Why must candidates/politicians lie to voters about outsourcing?

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's happening again. In the Georgia Senate race candidate Michelle Nunn is condemning her opponent because he once outsourced jobs when he was a CEO.

And in 2 previous cases, Mitt Romney was condemned for this, in 2012, and Carla Fiorina running for Senate in California was also condemned for the same offense.

The relevant question at this point is not whether outsourcing is good or bad for the economy. It is obviously GOOD for the economy.

The benefits of outsourcing are obvious. It benefits the economy just as automation does. I.e., just as it's beneficial to replace workers with robots. Anything that lowers the cost of production benefits all consumers by making it possible to reduce prices, or keep prices lower.

Only a fool can't figure this out. Most of the demagogues like Thom Hartmann or Bernie Sanders or Ed Schulz etc. are not so stupid that they can't figure this out. They are motivated by dishonesty and the profit motive, because their popularity depends upon them lying and pandering to uncompetitive workers who lose their jobs because of outsourcing and to those who feel sorry for these laid-off workers and feel a need to pander to them.

It is popular and profitable to condemn CEOs who outsource jobs just as it is popular in baseball to condemn a manager who takes out a pitcher who is pitching a no-hitter when his team can't score any runs for him and it's time for a pinch-hitter.

There are times when the "manager" has to make an unpopular decision.

The question is: Why do voters have to be lied to? Why can't anyone tell them the truth? (In the baseball example, there are at least a few who defend the unpopular decision by the manager, but no one defends the candidate for having outsourced jobs as a former CEO. Who is there who points out to voters that outsourcing jobs is good for the economy?)

Do the voters already know the truth (that outsourcing is good and necessary for the economy) but simply want to be lied to?

How do we explain why politicians benefit by lying to the voters, telling them that outsourcing is bad and condemning a CEO for it, when they really know that this is something CEOs have to do because it's best for the company and for the consumers and for the whole economy, even though some workers lose their jobs?

Why can't the voters understand that this was something the CEO needed to do? Don't they understand this? How can they be so stupid as to not understand this?

What compounds the paradox is that the accused candidate never defends outsourcing, but instead tries to deny that s/he really did this, or in some cases tries to turn the same accusation against his/her opponent.

So, why is it necessary for even the accused one to also lie and try to defend against the accusation while not ever telling the simple economic truth that outsourcing is beneficial to the economy?

Why is it that telling the truth is the only UNacceptable position to take?

Is it not a lie to say that outsourcing is bad for the economy? Wouldn't it be a lie to say that replacing workers with robots is bad for the economy?

When the only reason to say the falsehood is out of sympathy for the laid-off worker, is that not still a falsehood and a lie? Is the falsehood changed into some kind of a "truth" because it is said in sympathy for the laid-off workers?

Why do the workers need to be lied to? If you personally get replaced by a robot or by cheap labor, do you need someone to lie to you and tell you that this is bad for the economy? Aren't you grown-up enough to know better?

Why should you assume other workers need to be lied to if you yourself would NOT need to be lied to? Are most workers rabble who need to be lied to, but you're not?

 

[Arctish]

That's a lot of poison in that well, so I'm not going to get in too deep. But I think there are a few factors being overlooked.

1. All politics is local. What is good for business is not necessarily good for voters. What is good for the economy as a whole can be very bad for individual employees, shareholders, and communities that rely on good paying jobs to keep their schools open and their trash collected. So a politician who wants the vote of those employees, shareholders, and townspeople had better be able to explain why he or she eliminated jobs in that area. It may have benefitted the economy but was harmful to them, their families, and their communities. They won't vote for someone who they feel has acted against their interests.

2. Politicians don't have to lie. They can always tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Of course, they might not want to tell the truth because the truth is they've been acting like scoundrels and carpetbaggers, but that's another matter.

3. If you don't have a solution, you're better off if you can avoid talking about the problem. But if you do have a solution, make sure the voters hear about it. For example, when Bill Clinton was running for President the first time, he told laid-off textile workers he felt their pain, but he also told them that Americans could no longer be competitive in that industry because the labor costs in places like Bangladesh were so low. US textile workers simply couldn't afford to live on comparable wages, and everyone knew it. But Clinton also told them that he would devote his time and political capital in developing high tech jobs and providing training so that the textile workers could move on to better jobs. It was a winning message.

