he renounced a lot of those views. We also have references like Locke, Hume, Plutarch, to a lesser degree Bastiat and even Plato... these are the philosophers that the founders read that heavily influenced the (especially Madison/Mason/Jefferson and John Taylor) design of the democracy. There are the letters from Franklin to his son, Madison's and Jefferson's notes from the conventions at Annapolis and Philadelphia, the federalist and anti-federalist papers as well as letters from Washington and Hamilton to read. It is not really that hard to find volumes of things written by the Authors. I recommend you go buy a dictionary from the time (I've got two from 1790 and 1804) because the language was slightly different at the time and having a dictionary handy that doesn't have the modern definitions mixed in (and harder to distinguish) helps clear up any confusion.

Do I have any special insight to the founding fathers that anyone else can't have? Of course not. Have I done intense research and reading to formulate my opinion? Absolutely. Does that mean I'm 100% correct on everything? No. Does it mean that I will take my opinion over a guy off the street? Of course. I don't have some predigested notion. I was a liberal as a kid... then I swung a little conservative... (still am personally) and then I got tired of relying on other people telling me what the founders said so I started reading, and reading and reading. I encourage you to do the same. Maybe you won't come to the same conclusion. Don't read auto-biographies... read what they wrote. One good place to start for references is autobiographies though. Don't read them, look at the sources they used and go directly to them.

* LIbs: Many unions have driven the price of labor up so high, they have every bit as much responsibility for jobs being shipped overseas as CEOs. They are not all noble and protecting the workers of America. Examples: UAW, Teamsters, Longshoremen.

* I own a gun. If anyone breaks into my home and holds perfectly still while I move to within three feet of them, they're dead meat. Or their leg will hurt. Maybe a toe. In any case, you guys are all over the danm place on this issue. Some of you have told me I should be able to own a machine gun or even an RPG. Others have told me I should be able to take these fine weapons anywhere I want. I disagree with those of you who have that view.
On the other side, Libs if I have a gun in my home, I am not a "NeoCon" or "Out to prove my manhood".

I carry a gun because I am NOT out there to prove my manhood. If you physically threaten me, my loved ones or my property and I feel the threat is real I'm not going to get into a conversation. I'm looking for a safe shot. I'm not 20 years old and wanting to buck up to some punk. I'm not waiting for you to pull something on me... I'm not a bad ass anymore... and I have no desire to be one. I will never go to trial for assault, when I go it will be "did I defend myself or not.. you decide". I've got an 8 year old son handgun with a 4 inch barrel and a shotgun with home defense rounds... I'm taking no chances.

* Conservs: Taxes do not affect my decision to hire people. I have run large divisions for major companies, medium sized firms and my own, for the last 20 years. Taxes or the mere scent of the possibility of taxes has never affected my hiring decisions. If I needed someone I hired them. It is stupid business not to. If I didn't need someone, I didn't hire anyone. This is just common sense.

* Libs: We have too much entitlement. We have families that are 3rd generation on welfare. That's at least 2 too many. To say that these programs are never abused is ridiculous.

* Conservs: I love what some of you have taught me about the duplication of state and fed agencies. Thank you for that. I would agree with much of what you say in this regard. But I would never let go of the CIA, SEC, FAA, EPA and so on.

Think about it for a second. There is a need for a CIA, an FBI etc... why not do it by Constitutional amendment? If it is really necessary and common sense it should pass the amendment process. You seen the USDA lately? They have busted two "raw milk rings"... really?

* LIbs: So waht if a candidate is a Christian? Obama is. I don't care if Rick Perry prays for rain, prosperity or a Super Bowl win for the Houstan Texans (He better pray friggin hard for that one!). While you have all this rhetoric about Christians oppressing you or whatever, what exactly are you doing when you villify someone for their faith alone. Now if Perry says he wants prayer to mandatory in schools, show me and I will b1tch slap him.

Not a RP fan... but watch the Texans this year. I'm not saying they're a SB contender but we should definitely be in the playoffs (and I think we should win a game there before our exit).

* Conservs: You will never convince me that the CRA of '64 is not absolutely necessary and completely Constitutional. Sorry - that definitely falls into my view of "All men created equal" and "General Welfare".

I would ask if you've read the Constitution. There are enumerated powers for a reason.

* ObamaCare sucks. It's just plain stupid. But guess what? I've had government health care when I served in the military (Not one person bought private insurance during my time in uniform) and when I lived in Mexico, Canada and The Ukraine. I've also received it in other countries. I would happily give up $300B of our military spending for a Public Option.

* IT IS NOT ALL STILL BUSH'S FRIGGIN FAULT!!!! Enough said on that one.

* Libs: I am for enhanced interrogation on rare occasion. Conservs: This does not mean water-boarding. Nothing about Git-Mo or what Cheney / Bush did was about gaining actionable intel. Because of my background, I am uniquely qualified to prove this. It is not hard to do.

Okay, enough of the late night ramblings after the post-tennis glasses of Merlot.

I'm sure this will spark debate on issues, facts, passion replies and well reasoned arguments from some of you. And of course, the usual insults and labels from the whackjobs...

About the Constitution and not being literal... I would ask you what your research is to back that up? If you look at the lengthy debate the founders certainly meant it literally. I don't think its a perfect document but just the amendment process they left should tell you that they meant it to be read. They had no designs (well the designs were left in a pile on the floor) of a national government. They wanted 50 sovereign states, not one large state. It was meant as a users manual for the federal government, not an interpretative poem. I'd encourage you to read their books before you decide what you think the Constitution was meant to be. If you read it and you come to a different conclusion, so be it. If you want a good place to start, let me know, I can give you several books that either influenced the founders or that they wrote themselves.

Mike

 

[ShackledNation]

ShackledNation:

First off -- I can believe the 5.3Mill jobs with foreign owned companies. But you also use that figure to balance the job loss in just ONE YEAR (2009). That doesn't fly.. We are not GAINING 5.3Mill foreign sponsored jobs in any one year -- but we are shedding multi-millions (mainly from the manufacturing sector) in each and every year to off-shoring.

