What the Candidates Won’t Explain about Outsourcing

250; google_ad_format = '300x250'; google_ad_type = 'text_image'; google_ad_channel ='AdSense Default'; google_color_border = 'B0C9EB'; google_color_link = '164675'; google_color_bg = 'FFFFFF'; google_color_text = '333333'; google_color_url = '2666F5'; google_ui_features = 'rc:0'; //-->

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/outsourcing-for-dummies-including-the-willfully-ignorant/ Contrary to the misconceptions so often reinforced in the media, out…
Video Rating: 4 / 5

15 thoughts on “What the Candidates Won’t Explain about Outsourcing

  1. Outsourcing has its downsides too. However, many are still looking to
    outsourcing as the best way to gain more profit for their business.

  2. As an economist, I find this video absolutely disgusting. I follow and read
    CATO and value much of their content but to try and picture outsourcing as
    this noble thing is fucking retarded. Not that it’s evil either, but it’s
    certainly not noble. The only, the ONLY thing that matters to businesses in
    a capitalist society is profit. That’s not bad, it’s good. But to then
    pretend that outsourcing is never motivated by reducing labor costs is not
    only disingenuous, its fucking stupid and an obvious manipulation of facts.
    The interviewee in this video is either ill-intentioned or incredibly
    ignorant.

  3. It all comes down to policy making. You gotta put aside politics and
    implement policy that will attract foreign companies to settle in the U.S
    for jobs and economic well being.

  4. Contrary to the misconceptions so often reinforced in the media,
    outsourcing is not the product of U.S. businesses chasing low wages or weak
    environmental and labor standards abroad. Businesses are concerned about
    the entire cost of production, from product conception to consumption.
    Foreign wages and standards are but a few of the numerous considerations
    that factor into the ultimate investment and production decision. Those
    critical considerations include: the quality and skills of the work force;
    access to ports, rail, and other infrastructure; proximity of production
    location to the next phase in the supply chain or to the final market;
    time-to-market; the size of nearby markets; the overall economic
    environment in the host country or region; the political climate; the risk
    of asset expropriation; the regulatory environment; taxes; and the
    dependability of the rule of law, to name some.

    The imperative of business is not to maximize national employment, but to
    maximize profits. Business is thus concerned with minimizing total costs,
    not wages, and that is why those several factors are all among the crucial
    determinants of investment and production decisions. Locales with low wages
    and lax standards tend to be expensive places to produce all but the most
    rudimentary goods because, typically, those environments are associated
    with low labor productivity and other economic, political, and structural
    impediments to operating smooth, cost-effective supply chains. Most of
    those crucial considerations favor investment in rich countries over poor.

  5. “In Africa”? WHERE in Africa? Anywhere? Even in the U.S., income makes a
    big difference depending on where you live. For example, $40k in Ohio would
    be considered a decent income, but in New York, it’s nothing because of the
    difference in cost of living and taxes. Your blanket statements are comical
    because they show what an ignorant boob you are.

  6. Yes I do. Why would I ask if I didn’t. Why would I ask if you had better
    than a snowballs chance in hell of proving yourself right? He was quoting
    Gina. She said Africa. Pick any place in Africa. Throw a dart at a map on
    the wall. Figure it out.

  7. We’re better off with economists like Alexander Hamilton. This free-trade
    mumbo jumbo has been tried since the 1980’s, and it has failed miserably.
    Comparative advantage doesn’t apply when there’s the potential to gain a
    long-term advantage with tariffs. Accepting free-trade because a
    self-described economist says it’s good is equivalent to believing that God
    exists because a theologian says so. On the issue of trade, we need more
    Hamilton/Clay and less Ricardo/Marx.

  8. Some economists are beginning the reconsider free-trade. Paul Samuelson
    appears to have become a protectionist towards the end of his career and
    life with one of his later articles in the Journal of Economic
    Perspectives.

  9. we have been niggered by the republican theocracy.we all were born into
    it.born agains/hell fire,a cult from the crown nation.

  10. Why are we calling these U.S. firms? Why if the standard of living is being
    driven down by globalization would the American people give any particular
    loyalty to the people who serve the interests of private non-democratic
    corporate oligarchs over their own interests? Why is a military socialized
    amongst the people to serve the protection of these corporate oligarchs in
    foreign lands? They are traitors.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

For security, use of Google's reCAPTCHA service is required which is subject to the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

I agree to these terms.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.