So if you're a politician who shipped some high paying jobs overseas but you have a plan to replace them with other high paying jobs, you can get that message across, and you can win elections. But if all you did was the first part, you're going to be facing a lot of wrathful voters, so you might as well get used to it.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why do voters want companies to babysit the workers, instead of just serving the consumers?

All politics is local.

Let's grant that the population of a certain town might benefit from their local large company being subsidized, in effect, at the expense of consumers generally. So the country is made worse off, but that local town and the employees benefit at the expense of the nation.

However, in the context of a political race for U.S. Senate, how does the whole state benefit from a particular company or group of workers effectively being subsidized, or the company having its costs driven up by labor cost and not taking advantage of cheaper labor or other cost-saving measures?

We all benefit from companies keeping down their cost of production, including their labor cost. Though you might claim this doesn't apply in a limited context to a limited local population, it certainly applies over a large geographical region. Also in the long run, that local population is eventually better off to let that company upgrade its production to make it more efficient and serve consumers, rather than just being a job machine for local uncompetitive job-seekers who have to be subsudized in the form of higher prices to consumers.

What is good for business is not necessarily good for voters.

It's not "what is good for business" but what is good for consumers that is at issue. The outsourcing of jobs is good for consumers. ALL consumers. And thus also good for voters.

What is good for the economy as a whole can be very bad for individual employees, shareholders, and communities that rely on good paying jobs to keep their schools open and their trash collected.

No, the economy as a whole is made up of all the individual producers. What is bad for the economy as a whole is bad for all the workers and shareholders and communities, who are the whole economy.

And the whole economy is comprised of all the consumers, who all benefit from outsourcing. There is no way you can reason that higher cost of production does anything but harm consumers, if that same production can be done at lower cost.

So a politician who wants the vote of those employees, shareholders, and townspeople had better be able to explain why he or she eliminated jobs in that area.

And the explanation is that the company's function is to serve consumers, who are better served if the cost of production is made lower.

And yet the politician has to lie to the voters and pretend that he did not really outsource their jobs. Instead of telling them the truth that they benefit from outsourcing.

But again, if the politician is running for a limited district, you might make a case that he has to lie and pander to the local workers. But what about the case of an entire state. He cannot claim that the whole state is made better off by driving up the labor cost for that company. Such higher cost makes the company less competitive and drives up prices for all consumers, most of whom don't work for that company or live in that local economy where the jobs are being subsidized at the expense of consumers.

It may have benefitted the economy but was harmful to them, their families, and their communities.

No, the "economy" IS all the workers and families and communities, or all the consumers. What benefits "the economy" -- i.e., all the consumers -- also benefits all the workers and families and communities.

Why can't the voters understand that they, the consumers, benefit from the company's cost-saving measures, and that the few laid-off workers are only a small minority by comparison to all the consumers who benefit?

They won't vote for someone who they feel has acted against their interests.

But why can't they see that lower prices are in their interests?

Don't they understand that it's in their interest for the company to replace workers with robots? Do you think voters can't figure this out? that it benefits us all that companies modernize the production so that the cost comes down and the prices are made lower? The voters are too dumb to figure that out?

How many voters vote against a candidate because he supported technological improvement that replaced workers with robots? So why can't they recognize that outsourcing does the same benefit?

Politicians don't have to lie.

Then why do they keep doing it by telling the voters that a company hurts the economy when it outsources jobs? This is no different than telling them that it hurt the economy when it replaced some workers with robots. They don't tell this lie, do they? That would be a lie, wouldn't it? If they don't lie and tell them it's bad to replace workers with robots, why do they lie and tell them it's bad to replace them with cheap foreign labor? What's the difference between replacing the workers with robots and replacing them with cheap labor (in terms of its benefit or harm to the economy)?

If you don't have a solution, you're better off if you can avoid talking about the problem.

The politicians in question, like Michelle Nunn, obviously have no solution and yet do talk about it, by lying and saying the companies in question did harm to the economy by outsourcing someone's jobs. And apparently they are better off by saying these lies, and the voters are dumb enough to swallow it.

So if you're a politician who shipped some high paying jobs overseas but you have a plan to replace them with other high paying jobs, you can get that message across, and you can win elections.