No, that was not the job loss of one year, that was the total number of jobs outsourced up until that time. Let me cite this statistic once again.

Jobs insourced to the US have been growing at 5.5% per year, whereas job loss to outsourcing is only growing at 1.5%

Every year, we gain more jobs to insourcing than we lose to outsourcing. The notion that jobs are vanishing overseas and not being replaced is a myth.

Let's do this math again.. You didn't get it the 1st time or the 2nd time..

You quote 2 rates of growth. Rates of growth produce a number that is coupled to the base volume for each rate. For instance

A = 5.5% (the rate at which INSOURCING is growing due to foreign entities in America.

B = 1.5% (the rate at which OUTSOURCING is growing due to jobs exporting.

rate of growth = (NEW)/(base)

A * Abase = new jobs in. B * Bbase = US jobs out.

(B*Bbase - A*Abase) == net jobs lost (or gained) per period assuming those rates of growth.

A high "rate of growth" on a low base can equal a low "rate of growth" on a high base. Let's see what the relative base volumes have to be so that job trade is balanced.

For the number of resultant jobs to be EQUAL --- the base VOLUME of jobs for B has to 3.7times HIGHER than the base volume for A. Or equivalently that means with THOSE rates of growth -- that foreign owned companies would have to employ 21% of the American manufacturing workforce to create a net job stalemate. (1 out of 4.7 man. workers)

Any VOLUME of foreign employed US workers LESS than that would result in a net job loss.. I ran that in my head and alarm bells went off.

What I think is true here Shackledton is that the RATES are perfectly correct . There's no reason to doubt those -- but the job trade balance numbers you have are sketchy and dubious. Because I ain't gonna believe that more than 21% of American manufacturing workers are employed by foreign entities. Even with that sector absolutely tanking.

And to create a significant job GAIN like your other numbers WANT to show --- they would have to be employing upwards of 30% or more of American manufacturing workers. I doubt if foreign owned US manufacturing accounts for even 15% of the total workers in the sector..

So we have an impasse unless either of us comes up with numbers that don't clash with each other.. I have some notes I will check when I get a chance..

I understand everything you are saying about rates of growth on bases, but you are coming to completely wrong and statistically incorrect conclusions.

The annual rate at which jobs are outsourcing is 1.5%. The rate at which jobs are being insourced is 5.5%. If 1000 jobs are outsourced and 1000 jobs are insourced in year a, one year later there will be 1015 outsourced jobs and 1055 insourced jobs. In other words, jobs are being insourced at a rate higher than they are being outsourced.

Now your objection is that if the number of jobs being outsourced is higher than the number being insourced by a significant amount, the number of jobs being outsourced will continually remain greater unless 30% of jobs are provided by foreign companies. Your mathematical analysis is simply incorrect.

The base of insourced jobs does not have to be 3.7 times higher than outsourced jobs for their to be net job gain. I have no idea where you came up with this number. Maybe you were multiplying the base year by the percentage number rather than the decimal from the percentage? I don't know. But it literally makes no logical sense. If both bases are equal, and insourcing is increasing at a higher rate, insourced jobs will increase in proportion to outsourced jobs. You would not need for there to be a base of insourced jobs 3.7 times higher at all.

Second, on the topic of insourced jobs with a low base and outsourced jobs with a high base. You claim that net jobs will be lost. Initially, yes. But the ration of outsourced jobs to insourced jobs will decrease each year until there are more jobs being insourced. Over time, the trend will be more jobs insourced in relation to jobs outsourced. Another example:

Say there are 1000 jobs being outsourced and only 100 being insourced in the base year. Applying the growth rates, in the second year there would be 1015 jobs outsourced and 105.5 jobs insourced. In the first year, the ratio of outsourced/insourced would have been 10/1. In the second year, it would be 9.6/1. If the rates remained the same each year, eventually you would have a ratio in which the higher number belongs to the insourced jobs.

This entire correction of your faulty statistical analysis is not even relevant, because currently the base number of outsourced jobs is lower not higher, than the base number of insourced jobs. So not only is your analysis incorrect, even if it were correct actual conditions do not support your conclusion.

 

[Sactowndog]

Do you guys realize that the Foreign countries outsource more jobs to the US than we outsource to them? We have many more high paying jobs from around the world now in the US because of freer trade.

Do you have data that would show this? I would agree prior to the laying of tranoceanic cables but I think it would be old data at this point.

Yes. See my above post. And this is current data, from 2009. I don't know why you assume there is no demand for American labor. Foreign countries demand American workers because we are more productive. We insource 5.5 million jobs and outsource 2 million. We benefit from outsourcing by very large numbers. Major car companies are the stereotypical example (like Toyota) but Nesle chocolate, a swiss company, is another example of foreign outsourcing to, rather than from, the US.

Okay I looked at the data and I see a couple issues with it. Let me know if you agree...

1) The 5.5 million jobs insourced are manufacturing jobs. I would tend to agree those have actually risen as it is a correction from the heavy outsourcing decades ago and some are coming back. Some foreign countries are putting manufacturing in the US closer to their sales.

But..... the massive outflow of jobs currently underway is not manufacturing jobs but knowledge worker jobs. Jobs like R&D, Finance, Marketing HR and support are moving offshore to low cost countries in massive numbers like manufacturing did earlier. This flow is enhanced by the increasing shift from paper to digital and reduced communication costs which is making it easier to have employees communicate globally.

So your study is missing where the movement in occuring.

2) Lay-offs are just part of the problem. Often jobs are just backfilled out of the country instead of backfilled in the country. That accounts for at least half the job loss and it is accounted for in your numbers. In addition, new job growth is added overseas and not in the US. If you looked at the percentage of the workforce you would see a massive shift.

In summary, if that shift is to align with sales then that isn't a problem. But when it doesn't align with in country sales then you have a subsidy problem that isn't sustainable longer term and will hurt the US.

So again the solution is to treat US and Foreign manufacturers even-handedly because they are all multinationals anyway. If you take 10B in cash in then you need 10B in cash out. Doesn't matter if you make butter or guns or if you are based in Detroit, Tokyo or Bejing. If you shift 2B is cash out of the country then you pay a 20% tax.

