The cost of doing business in China

SLO-BOB · 11:58 AM

turbo6bar · 12-12-2004, 01:22 PM

I read a statistic regarding outsourcing. For every dollar sent overseas, the US gets $1.13 in return. Of course, if those dollars are redistributed into the hands of few, it's not a preferable gain.

The only thing I can say is the US has been sending jobs overseas for over 2 decades. People have managed then and will now.

However, this is one instance in which I wholeheartedly favor a sensible (emphasis on sensible) government plan to employ disabled individuals or at least those who are unemployable in the workplace.

hardflex · 12-12-2004, 06:13 PM

I've seen that statistic multiple times. If that were the case, we should all buy everything we could from overseas, because we'd get more in return.

I suggest you do a google search on the multiplier effect. spending money locally brings back on the order of $3 to $8 dollars depending upon the business and where it in turn "respends" the money. $1.13 is a paltry return compared to that....

turbo6bar · 12-12-2004, 06:18 PM

Don't look at me. I want my mutual funds to grow. We're all guilty. If you aren't, you deceive yourself.

SLO-BOB · 11:59 AM

turbo6bar · 12-13-2004, 11:54 AM

Sebring. I'm not making excuses. Just look at the the arena. We (the investing public) love mutual funds and stocks that perform well. We reward managers that produce high returns year after year. I stand behind my argument that we are all guilty to some extent--even the fellow making $6/hr who may or may not shop at Wal-Mart.

As far as buying American, I do my part, but I'm not going to sacrifice everything for the sake of American jobs. Otherwise, I would not own a Porsche. Two weeks ago, I bought $1000 in ceramic tile for a rental property. I didn't consider asking for "Made in USA" products. The best designs and quality emerge from Italy.

I'm not trying to be an ass. I'm just being realistic. Don't get me wrong. I agree with you. Sending jobs overseas is devistating for some in the short-term and potentially damaging to society in the long-term.

Do you have a suggestion(s)?

SLO-BOB · 11:59 AM

JSDSKI · 12-13-2004, 04:02 PM

The "free trade" argument (as if there's ever been anything "free") has been going on since trade started - what, two or three thousand years ago?. Both your points are true, IMHO. If we decide on a quality of life measurement that is "economic" then we use "lowest cost - highest return - personal reward" as the prime valuation of quality of life. We suffer the consequence and/or reap the reward of that valuation choice - that is, we get good products cheaply but some of us lose jobs (or have to find others) as a result.

If society chooses a different method of value as the primary method of measurement - such as more security or time with my family - and enough people make that choice (large demographic - large population) then we get different results from the "free market". You still have consequences and rewards - but they are different consequences and rewards than in the first example. You might make less money. You might have fewer worldwide goods to choose from. OTOH, you might not fear losing your job as much or get more vacation time.

My kid studied computer science at school. It was a great choice in that time, culture, and economic environment. Now, most of his friends jobs are in India and he no longer programs. Our society and the world at large has made a choice to move labor, capital, and intellectual property around globally. It has huge ramifications for the culture and society of all nations - similiar in scope and effect to the industrial revolution destroying agrarian life.

Maybe we'll end up being citizens of giant international corporations rather than countries and we'll swear loyalty and fealty to the CEO King! You could be a Duke of Microsoft or McDonald's.