But why are the voters so dumb that they think the company must be the babysitter of those laid-off workers? Most voters were not laid off and don't need those replacement jobs. Why should they want to punish that candidate because he did the right thing for the company and for the consumers?

But if all you did was the first part, you're probably going to face a lot of wrathful voters, so you might as well get used to it.

But why does the candidate have to get used to lying to the voters by telling them that outsourcing was bad for the economy? Or why does the one who outsourced jobs, which was good for the economy, have to lie and say he didn't really outsource any jobs?

If he replaced workers with robots, he doesn't have to lie to the voters and deny that he did this. So why does he have to apologize for outsourcing the jobs, or deny he did it? Why do the voters want to punish a candidate who once outsourced jobs, but not a candidate who once replaced workers with robots?

 

[Jayjay]

The politician has to "lie", because he can't produce the numbers to back up that outsourcing or firing people was better for the economy. You should ask yourself, if a particular decision by a CEO to lay off people was beneficial to the economy, then why can't it be quantified? And if it can't be quantified, who's to say that it was the right decision?

Plus, it may be that the "consumers" who benefit are in different districts. A rational voter would make his decision with his own self-interest in mind, not some abstract idea of global consumer.

Third, the skillset and function of a politician is different from that of a CEO of a business. Even if he might make reasonably good decisions for the business as a CEO, that does not necessarily translate to a job as an elected official. Government is not run like a business.

 

[Arctish]

What is good for business is not necessarily good for voters.

It's not "what is good for business" but what is good for consumers that is at issue. The outsourcing of jobs is good for consumers. ALL consumers. And thus also good for voters.

You're only looking at half the picture. Reducing the cost of consumer goods by outsourcing higher paying jobs is only good for the economy if people still have money to spend. If too many people lose good paying jobs or have to take big pay cuts, spending dries up and the economy slows down.

Look at it this way: suppose you lost your $18.00/hr job when the factory closed and now you're trying to get by on minimum wage. You don't have money for movie tickets, dinner at local restaurants, a new coat, a new car, having your furnace serviced every 2 years, weekends at the beach, etc. If your entire community is in similar straights because those factory jobs were outsourced, the entire business community will feel the pinch. It's a ripple effect, and the effect is widespread. Hotels, restaurants, movie theaters, dry cleaners, hair salons, sporting goods stores, Harley shops, bookstores, espresso stands, and much, much more depend on their customers having that extra cash. When it's gone, everyone suffers.

Now suppose this outsourcing has been affecting manufacturing centers throughout your entire state. The goods that used to be made there are shipped in from China. That's good for longshoremen and truckers, but it's bad for small to medium sized businesses. If their customers are laid off, the businesses aren't doing business, and if there's not enough business they lay off workers too, which compounds the problem.

People aren't as stupid as you claim. They understand why their jobs are gone. They understand that they need good jobs to replace them. They understand as fewer and fewer people have disposable income, our economy stagnates and shrinks. They expect anyone running for office to understand why it's important to keep what few manufacturing jobs Americans have left right here in the US. And if someone running for office has made the decision to ship jobs overseas, they expect him or her to have had a good reason and be able to articulate it.

 

[Duke Leto]

For gods' sake Arctish, don't bother engaging him on Say's Law, you'll just make him start screaming.

 

[laughing dog]

Four observations on the OP. First, as Arctish pointed out, politicians are not required to lie. Second, regardless of one's feelings about the sentiment, many people think or feel that keeping their neighbors' jobs here is more important than faceless consumers elsewhere getting a less expensive product. Third, sometimes the (re)locational decision is not based on improved productivity or lower costs of production, but special tax deals. Finally, the OP rhetoric of "babysitting workers" reveals are rather amoral view of human kind.

 

[lpetrich]

For gods' sake Arctish, don't bother engaging him on Say's Law, you'll just make him start screaming.

Or the belief that consumers all get their money by picking it off of money trees. Each day, they go out into their yards and pick each day's crop of money from their money trees. Some people seem to have that belief, which is suggested by their apparent belief that one can ruin people's earning power and they will still be capable of spending as much as they had earlier done.

I think that some people believe in philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche's theory of leadership as a good way to run businesses and economies:

I test the power of a will, according to the amount of resistance it can offer and the amount of pain and torture it can endure and know how to turn to its own advantage; I do not point to the evil and pain of existence with the finger of reproach, but rather entertain the hope that life may one day become more evil and more full of suffering than it has ever been. ... The object is to attain that enormous energy of greatness which can model the man of the future by means of discipline and also by means of the annihilation of millions of the bungled and botched, and which can yet avoid going to ruin at the sight of the suffering created thereby, the like of which has never been seen before.