Under this model it will just encourage more foreign nationals to put manufacturing in the US to balance US sales. If they have already done it then they would benefit from low corporate tax rates.

 

[ShackledNation]

Do you have data that would show this? I would agree prior to the laying of tranoceanic cables but I think it would be old data at this point.

Yes. See my above post. And this is current data, from 2009. I don't know why you assume there is no demand for American labor. Foreign countries demand American workers because we are more productive. We insource 5.5 million jobs and outsource 2 million. We benefit from outsourcing by very large numbers. Major car companies are the stereotypical example (like Toyota) but Nesle chocolate, a swiss company, is another example of foreign outsourcing to, rather than from, the US.

Okay I looked at the data and I see a couple issues with it. Let me know if you agree...

1) The 5.5 million jobs insourced are manufacturing jobs. I would tend to agree those have actually risen as it is a correction from the heavy outsourcing decades ago and some are coming back. Some foreign countries are putting manufacturing in the US closer to their sales.

But..... the massive outflow of jobs currently underway is not manufacturing jobs but knowledge worker jobs. Jobs like R&D, Finance, Marketing HR and support are moving offshore to low cost countries in massive numbers like manufacturing did earlier. This flow is enhanced by the increasing shift from paper to digital and reduced communication costs which is making it easier to have employees communicate globally.

So your study is missing where the movement in occuring.

Now it is my turn to ask...do you have data that supports the claim that we are outsourcing primarily "knowledge worker jobs" and insourcing manufacturing jobs? Also, the purpose of trade is to have countries producing what they are most efficient at. So if we are less efficient at producing knowledge workers, then we will get different jobs in exchange. Also, what is the problem with having outsourcing knowledge workers? What would you prefer we outsource?

2) Lay-offs are just part of the problem. Often jobs are just backfilled out of the country instead of backfilled in the country. That accounts for at least half the job loss and it is accounted for in your numbers. In addition, new job growth is added overseas and not in the US. If you looked at the percentage of the workforce you would see a massive shift.

In summary, if that shift is to align with sales then that isn't a problem. But when it doesn't align with in country sales then you have a subsidy problem that isn't sustainable longer term and will hurt the US.

I have no idea what you are talking about with backfilling. From what I know, backfilling is when a company posts their job listings on a third party site. Under that definition, I do not see how jobs are lost by posting listings on a third party website. And new job growth is adding in the US too, in the form of insourcing. Companies that outsource often expand their operations at home as well. I don't see how you can say new job growth is added overseas and not in the US when the data shows that there is more job growth added to the US than lost other countries. And a massive shift in what? That statement seems very general, and I do not see where you are trying to go with it, to be honest.

So again the solution is to treat US and Foreign manufacturers even-handedly because they are all multinationals anyway. If you take 10B in cash in then you need 10B in cash out. Doesn't matter if you make butter or guns or if you are based in Detroit, Tokyo or Bejing. If you shift 2B is cash out of the country then you pay a 20% tax.

Under this model it will just encourage more foreign nationals to put manufacturing in the US to balance US sales. If they have already done it then they would benefit from low corporate tax rates.

How are you treating manufacturers evenhandedly by taxing some more than others because they deal with foreign nations? You are advocating for protectionism, the type of trade policy promoted by mercantilism in the middle ages. You are not correctly understanding the balance of payments. You are only looking at the current account, and completely ignoring the capital account.

Companies are not shifting 2 billion in cash out of the country for nothing. It is not a zero sum game. That money will always come back to the US now or in the future in the form of investment or the purchase of US exports. Every single dollar spent in foreign nations will eventually come back to the United States unless the dollar is adopted as the official currency in other countries. Not only that, but real wages on average increase because the increased production and lower costs of doing business allow for cheaper products.

So we get increased production, increased efficiency, higher wages, more jobs, and better relations with foreign countries due to trade, and you want to end this by creating an incentive to keep business inside the US and penalizing expansion abroad?

Protectionism has proven itself over and over again to be a complete economic disaster for everyone. Mercantilism was criticized for this, and Hoover's tariff hikes helped cause the Great Depression. The numbers clearly show that everyone is benefiting from freer trade, and yet people still fall into the trap of looking at international trade as a zero sum game, even though it is no different than trade between you and I as individuals.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Sactowndog]

2) Lay-offs are just part of the problem. Often jobs are just backfilled out of the country instead of backfilled in the country. That accounts for at least half the job loss and it is accounted for in your numbers. In addition, new job growth is added overseas and not in the US. If you looked at the percentage of the workforce you would see a massive shift.

In summary, if that shift is to align with sales then that isn't a problem. But when it doesn't align with in country sales then you have a subsidy problem that isn't sustainable longer term and will hurt the US.
I have no idea what you are talking about with backfilling. From what I know, backfilling is when a company posts their job listings on a third party site. Under that definition, I do not see how jobs are lost by posting listings on a third party website. And new job growth is adding in the US too, in the form of insourcing. Companies that outsource often expand their operations at home as well. I don't see how you can say new job growth is added overseas and not in the US when the data shows that there is more job growth added to the US than lost other countries. And a massive shift in what? That statement seems very general, and I do not see where you are trying to go with it, to be honest.

So backfilling is when a person who leaves a job is replaced by someone else in this case someone out of the country. So you don't see it in your lay-off statistics because no one is laid off. When they leave their job moves off-shore. It is a method of moving jobs off shore but with less visibility and anger. Just as effective however.

 

[Sactowndog]

But..... the massive outflow of jobs currently underway is not manufacturing jobs but knowledge worker jobs. Jobs like R&D, Finance, Marketing HR and support are moving offshore to low cost countries in massive numbers like manufacturing did earlier. This flow is enhanced by the increasing shift from paper to digital and reduced communication costs which is making it easier to have employees communicate globally.

So your study is missing where the movement in occuring

Now it is my turn to ask...do you have data that supports the claim that we are outsourcing primarily "knowledge worker jobs" and insourcing manufacturing jobs? Also, the purpose of trade is to have countries producing what they are most efficient at. So if we are less efficient at producing knowledge workers, then we will get different jobs in exchange. Also, what is the problem with having outsourcing knowledge workers? What would you prefer we outsource?

