Federal bill targets offshore labor.
Find a Conversation
| Sun, 03-14-2004 - 8:15am |
How do you feel about our tax monies being spent offshore? Even though there's more bang for the buck.
I've noticed the word "protectionism" being thrown about. Keeping tax monies, fed or state, in the US isn't protectionist, IMO.
Offshore outsourcing continues to raise the hackles of American politicians.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5162467.html?tag=nl
This week Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) introduced legislation seeking to ban offshore outsourcing in three areas of government work: privatizing of federal work, federal purchase of goods and services, and state government procurements using federal funds.
Under Dodd's U.S. Workers Protection Act, state governments would be eligible to receive federal funds only after they certify that the money will not go offshore. The senator asserts that the United States is losing jobs at an "alarming" rate, saying that the country has lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs since 2001 and that as many as 3.3 million jobs may be sent overseas in the next 15 years.
"Workers in Connecticut and across the nation are first-rate. It is simply doesn't make sense to export their jobs and futures halfway around the world to save a few pennies," Dodd said in a statement. "This legislation is a step toward stopping the needless export of American workplaces."
Outsourcing is emerging as a major political issue in the run-up to the November presidential elections. Although much of the work heading overseas has been in white-collar categories--such as engineering and software design work moved to cheaper locations such as India and the Philippines--the Democratic candidates have tended to focus on manufacturing jobs.
Government officials in the United States have responded to protests against outsourcing by crafting legislation and curtailing some planned work. Last year, for instance, Indiana canceled a project awarded to a company in India, claiming the move was necessary to protect the jobs of local citizens. But not all politicians see an immediate need for laws against outsourcing. Members of a congressional delegation that recently visited India said they were concerned about job losses but added that legal measures may not be of much help.
Indian politicians and technology executives, meanwhile, have been keeping close watch on developments in the United States and Europe. Government ministers and groups such as the Confederation of Indian Industry have decried proposed laws as protectionist and against the spirit of free trade envisaged by the World Trade Organization.
The Indian IT industry group National Association of Software and Services Companies, however, said that the effect of efforts, such as Dodd's bill, on the Indian IT industry would be very small, as the share of U.S. federal government contracts in exports of IT software and services from India is less than 2 percent.
Another viewpoint.........
Greenspan: Offshoring laws could harm U.S.
>"Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said on Friday that efforts to stem the tide of overseas outsourcing could damage the U.S. economy instead of help protect American workers.
Greenspan detailed his views on the politically charged topic at Boston College's Finance Conference 2004, where he was awarded an honorary degree by the school. Measures such as the U.S. Workers Protection Act might do more harm than good, he said.
"In response to these strains and the dislocations (outsourcing could) cause, a new round of protectionist steps is being proposed," Greenspan said. "These alleged cures would make matters worse rather than better. They would do little to create jobs; and if foreigners were to retaliate, we would surely lose jobs." "<
>" Greenspan blamed the movement of jobs overseas on a number of factors, including U.S. consumers' drive to push down prices through comparison shopping and breakthroughs in productivity.
He also compared the current trend of companies sending employment overseas to similar situations in the 1950s, 1960s and 1990s, when foreign economic powers such as Japan and Mexico were considered threats to U.S. job security.
Given this background, protectionism might end up stalling and not encouraging job growth in the long term, Greenspan warned.
"We can erect walls to foreign trade and even discourage job-displacing innovation," Greenspan said. "The pace of competition would surely slow, and tensions might appear to ease--but only for a short while. Our standard of living would soon begin to stagnate and perhaps even decline as a consequence.
"Time and again through our history, we have discovered that attempting merely to preserve the comfortable features of the present--rather than reaching for new levels of prosperity--is a sure path to stagnation," he said.
Overall, Greenspan said he believes that job losses may slow, as the economy shows signs of a recovery. He also predicted that employment would soon rebound, despite a current dearth of job creation.
Among the recommendations the Federal Reserve chairman made for improving the American job market was to increase emphasis on math and science among school children and to offer more retraining programs for career changers.
"We are growing more aware that in the current intensely competitive economy, the pace of job creation and destruction implies that the average work life will span many jobs and even more than one profession," Greenspan said. "<
Complete article........
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5172975.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed
HP: Protectionism won't save Europe's jobs.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5146154.html


Cheaper has not and does not mean better services, we have yet to see what the full cost is. I personally don't think gov'ts should be sending jobs off shore when there are so many unemployed.
<>
This is yet another word that Bushies are giving a negative twist. If you are against us you must be bad. Typical black and white thinking--which avoids all nuance. You would think people would have learned that all topics are multi-faceted. Nothing is black/white.