 

[SimpleDon]

It's happening again. In the Georgia Senate race candidate Michelle Nunn is condemning her opponent because he once outsourced jobs when he was a CEO.

And in 2 previous cases, Mitt Romney was condemned for this, in 2012, and Carla Fiorina running for Senate in California was also condemned for the same offense.

The relevant question at this point is not whether outsourcing is good or bad for the economy. It is obviously GOOD for the economy.

The benefits of outsourcing are obvious. It benefits the economy just as automation does. I.e., just as it's beneficial to replace workers with robots. Anything that lowers the cost of production benefits all consumers by making it possible to reduce prices, or keep prices lower.

Only a fool can't figure this out. Most of the demagogues like Thom Hartmann or Bernie Sanders or Ed Schulz etc. are not so stupid that they can't figure this out. They are motivated by dishonesty and the profit motive, because their popularity depends upon them lying and pandering to uncompetitive workers who lose their jobs because of outsourcing and to those who feel sorry for these laid-off workers and feel a need to pander to them.

It is popular and profitable to condemn CEOs who outsource jobs just as it is popular in baseball to condemn a manager who takes out a pitcher who is pitching a no-hitter when his team can't score any runs for him and it's time for a pinch-hitter.

There are times when the "manager" has to make an unpopular decision.

The question is: Why do voters have to be lied to? Why can't anyone tell them the truth? (In the baseball example, there are at least a few who defend the unpopular decision by the manager, but no one defends the candidate for having outsourced jobs as a former CEO. Who is there who points out to voters that outsourcing jobs is good for the economy?)

Do the voters already know the truth (that outsourcing is good and necessary for the economy) but simply want to be lied to?

How do we explain why politicians benefit by lying to the voters, telling them that outsourcing is bad and condemning a CEO for it, when they really know that this is something CEOs have to do because it's best for the company and for the consumers and for the whole economy, even though some workers lose their jobs?

Why can't the voters understand that this was something the CEO needed to do? Don't they understand this? How can they be so stupid as to not understand this?

What compounds the paradox is that the accused candidate never defends outsourcing, but instead tries to deny that s/he really did this, or in some cases tries to turn the same accusation against his/her opponent.

So, why is it necessary for even the accused one to also lie and try to defend against the accusation while not ever telling the simple economic truth that outsourcing is beneficial to the economy?

Why is it that telling the truth is the only UNacceptable position to take?

Is it not a lie to say that outsourcing is bad for the economy? Wouldn't it be a lie to say that replacing workers with robots is bad for the economy?

When the only reason to say the falsehood is out of sympathy for the laid-off worker, is that not still a falsehood and a lie? Is the falsehood changed into some kind of a "truth" because it is said in sympathy for the laid-off workers?

Why do the workers need to be lied to? If you personally get replaced by a robot or by cheap labor, do you need someone to lie to you and tell you that this is bad for the economy? Aren't you grown-up enough to know better?

Why should you assume other workers need to be lied to if you yourself would NOT need to be lied to? Are most workers rabble who need to be lied to, but you're not?

You have to decide what the purpose of the economy is. You believe that the purpose of the economy is to provide low prices for the consumer and to distribute the rewards from production of goods and services primarily as profits to the wealthy. You believe that the redistribution of income from the poor and the middle class wages to the wealthy as profits is a good thing. This means that you are either wealthy or deluded.

There are a lot of us who believe that the purpose of the American economy is to develop American resources including the most important resource of all the human one, Americans, to bring those resources into production in American production facilities and to distribute the rewards from that production to the members of society, to all Americans.

It doesn't matter how inexpensive consumer goods are if 99% of the country doesn't earn enough to buy them.

The lying that is going on is the Republicans' claims that they are working for anyone's benefit who are not rich, who are in the 99%.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Outsourcing serves the interest of virtually all voters/consumers.

The politician has to "lie", because he can't produce the numbers to back up that outsourcing or firing people was better for the economy.

You're confusing which politician is lying. There is no politician saying that outsourcing or firing people is better for the economy. No politician is campaigning on the platform that it's good to outsource or to lay off workers.