So I have ancedotal data which is marginally valuable. I work at a Fortune 100 company and those are the jobs we are massively outsourcing not manufacturing which left the country long ago. I can tell you our company VP's have plans and targets to outsource these types of jobs I have sat in the meetings.

Perhaps others can speak to their company and collarborate what I am saying or counter it.

So we have already off-shored manufacturing, now we our off-shoring R&D, Finance, Marketing, HR and support. There isn't much left to be done here except for senior managerment which is why the middle class is declining.

22 Statistics That Prove The Middle Class Is Being Systematically Wiped Out Of Existence In America[/QUOTE]

 

[Sactowndog]

So again the solution is to treat US and Foreign manufacturers even-handedly because they are all multinationals anyway. If you take 10B in cash in then you need 10B in cash out. Doesn't matter if you make butter or guns or if you are based in Detroit, Tokyo or Bejing. If you shift 2B is cash out of the country then you pay a 20% tax.

Under this model it will just encourage more foreign nationals to put manufacturing in the US to balance US sales. If they have already done it then they would benefit from low corporate tax rates.

How are you treating manufacturers evenhandedly by taxing some more than others because they deal with foreign nations? You are advocating for protectionism, the type of trade policy promoted by mercantilism in the middle ages. You are not correctly understanding the balance of payments. You are only looking at the current account, and completely ignoring the capital account.

Companies are not shifting 2 billion in cash out of the country for nothing. It is not a zero sum game. That money will always come back to the US now or in the future in the form of investment or the purchase of US exports. Every single dollar spent in foreign nations will eventually come back to the United States unless the dollar is adopted as the official currency in other countries. Not only that, but real wages on average increase because the increased production and lower costs of doing business allow for cheaper products.

So we get increased production, increased efficiency, higher wages, more jobs, and better relations with foreign countries due to trade, and you want to end this by creating an incentive to keep business inside the US and penalizing expansion abroad?

No I am merely creating a penalty for companies either foreign or domestic that are selling here but not investing in jobs here. If they have business elsewhere my plan has not effect. If they want to sell their product competitively here my plan has no effect. It only has effect if they are outsourcing capital. Companies are free to engage in trade but they can't freely outsource capital.

 

[flacaltenn]

No, that was not the job loss of one year, that was the total number of jobs outsourced up until that time. Let me cite this statistic once again.

Jobs insourced to the US have been growing at 5.5% per year, whereas job loss to outsourcing is only growing at 1.5%

Every year, we gain more jobs to insourcing than we lose to outsourcing. The notion that jobs are vanishing overseas and not being replaced is a myth.

Let's do this math again.. You didn't get it the 1st time or the 2nd time..

You quote 2 rates of growth. Rates of growth produce a number that is coupled to the base volume for each rate. For instance

A = 5.5% (the rate at which INSOURCING is growing due to foreign entities in America.

B = 1.5% (the rate at which OUTSOURCING is growing due to jobs exporting.

rate of growth = (NEW)/(base)

A * Abase = new jobs in. B * Bbase = US jobs out.

(B*Bbase - A*Abase) == net jobs lost (or gained) per period assuming those rates of growth.

A high "rate of growth" on a low base can equal a low "rate of growth" on a high base. Let's see what the relative base volumes have to be so that job trade is balanced.

For the number of resultant jobs to be EQUAL --- the base VOLUME of jobs for B has to 3.7times HIGHER than the base volume for A. Or equivalently that means with THOSE rates of growth -- that foreign owned companies would have to employ 21% of the American manufacturing workforce to create a net job stalemate. (1 out of 4.7 man. workers)

Any VOLUME of foreign employed US workers LESS than that would result in a net job loss.. I ran that in my head and alarm bells went off.

What I think is true here Shackledton is that the RATES are perfectly correct . There's no reason to doubt those -- but the job trade balance numbers you have are sketchy and dubious. Because I ain't gonna believe that more than 21% of American manufacturing workers are employed by foreign entities. Even with that sector absolutely tanking.

And to create a significant job GAIN like your other numbers WANT to show --- they would have to be employing upwards of 30% or more of American manufacturing workers. I doubt if foreign owned US manufacturing accounts for even 15% of the total workers in the sector..

So we have an impasse unless either of us comes up with numbers that don't clash with each other.. I have some notes I will check when I get a chance..

I understand everything you are saying about rates of growth on bases, but you are coming to completely wrong and statistically incorrect conclusions.

The annual rate at which jobs are outsourcing is 1.5%. The rate at which jobs are being insourced is 5.5%. If 1000 jobs are outsourced and 1000 jobs are insourced in year a, one year later there will be 1015 outsourced jobs and 1055 insourced jobs. In other words, jobs are being insourced at a rate higher than they are being outsourced.

Now your objection is that if the number of jobs being outsourced is higher than the number being insourced by a significant amount, the number of jobs being outsourced will continually remain greater unless 30% of jobs are provided by foreign companies. Your mathematical analysis is simply incorrect.

The base of insourced jobs does not have to be 3.7 times higher than outsourced jobs for their to be net job gain. I have no idea where you came up with this number. Maybe you were multiplying the base year by the percentage number rather than the decimal from the percentage? I don't know. But it literally makes no logical sense. If both bases are equal, and insourcing is increasing at a higher rate, insourced jobs will increase in proportion to outsourced jobs. You would not need for there to be a base of insourced jobs 3.7 times higher at all.

Second, on the topic of insourced jobs with a low base and outsourced jobs with a high base. You claim that net jobs will be lost. Initially, yes. But the ration of outsourced jobs to insourced jobs will decrease each year until there are more jobs being insourced. Over time, the trend will be more jobs insourced in relation to jobs outsourced. Another example:

Say there are 1000 jobs being outsourced and only 100 being insourced in the base year. Applying the growth rates, in the second year there would be 1015 jobs outsourced and 105.5 jobs insourced. In the first year, the ratio of outsourced/insourced would have been 10/1. In the second year, it would be 9.6/1. If the rates remained the same each year, eventually you would have a ratio in which the higher number belongs to the insourced jobs.

