Outsourcing is certainly a new phenomenon, both to the United States and the rest of the world. By its very nature, this unique business strategy is sure to face continued dissent from many Americans. Yet, despite its undesirable and seemingly harmful side effects, I contend that it is just another growing pain to be experienced by the American economy. Following the cycle of many other technological innovations before it (farming machinery, automated factories, etc.), outsourcing is sure to destroy many jobs that existed before its inception. This does not necessarily mean that outsourcing is bad or that it will not lead to greater job growth in the future.
Overall, outsourcing is not solely to blame for the current lack of jobs in the United States. It has been documented that technological breakthroughs such as these contribute only to brief periods of unemployment, during which time workers and companies alike must innovate and adapt. The specific term for this sort of unemployment is “structural unemployment,” and it exists for a relatively short period of time before the economy acclimates to the change and subsequently emerges stronger. Similarly, workers displaced will find new, previously undiscovered niches, where their services are desired and rewarded.
That is not to say that practices like outsourcing do not cause real pain and suffering. Like it was mentioned in the readings, 3.3 million jobs are projected to be lost to firms overseas. These millions of people face staggering losses and real consequences for this paradigm shift. However, this provides the macroeconomy with a vital opportunity to utilize the skills and willingness of these workers in new, unimaginable ways. On one hand, I recognize the toll outsourcing has taken. But on the other, I must applaud its steps toward a more efficient, globalized tomorrow.
A recent book on this topic, The World Is Flat by Thomas Friedman, dwells touches on the many perspectives of outsourcing. The sentiments of Friedman throughout the work mirror my own. In it, he acknowledges the pains associated with outsourcing, but also greets its development with enthusiastic optimism. Central to his thesis is the idea that, while old jobs may be lost, new, more cutting edge jobs will crop up in their stead. In this respect, Friedman is looking past the temporary pains that are being caused by outsourcing now, and instead embracing the exciting possibilities of tomorrow’s American economy made possible by this growing phenomenon.
In general, I see the pains of outsourcing as temporary and relatively small. I cannot fail to recognize the real pain that it is causing. However, I feel that moving realization is overshadowed by the thrilling, untold prospects set forth by the onset of outsourcing.
Nick-
ReplyDeleteYour posts push back against the readings in many cases, a surefire indication of critical thinking at work. On more than one occasion, you remind us of the subjective element in the issues at hand. For example, in your Judis post you write, "morality is a metamorphic phenomenon based only on the consensus those who construct it. In this sense, morality is a self-defined criterion that is necessarily changing in the same way as the people who define it." I completely agree with this statement and acknowledge that when we make a sweeping qualitative statement about moral conduct, we do so from a contingent vantage point. Nevertheless, I am no relativist. Female genital mutilation is wrong (to take a famous example from anthropological circles). I agree with Judis that morality is changing more so than it is declining, but I do see some disturbing trends that are relatively new. For example, I think unregulated market capitalism increases a culture's sense of narcissism (the whole "Me Generation" phenomenon). Competition in all spheres of life might bring out the best in us, but it surely brings out the worst as well.
You definitely had a point about Mantsios' essay in class. His article identifies general trends, but it fails to back them up with specific examples. You attempt to find examples in your search for the top ten most popular shows on television. Where you see a lack of focus on class and a preference for escapism in these shows, I see ideology in the absence of class and/or real political issues. The absence of something is often more telling than its presence. In fact, I'd say it provides further proof of Mantsios' thesis that "we are all middle class," which is another way of saying that class does not exist. Perhaps one can dismiss television as purely a form of commercial entertainment, etc., but you can't convince me that it doesn't affect people's perceptions and actions in the process.
I'll conclude with a final remark on your post about the American Dream. First, I think it's important to distinguish Polyestra's parents' view of the American Dream from a more fulfilling "pursuit of happiness" version (you know the original draft of the Declaration of Independence read "pursuit of property" instead of "pursuit of happiness"?). P's parents are Shor's overspent Americans (a phenomenon that Polyestra points out is to a large extent television-driven). I think the American Dream is the ability to have a certain degree of control over one's fate, to be the author of one's life, if you will. Now, you justify the American economic system even if it only provides a 1% shot for upward mobility. Better 1% than 0% in some authoritarian society, right? True, but why not work for a system that expands the possibility? Why be content with a 1/100 lottery when we could, if we had the political will, a 1/4 chance? A stronger point, at least from my perspective, is that we should redirect our focus from "class jumping" to improving the lives of working and middle class Americans. The American Dream of the middle of the twentieth century was possible because the majority received a greater share of the nation's wealth than they do today (and have been for three decades plus). So here's the challenge for your generation: How do you keep the incentive for achieving a better life high while at the same time redistributing wealth more equitably? I want a hundred page report by the end of the week. Go!
97% A