Rather, there are several who campaign on the platform that outsourcing is bad for the economy and that any CEO who does it is doing harm to the country, even though they know that it is really necessary and beneficial for the economy, just like automation (replacing workers with machines) is good for the economy.

In addition to Nunn in Georgia, several other politicians do this, like Sen. Brown of Ohio and Bernie Sanders, and formerly Sen. Dorgan of North Dakota, and many others. They all condemn corporations for outsourcing jobs, even though know the companies have to do it in order to function more efficiently, and they know that consumers benefit from the lower costs. And yet they lie and claim that it hurts the economy.

That's the lying we're talking about. And meanwhile, there is no politician who tells the truth on this, i.e., that outsourcing is good for the companies only because it's also good for consumers, just as automation is good for profits and also for consumers. So any politician who would explain the benefits of outsourcing would not have to lie. However, if they tell the truth, they will lose votes. So they either remain silent on this, or they lie in order to win extra votes. The voters will not tolerate any politician who tells the truth about the benefits of outsourcing.

You should ask yourself, if a particular decision by a CEO to lay off people was beneficial to the economy, then why can't it be quantified?

It can be "quantified" if you mean that the benefit to consumers can be explained and demonstrated by reason and common sense. Just as the benefit to consumers from automation can be explained and demonstrated. However, it might not always be possible to determine the exact measure of the benefit. We cannot prove with data that automation always benefits consumers when the company saves on the labor cost and can improve its production as a result.

But it is a logical fact that lower production cost does benefit consumers, if the production remains the same or increases. The one needing data to prove anything is the one who denies the logic or the common sense of the benefit to consumers of lower cost of production.

There are many facts of economics which are demonstrably true, from logic and common sense, for which there may be no data. Such as the fact that a drought leads to higher prices at the store. This often cannot be proved with data. But every economist knows that damage to crops leads to higher prices as a result. We know many such facts without knowing the exact dollar figure of the resulting cost/harm or benefit.

And if it can't be quantified, who's to say that it was the right decision?

YOU can say it, because you have enough intelligence to know that it is good for consumers for workers to be replaced by robots which do the same work at lower cost. And yet you have no data to quantify this benefit to consumers. You can know the truth of it without knowing the exact numbers.

Plus, it may be that the "consumers" who benefit are in different districts.

I have acknowledged that in a limited region, perhaps one congressional district which is small geographically, the voters and consumers there might benefit from local employment conditions that benefit them at the expense of the rest of the nation. This is similar to the problem of keeping open an unneeded military base. The locals might favor it even though it is a net cost or net harm to the nation.

And those of other regions oppose this waste or this inefficiency, where the costs to taxpayers or to consumers is made artificially high in order to subsidize the workers in that one small district. It should be obvious that the good of the whole nation overides that of one limited district that relies on some form of subsidy paid for by everyone else.

A rational voter would make his decision with his own self-interest in mind, not some abstract idea of global consumer.

Yes, and that rational decision should be based on the fact that outsourcing generally means lower prices, which is in that rational voter's interest. Most voters and consumers do not benefit from any one company having to pay higher labor cost than necessary. All consumers benefit from companies finding ways to save on labor cost. Whereas only a small minority of workers benefit from companies having to pay higher than necessary labor cost.

Rational voters should not be opposed to automation, i.e., the replacement of workers by machines, because they benefit from it. Even though a small minority of workers are harmed in the short run. This minor harm should not override the more important benefits to the whole country.

And yet, the voters seem unable to apply the same reasoning to the case of outsourcing, which also benefits all consumers and does harm only to a small minority of workers in the short run. Why can't they see this?

Third, the skillset and function of a politician is different from that of a CEO of a business.

This is not the argument of the politician who condemns outsourcing. This was not the argument of Senator-Demagogue Barbara Boxer who condemned Carla Fiorina for outsourcing jobs. If this was the argument, the politician would not say that outsourcing is bad for the economy, but would acknowledge the need for outsourcing and say that the CEOs should continue doing this necessary function rather than running for U.S. Senate. But instead they lie and claim that the CEOs who do this are inflicting harm onto the economy. And they even try to pass laws to punish companies that do outsourcing. By imposing tax penalties onto them.