This entire correction of your faulty statistical analysis is not even relevant, because currently the base number of outsourced jobs is lower not higher, than the base number of insourced jobs. So not only is your analysis incorrect, even if it were correct actual conditions do not support your conclusion.

You are very wrong.. And I gave you the math.. The base volume of OUTSOURCED jobs DOES have to be 3.7 higher than pool of INSOURCED jobs to equal the insourced jobs. Which means INSOURCED controls 1 out of every 4.7 man. jobs (21%) to balance the job situation. My numbers are EXACTLY correct. And it doesn't matter if you choose 1990 or 2011 as a year for those base volumes. Because we are discussing two "rates of growth" that need to balance each other. And my bottom line CORRECT assertion was that for these rates of growth to produce a BALANCED scenario -- that 21% of manufacturing jobs in the USA would have to be foreign owned entities. For them to be PRODUCING a substantial SURPLUS of jobs in JUST manufacturing sector -- they'd have to employ 30% or MORE of the manufacturing slots..

Sorry you don't get it.. It's defense against the "dark arts" to read and interpret numbers.
Otherwise a lot of bad stuff can be blown up your tailpipe..
And it's a large part of my job to check, recheck, and re-recheck again numbers..

Your last paragraph illustrates that you didn't comprehend my last post..

This entire correction of your faulty statistical analysis is not even relevant, because currently the base number of outsourced jobs is lower not higher, than the base number of insourced jobs. So not only is your analysis incorrect, even if it were correct actual conditions do not support your conclusion

"Base number" is not what I meant by BASE VOLUME.. Base VOLUME would be the total number of employed workers. NOT just the new ones added.

So to find out how many get outsourced this year from your "rates" you multiply 1.5% times the TOTAL employed by AMERICAN firms in manuf. . Similiarly you multiply 5.5% times the TOTAL employed by FOREIGN firms in manuf. to get the INSOURCED number.

We don't KNOW those totals (base volumes) -- we could probably find them. But you don't NEED the base volumes to do the simple math to show WHEN the rates would produce EQUAL inflow and outflow.. If you want to pursue this let me know.. It's important enough to get it right. And I'm not doing this just to "beat you into submission" or anything close to that motivation..

 

[ShackledNation]

Let's do this math again.. You didn't get it the 1st time or the 2nd time..

You quote 2 rates of growth. Rates of growth produce a number that is coupled to the base volume for each rate. For instance

A = 5.5% (the rate at which INSOURCING is growing due to foreign entities in America.

B = 1.5% (the rate at which OUTSOURCING is growing due to jobs exporting.

rate of growth = (NEW)/(base)

A * Abase = new jobs in. B * Bbase = US jobs out.

(B*Bbase - A*Abase) == net jobs lost (or gained) per period assuming those rates of growth.

A high "rate of growth" on a low base can equal a low "rate of growth" on a high base. Let's see what the relative base volumes have to be so that job trade is balanced.

For the number of resultant jobs to be EQUAL --- the base VOLUME of jobs for B has to 3.7times HIGHER than the base volume for A. Or equivalently that means with THOSE rates of growth -- that foreign owned companies would have to employ 21% of the American manufacturing workforce to create a net job stalemate. (1 out of 4.7 man. workers)

Any VOLUME of foreign employed US workers LESS than that would result in a net job loss.. I ran that in my head and alarm bells went off.

What I think is true here Shackledton is that the RATES are perfectly correct . There's no reason to doubt those -- but the job trade balance numbers you have are sketchy and dubious. Because I ain't gonna believe that more than 21% of American manufacturing workers are employed by foreign entities. Even with that sector absolutely tanking.

And to create a significant job GAIN like your other numbers WANT to show --- they would have to be employing upwards of 30% or more of American manufacturing workers. I doubt if foreign owned US manufacturing accounts for even 15% of the total workers in the sector..

So we have an impasse unless either of us comes up with numbers that don't clash with each other.. I have some notes I will check when I get a chance..

I understand everything you are saying about rates of growth on bases, but you are coming to completely wrong and statistically incorrect conclusions.

The annual rate at which jobs are outsourcing is 1.5%. The rate at which jobs are being insourced is 5.5%. If 1000 jobs are outsourced and 1000 jobs are insourced in year a, one year later there will be 1015 outsourced jobs and 1055 insourced jobs. In other words, jobs are being insourced at a rate higher than they are being outsourced.

Now your objection is that if the number of jobs being outsourced is higher than the number being insourced by a significant amount, the number of jobs being outsourced will continually remain greater unless 30% of jobs are provided by foreign companies. Your mathematical analysis is simply incorrect.

The base of insourced jobs does not have to be 3.7 times higher than outsourced jobs for their to be net job gain. I have no idea where you came up with this number. Maybe you were multiplying the base year by the percentage number rather than the decimal from the percentage? I don't know. But it literally makes no logical sense. If both bases are equal, and insourcing is increasing at a higher rate, insourced jobs will increase in proportion to outsourced jobs. You would not need for there to be a base of insourced jobs 3.7 times higher at all.

Second, on the topic of insourced jobs with a low base and outsourced jobs with a high base. You claim that net jobs will be lost. Initially, yes. But the ration of outsourced jobs to insourced jobs will decrease each year until there are more jobs being insourced. Over time, the trend will be more jobs insourced in relation to jobs outsourced. Another example:

Say there are 1000 jobs being outsourced and only 100 being insourced in the base year. Applying the growth rates, in the second year there would be 1015 jobs outsourced and 105.5 jobs insourced. In the first year, the ratio of outsourced/insourced would have been 10/1. In the second year, it would be 9.6/1. If the rates remained the same each year, eventually you would have a ratio in which the higher number belongs to the insourced jobs.

This entire correction of your faulty statistical analysis is not even relevant, because currently the base number of outsourced jobs is lower not higher, than the base number of insourced jobs. So not only is your analysis incorrect, even if it were correct actual conditions do not support your conclusion.

