3 ms·

Yes. Your two arguments appear to be: 1. There is poverty in the US. Of course there is. But there is much worse and much more widespread poverty in nearly

Yes. Your two arguments appear to be: 1. There is poverty in the US. Of course there is. But there is much worse and much more widespread poverty in nearly every other country in the world. 2. Companies "benefit to at least some degree from being based in the US." They also benefit to at least some degree from the economic participation of hundreds of other countries. Even if "that poor person in Asia hasn't done anything for me, so I'm gonna give my money to someone ten times richer" were moral (which it's not), it's not even true that that person has done nothing for you.

sooheon 11y ago
To your point 1, some could argue: Yes, outsourcing employs poor people elsewhere, but at 1/100th the cost. So the overall transfer of wealth is reduced, and global wealth gap increased. Also, given the intricacies of economic development, it is debatable whether an influx of outsourced jobs and factories (which may feed workers, but hinder formation of local industries) is better for the poor of that country. Just pointing out that it's not so easy to make a claim that outsourcing is categorically better for poor people anywhere, all things considered.
- eru 11y ago
  Is there any evidence outsourcing hinders, rather than helps formation of local industries? As far as I remember, foreign direct investment has a pretty good track record in terms of helping countries develop. (As opposed to eg loans to businesses or government. Loans can plausibly lead to financial instability, when the hot money comes in and again when it leaves.)
  - sooheon 11y ago
    I won't claim that it's empirically proven to be harmful, obviously there are so many intricacies in every case. However, I don't think it's clear that it's an obvious boon for the country either. S. Korea's development, for example, has shown that export oriented growth, where the margins between international prices and local labor costs are enjoyed by the exporters, is one of the most powerful ways for an economy to grow. Outsourcing, OTOH, is guaranteed to funnel those margins back to the multinational, with little but the pittance wages and some nominal tariffs left behind for the people of the country.

sooheon 11y ago

To your point 1, some could argue: Yes, outsourcing employs poor people elsewhere, but at 1/100th the cost. So the overall transfer of wealth is reduced, and global wealth gap increased. Also, given the intricacies of economic development, it is debatable whether an influx of outsourced jobs and factories (which may feed workers, but hinder formation of local industries) is better for the poor of that country. Just pointing out that it's not so easy to make a claim that outsourcing is categorically better for poor people anywhere, all things considered.

eru 11y ago
Is there any evidence outsourcing hinders, rather than helps formation of local industries? As far as I remember, foreign direct investment has a pretty good track record in terms of helping countries develop. (As opposed to eg loans to businesses or government. Loans can plausibly lead to financial instability, when the hot money comes in and again when it leaves.)
- sooheon 11y ago
  I won't claim that it's empirically proven to be harmful, obviously there are so many intricacies in every case. However, I don't think it's clear that it's an obvious boon for the country either. S. Korea's development, for example, has shown that export oriented growth, where the margins between international prices and local labor costs are enjoyed by the exporters, is one of the most powerful ways for an economy to grow. Outsourcing, OTOH, is guaranteed to funnel those margins back to the multinational, with little but the pittance wages and some nominal tariffs left behind for the people of the country.