 

[Valjean]

Lumpenproletariat
Only a fool can't figure this out. Most of the demagogues like Thom Hartmann or Bernie Sanders or Ed Schulz etc. are not so stupid that they can't figure this out. They are motivated by dishonesty and the profit motive, because their popularity depends upon them lying and pandering to uncompetitive workers who lose their jobs because of outsourcing and to those who feel sorry for these laid-off workers and feel a need to pander to them.

Where did you come up with this? Schultz and Hartmann are small fry whose opinions are probably losing them money, and I don't think either is pandering or being disingenuous. Sanders is a (politically) larger fish, but I think he, like the others, is sincere, conscientious and presents a much more reasoned and well informed analysis of the facts than you'll find on the right -- or in congress, for that matter.

Supply side economics never worked. The economy is driven by demand, not supply.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

But you have to explain why it's GOOD to replace those same workers with machines. What's the difference?

It's not "what is good for business" but what is good for consumers that is at issue. The outsourcing of jobs is good for consumers. ALL consumers. And thus also good for voters.

You're only looking at half the picture. Reducing the cost of consumer goods by outsourcing higher paying jobs is only good for the economy if people still have money to spend. If too many people lose good paying jobs or have to take big pay cuts, spending dries up and the economy slows down.

But if this argument is correct, then it must also apply to the matter of replacing workers with robots. So you must also say that replacing workers with robots slows down the economy because of the lost jobs and pay cuts due to lower labor cost.

And yet no one ever makes this argument. The answer to this argument is that if you don't allow companies to reduce their production costs, then the result is higher prices to consumers, which is a decrease in their real income. So the loss of some jobs and income to those laid-off workers is offset by the higher real incomes to ALL consumers because of the lower prices due the labor cost savings.

So if you recognize this fact of economics in the case of workers being replaced by machines, then you must also recognize this fact as it applies to outsourcing, which is just as much a cost savings and benefit to consumers as that of replacing workers with machines. The same dynamics of job loss and cost savings apply in the replacing of workers by machines as in the replacing of those workers by cheap foreign labor.

It doesn't matter which kind of replacement of workers takes place -- in either case we get the same phenomenon of job loss and labor cost savings. And the benefit of the latter is greater than the harm of the job loss. If it were not so, then everyone would be complaining about the replacement of workers by machines. And yet no one is complaining about this and demanding that companies be penalized for this kind of replacement of workers. The same demagogues -- Thom Hartmann, Ed Schulz, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, etc., all throw a huge fuss over the loss of jobs because of outsourcing, yet say nothing about the job loss due to automation.

So this is not about harm to the economy from job loss and reduced incomes and demand, but about some kind of deep resentment about workers being replaced by other workers who are more competitive. It is not a sympathy toward the laid-off workers, which is absent if it is machines that replace them. Rather it is a hate or resentment toward the more competitive workers who replace the higher-paid workers.

Look at it this way: suppose you lost your $18.00/hr job when the factory closed and now you're trying to get by on minimum wage. You don't have money for movie tickets, dinner at local restaurants, a new coat, a new car, having your furnace serviced every 2 years, weekends at the beach, etc. If your entire community is in similar straights because those factory jobs were outsourced, the entire business community will feel the pinch. It's a ripple effect, and the effect is widespread. Hotels, restaurants, movie theaters, dry cleaners, hair salons, sporting goods stores, Harley shops, bookstores, espresso stands, and much, much more depend on their customers having that extra cash. When it's gone, everyone suffers.

The benefits are the cost savings, which translate into lower prices for consumers. Just as when workers are replaced by machines. Yet you don't translate the above argument into a demand that companies stop replacing workers with machines. In either kind of replacement of workers, the benefit of the cost-savings is greater.

Now suppose this outsourcing has been affecting manufacturing centers throughout your entire state. The goods that used to be made there are shipped in from China. That's good for longshoremen and truckers, but it's bad for small to medium sized businesses.

But it's an overall net gain, because of the benefit to consumers. If it were not so, then why is it good to replace all these same workers with machines? Are you saying it's bad for the economy if companies replace the workers with machines? Why not? All the same bad effects should be taking place. So you are agreeing with the Luddites who demanded that all the machines be removed and the workers be given back their jobs.

If their customers are laid off, the businesses aren't doing business, and if there's not enough business they lay off workers too, which compounds the problem.