You are very wrong.. And I gave you the math.. The base volume of OUTSOURCED jobs DOES have to be 3.7 higher than pool of INSOURCED jobs to equal the insourced jobs. Which means INSOURCED controls 1 out of every 4.7 man. jobs (21%) to balance the job situation. My numbers are EXACTLY correct. And it doesn't matter if you choose 1990 or 2011 as a year for those base volumes. Because we are discussing two "rates of growth" that need to balance each other. And my bottom line CORRECT assertion was that for these rates of growth to produce a BALANCED scenario -- that 21% of manufacturing jobs in the USA would have to be foreign owned entities. For them to be PRODUCING a substantial SURPLUS of jobs in JUST manufacturing sector -- they'd have to employ 30% or MORE of the manufacturing slots..

Sorry you don't get it.. It's defense against the "dark arts" to read and interpret numbers.
Otherwise a lot of bad stuff can be blown up your tailpipe..
And it's a large part of my job to check, recheck, and re-recheck again numbers..

I cannot believe you do not see how blatantly false your analysis is. If there are 1 million jobs outsourced and 1 million insourced in TOTAL (not just one year's worth) and the rate of growth of insourced jobs is higher than the rate of growth of outsourced jobs, more jobs will ALWAYS be insourced than outsourced until that rate changes. Where are you getting your numbers? You don't explain how you get them, you just throw them out there.

This entire correction of your faulty statistical analysis is not even relevant, because currently the base number of outsourced jobs is lower not higher, than the base number of insourced jobs. So not only is your analysis incorrect, even if it were correct actual conditions do not support your conclusion

"Base number" is not what I meant by BASE VOLUME.. Base VOLUME would be the total number of employed workers. NOT just the new ones added.

By base number I meant the total number of employed workers. The total number of jobs currently outsourced is less than the total number of jobs currently insourced. The rate of growth for insourced jobs is increasing at a faster rate than outsourced jobs. So yes, what I said stands.[/quote]

So to find out how many get outsourced this year from your "rates" you multiply 1.5% times the TOTAL employed by AMERICAN firms in manuf. . Similiarly you multiply 5.5% times the TOTAL employed by FOREIGN firms in manuf. to get the INSOURCED number.

First of all, they are not my rates, they are from a study I gave you.

To find the additional number of jobs lost to outsourcing, you multiply the TOTAL number of jobs currently outsourced by .015. You then add that result to the total to get the new total. To get the new number of insourced jobs, you would do the same thing but use .055 instead. Do you understand this?

We don't KNOW those totals (base volumes) -- we could probably find them. But you don't NEED the base volumes to do the simple math to show WHEN the rates would produce EQUAL inflow and outflow.. If you want to pursue this let me know.. It's important enough to get it right. And I'm not doing this just to "beat you into submission" or anything close to that motivation..

You think you are right about your calculations, but they make no logical sense. If the total number of jobs outsourced is 1 million, and the total number of jobs insourced is 1 million, and the rate of growth for the insourced jobs is higher, you will have a greater total of insourced jobs than outsourced jobs the following year.

What I am trying to get you to understand is that the US insources more jobs than it outsources. And the rates of growth reveal that the trend has been moving in favor of a great number of jobs insourced than outsourced. What this means is that we will be insourcing more jobs than we outsource for a long time. The notion that you must have 3.7 times the amount of outsourced jobs than insourced jobs for this to be correct makes no logical or mathematical sense whatsoever. Your obfuscating analysis is largely irrelevant.

 

[ShackledNation]

So again the solution is to treat US and Foreign manufacturers even-handedly because they are all multinationals anyway. If you take 10B in cash in then you need 10B in cash out. Doesn't matter if you make butter or guns or if you are based in Detroit, Tokyo or Bejing. If you shift 2B is cash out of the country then you pay a 20% tax.

Under this model it will just encourage more foreign nationals to put manufacturing in the US to balance US sales. If they have already done it then they would benefit from low corporate tax rates.

How are you treating manufacturers evenhandedly by taxing some more than others because they deal with foreign nations? You are advocating for protectionism, the type of trade policy promoted by mercantilism in the middle ages. You are not correctly understanding the balance of payments. You are only looking at the current account, and completely ignoring the capital account.

Companies are not shifting 2 billion in cash out of the country for nothing. It is not a zero sum game. That money will always come back to the US now or in the future in the form of investment or the purchase of US exports. Every single dollar spent in foreign nations will eventually come back to the United States unless the dollar is adopted as the official currency in other countries. Not only that, but real wages on average increase because the increased production and lower costs of doing business allow for cheaper products.

So we get increased production, increased efficiency, higher wages, more jobs, and better relations with foreign countries due to trade, and you want to end this by creating an incentive to keep business inside the US and penalizing expansion abroad?

No I am merely creating a penalty for companies either foreign or domestic that are selling here but not investing in jobs here. If they have business elsewhere my plan has not effect. If they want to sell their product competitively here my plan has no effect. It only has effect if they are outsourcing capital. Companies are free to engage in trade but they can't freely outsource capital.

If you are creating a penalty for countries that sell here and do not invest in jobs here, then you are not treating companies fairly. Also understand the consequences of your actions: higher prices, less goods, lower efficiency. In order to sell their product competitively here, they are hiring people in other countries. There is nothing wrong with that. No jobs will ultimately be lost. Furthermore, what if a company has jobs both in the US and in foreign countries? What if they sell products to the US and foreign countries?

Not to mention your solution is in response to a problem that isn't even a problem.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

I understand everything you are saying about rates of growth on bases, but you are coming to completely wrong and statistically incorrect conclusions.

The annual rate at which jobs are outsourcing is 1.5%. The rate at which jobs are being insourced is 5.5%. If 1000 jobs are outsourced and 1000 jobs are insourced in year a, one year later there will be 1015 outsourced jobs and 1055 insourced jobs. In other words, jobs are being insourced at a rate higher than they are being outsourced.

Now your objection is that if the number of jobs being outsourced is higher than the number being insourced by a significant amount, the number of jobs being outsourced will continually remain greater unless 30% of jobs are provided by foreign companies. Your mathematical analysis is simply incorrect.

The base of insourced jobs does not have to be 3.7 times higher than outsourced jobs for their to be net job gain. I have no idea where you came up with this number. Maybe you were multiplying the base year by the percentage number rather than the decimal from the percentage? I don't know. But it literally makes no logical sense. If both bases are equal, and insourcing is increasing at a higher rate, insourced jobs will increase in proportion to outsourced jobs. You would not need for there to be a base of insourced jobs 3.7 times higher at all.

Second, on the topic of insourced jobs with a low base and outsourced jobs with a high base. You claim that net jobs will be lost. Initially, yes. But the ration of outsourced jobs to insourced jobs will decrease each year until there are more jobs being insourced. Over time, the trend will be more jobs insourced in relation to jobs outsourced. Another example:

Say there are 1000 jobs being outsourced and only 100 being insourced in the base year. Applying the growth rates, in the second year there would be 1015 jobs outsourced and 105.5 jobs insourced. In the first year, the ratio of outsourced/insourced would have been 10/1. In the second year, it would be 9.6/1. If the rates remained the same each year, eventually you would have a ratio in which the higher number belongs to the insourced jobs.

This entire correction of your faulty statistical analysis is not even relevant, because currently the base number of outsourced jobs is lower not higher, than the base number of insourced jobs. So not only is your analysis incorrect, even if it were correct actual conditions do not support your conclusion.

You are very wrong.. And I gave you the math.. The base volume of OUTSOURCED jobs DOES have to be 3.7 higher than pool of INSOURCED jobs to equal the insourced jobs. Which means INSOURCED controls 1 out of every 4.7 man. jobs (21%) to balance the job situation. My numbers are EXACTLY correct. And it doesn't matter if you choose 1990 or 2011 as a year for those base volumes. Because we are discussing two "rates of growth" that need to balance each other. And my bottom line CORRECT assertion was that for these rates of growth to produce a BALANCED scenario -- that 21% of manufacturing jobs in the USA would have to be foreign owned entities. For them to be PRODUCING a substantial SURPLUS of jobs in JUST manufacturing sector -- they'd have to employ 30% or MORE of the manufacturing slots..

Sorry you don't get it.. It's defense against the "dark arts" to read and interpret numbers.
Otherwise a lot of bad stuff can be blown up your tailpipe..
And it's a large part of my job to check, recheck, and re-recheck again numbers..

I cannot believe you do not see how blatantly false your analysis is. If there are 1 million jobs outsourced and 1 million insourced in TOTAL (not just one year's worth) and the rate of growth of insourced jobs is higher than the rate of growth of outsourced jobs, more jobs will ALWAYS be insourced than outsourced until that rate changes. Where are you getting your numbers? You don't explain how you get them, you just throw them out there.


By base number I meant the total number of employed workers. The total number of jobs currently outsourced is less than the total number of jobs currently insourced. The rate of growth for insourced jobs is increasing at a faster rate than outsourced jobs. So yes, what I said stands.

So to find out how many get outsourced this year from your "rates" you multiply 1.5% times the TOTAL employed by AMERICAN firms in manuf. . Similiarly you multiply 5.5% times the TOTAL employed by FOREIGN firms in manuf. to get the INSOURCED number.

First of all, they are not my rates, they are from a study I gave you.

To find the additional number of jobs lost to outsourcing, you multiply the TOTAL number of jobs currently outsourced by .015. You then add that result to the total to get the new total. To get the new number of insourced jobs, you would do the same thing but use .055 instead. Do you understand this?

We don't KNOW those totals (base volumes) -- we could probably find them. But you don't NEED the base volumes to do the simple math to show WHEN the rates would produce EQUAL inflow and outflow.. If you want to pursue this let me know.. It's important enough to get it right. And I'm not doing this just to "beat you into submission" or anything close to that motivation..

You think you are right about your calculations, but they make no logical sense. If the total number of jobs outsourced is 1 million, and the total number of jobs insourced is 1 million, and the rate of growth for the insourced jobs is higher, you will have a greater total of insourced jobs than outsourced jobs the following year.

What I am trying to get you to understand is that the US insources more jobs than it outsources. And the rates of growth reveal that the trend has been moving in favor of a great number of jobs insourced than outsourced. What this means is that we will be insourcing more jobs than we outsource for a long time. The notion that you must have 3.7 times the amount of outsourced jobs than insourced jobs for this to be correct makes no logical or mathematical sense whatsoever. Your obfuscating analysis is largely irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

your problem is you are using percentages of two different numbers. Foreign companies employ 1000 US citizens, an increase of 5.5% is 55 new jobs. Americans outsource 10M jobs an increase of 1.5% is 150,000 jobs lost. 150,000 - 55 = 149,945. Now do you see how percentages can be misleading?
Obviously these numbers are exageratted, but I bet we currently have at least 10X the number of outsourced jobs and insourced jobs, so your point would be moot.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

sorry for the double post here, but I just wanted to explain that my last quote got messed up somehow. It quoted improperly and I think responded to the wrong person.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

* TPs and Libertarians: I don't believe that you speak to the dead and "know" what the Founding Fathers meant in the USC. No it is not to be taken literally and yes it is a living document - or else there would be no ability to amend it. I know all your reasons why you think you're right. I love the fact that you've done so much work and research on the two guys who really support your interpretation. They were big players but they weren't the only ones.

* LIbs: Many unions have driven the price of labor up so high, they have every bit as much responsibility for jobs being shipped overseas as CEOs. They are not all noble and protecting the workers of America. Examples: UAW, Teamsters, Longshoremen.

* I own a gun. If anyone breaks into my home and holds perfectly still while I move to within three feet of them, they're dead meat. Or their leg will hurt. Maybe a toe. In any case, you guys are all over the danm place on this issue. Some of you have told me I should be able to own a machine gun or even an RPG. Others have told me I should be able to take these fine weapons anywhere I want. I disagree with those of you who have that view.
On the other side, Libs if I have a gun in my home, I am not a "NeoCon" or "Out to prove my manhood".

* Conservs: Taxes do not affect my decision to hire people. I have run large divisions for major companies, medium sized firms and my own, for the last 20 years. Taxes or the mere scent of the possibility of taxes has never affected my hiring decisions. If I needed someone I hired them. It is stupid business not to. If I didn't need someone, I didn't hire anyone. This is just common sense.

* Libs: We have too much entitlement. We have families that are 3rd generation on welfare. That's at least 2 too many. To say that these programs are never abused is ridiculous.

* Conservs: I love what some of you have taught me about the duplication of state and fed agencies. Thank you for that. I would agree with much of what you say in this regard. But I would never let go of the CIA, SEC, FAA, EPA and so on.

* LIbs: So waht if a candidate is a Christian? Obama is. I don't care if Rick Perry prays for rain, prosperity or a Super Bowl win for the Houstan Texans (He better pray friggin hard for that one!). While you have all this rhetoric about Christians oppressing you or whatever, what exactly are you doing when you villify someone for their faith alone. Now if Perry says he wants prayer to mandatory in schools, show me and I will b1tch slap him.

* Conservs: You will never convince me that the CRA of '64 is not absolutely necessary and completely Constitutional. Sorry - that definitely falls into my view of "All men created equal" and "General Welfare".

* ObamaCare sucks. It's just plain stupid. But guess what? I've had government health care when I served in the military (Not one person bought private insurance during my time in uniform) and when I lived in Mexico, Canada and The Ukraine. I've also received it in other countries. I would happily give up $300B of our military spending for a Public Option.

* IT IS NOT ALL STILL BUSH'S FRIGGIN FAULT!!!! Enough said on that one.

* Libs: I am for enhanced interrogation on rare occasion. Conservs: This does not mean water-boarding. Nothing about Git-Mo or what Cheney / Bush did was about gaining actionable intel. Because of my background, I am uniquely qualified to prove this. It is not hard to do.

Okay, enough of the late night ramblings after the post-tennis glasses of Merlot.

I'm sure this will spark debate on issues, facts, passion replies and well reasoned arguments from some of you. And of course, the usual insults and labels from the whackjobs...

* TPs and Libertarians: I don't believe that you speak to the dead and "know" what the Founding Fathers meant in the USC. No it is not to be taken literally and yes it is a living document - or else there would be no ability to amend it. I know all your reasons why you think you're right. I love the fact that you've done so much work and research on the two guys who really support your interpretation. They were big players but they weren't the only ones.

The founders of America did not just write the Constitution and leave it at that. They wrote a lot, words meant a lot them. To actually understand what the founders wanted all you have to do is read some of their letter’s they wrote to each other. Hell some of them even wrote books on how they felt the country should be governed.

Your logic does not compute

 

[ShackledNation]

But..... the massive outflow of jobs currently underway is not manufacturing jobs but knowledge worker jobs. Jobs like R&D, Finance, Marketing HR and support are moving offshore to low cost countries in massive numbers like manufacturing did earlier. This flow is enhanced by the increasing shift from paper to digital and reduced communication costs which is making it easier to have employees communicate globally.

So your study is missing where the movement in occuring

Now it is my turn to ask...do you have data that supports the claim that we are outsourcing primarily "knowledge worker jobs" and insourcing manufacturing jobs? Also, the purpose of trade is to have countries producing what they are most efficient at. So if we are less efficient at producing knowledge workers, then we will get different jobs in exchange. Also, what is the problem with having outsourcing knowledge workers? What would you prefer we outsource?

So I have ancedotal data which is marginally valuable. I work at a Fortune 100 company and those are the jobs we are massively outsourcing not manufacturing which left the country long ago. I can tell you our company VP's have plans and targets to outsource these types of jobs I have sat in the meetings.

Perhaps others can speak to their company and collarborate what I am saying or counter it.

So we have already off-shored manufacturing, now we our off-shoring R&D, Finance, Marketing, HR and support. There isn't much left to be done here except for senior managerment which is why the middle class is declining.

22 Statistics That Prove The Middle Class Is Being Systematically Wiped Out Of Existence In America

[/QUOTE]
Just because your one company is outsourcing those jobs does not mean the whole of America is. That is a fallacy of composition.

 

[flacaltenn]

ShackledNation:

I'm working on getting better numbers for the yearly outsourced / insourced. You are right that I made a error in formulating the required base volumes to support those rates. But I will fix that when I have more time..



The error I made was that 5.5% rate of growth of INSOURCED can be directly multiplied by the TOTAL number of jobs that are currently foreign sponsored. But I can't just multiply the 1.5% rate of growth times the TOTAL number of jobs that currently domestically sponsored. The 1.5% rate has to be against the fraction of the domestic jobs that are outsourced, not the Total. See the diff?

The method was OK, but there was a missing variable.

ALL foreign paid manufacturing workers ARE INSOURCED jobs, but not all domestic paid manufacturing workers are OUTSOURCED jobs. So I need to come up with that adjustment. I think we'll find that because the adjustment will decrease the applicable base for domestic jobs subject to outsourcing, that the required ratio of foreign paid jobs will end up to be more like 2% instead of 21%.

Still want to see better a better source for this balance sheet tho.. I'll spend some time searching tomorrow.

 

[Sactowndog]

So I have ancedotal data which is marginally valuable. I work at a Fortune 100 company and those are the jobs we are massively outsourcing not manufacturing which left the country long ago. I can tell you our company VP's have plans and targets to outsource these types of jobs I have sat in the meetings.

Perhaps others can speak to their company and collarborate what I am saying or counter it.

So we have already off-shored manufacturing, now we our off-shoring R&D, Finance, Marketing, HR and support. There isn't much left to be done here except for senior managerment which is why the middle class is declining.

22 Statistics That Prove The Middle Class Is Being Systematically Wiped Out Of Existence In America[/url

Just because your one company is outsourcing those jobs does not mean the whole of America is. That is a fallacy of composition.

Let's see. I started by saying it was one data point albiet a large company. But you posting data on manufacutring only is no more conclusive when I am telling you it is knowledge workers whose jobs are now being outsourced. To conclude your point that it isn't happening I would have to see data on a broader range of jobs.

Lastly you may think it is okay for companies to sell here and export a substantial sum of the money but I would guess you are in the minority.