All this is equally true if the job losses were due to the workers being replaced by machines. Unless you explain why this does not apply also to that form of job loss, you are admitting that there is a net gain from the job losses if it's due to automation. And yet there is no reason why the same net benefit is not also the case if the job losses are due to outsourcing.

They understand why their jobs are gone. They understand that they need good jobs to replace them. They understand as fewer and fewer people have disposable income, our economy stagnates and shrinks.

But why do they understand that this is good for the economy if the job loss was due to automation rather than to outsourcing? Replacing them by a machine also takes away their disposable income, and yet they recognize that it's good to replace the workers by machines. And this replacement of the workers to reduce labor cost does NOT result in economic stagnation, but in a more productive economy. No matter what is the cause of the lower labor cost. Why would it matter what caused the labor cost to decrease? Why isn't that lower labor cost good for consumers, no matter which kind of replacement of workers caused it?

Do you think the laid-off workers are too stupid to figure out that they benefit from lower labor cost? Don't they understand it if this was caused by replacing the workers with machines? You think all workers want the company to rrrrrrrrrrip out the machines and put the workers back into those jobs?

They expect anyone running for office to understand why it's important to keep what few manufacturing jobs Americans have left right here in the US.

Why don't they expect them to keep all those manufacturing jobs that are being lost to robots and computers? Why don't they lament this job loss just as much as the job loss due to outsourcing?

Until you address the replacement-by-machine issue, your argument is refuted. All the refutation already exists in the fact that we know it is a net gain for the economy when workers are replaced by machines. Which means it is a net gain when workers are replaced by something -- anything -- that does the same job at lower cost.

And if someone running for office has made the decision to ship jobs overseas, they expect him or her to have had a good reason and be able to articulate it.

The reason is that this results in cost savings that benefit all consumers, which is a net gain for the whole economy, just as when those workers are replaced by machines.

And our question is: What is wrong with the voters that they cannot figure this out? and that thus the politicians must lie to them?

 

[Arctish]

You're only looking at half the picture. Reducing the cost of consumer goods by outsourcing higher paying jobs is only good for the economy if people still have money to spend. If too many people lose good paying jobs or have to take big pay cuts, spending dries up and the economy slows down.

But if this argument is correct, then it must also apply to the matter of replacing workers with robots. So you must also say that replacing workers with robots slows down the economy because of the lost jobs and pay cuts due to lower labor cost.

And yet no one ever makes this argument. The answer to this argument is that if you don't allow companies to reduce their production costs, then the result is higher prices to consumers, which is a decrease in their real income. So the loss of some jobs and income to those laid-off workers is offset by the higher real incomes to ALL consumers because of the lower prices due the labor cost savings.

So if you recognize this fact of economics in the case of workers being replaced by machines, then you must also recognize this fact as it applies to outsourcing, which is just as much a cost savings and benefit to consumers as that of replacing workers with machines. The same dynamics of job loss and cost savings apply in the replacing of workers by machines as in the replacing of those workers by cheap foreign labor.

It doesn't matter which kind of replacement of workers takes place -- in either case we get the same phenomenon of job loss and labor cost savings. And the benefit of the latter is greater than the harm of the job loss. If it were not so, then everyone would be complaining about the replacement of workers by machines. And yet no one is complaining about this and demanding that companies be penalized for this kind of replacement of workers. The same demagogues -- Thom Hartmann, Ed Schulz, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, etc., all throw a huge fuss over the loss of jobs because of outsourcing, yet say nothing about the job loss due to automation.

They don't equate the loss of jobs due to automation with the loss of jobs due to outsourcing because there are substantial differences between those 2 types of job loss. Comparing them is like comparing a burst pipe to a major flood.

Have you ever seen the movie Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (inferior in every way to the 1971 verson)? In the movie, Charlie's father works in a toothpaste factory. One day he loses his job to automation, and the family is rendered even more destitute. But Charlie's father learns how to service and repair the robots that replaced him and winds up with a better paying job. Meanwhile, all of the other factory employees whose job was not on the production line still have their jobs. The Receiving Dock workers and warehousemen who handle shipments of parts and raw materials, the maintenance and janitorial staff who maintain the facility, the secretaries and shipping clerks who handle the paperwork, the quality control inspectors and production managers responsible for the manufacturing process, the security guards, and everyone else who works there are still employed.

So to take that example out of the movies and put it in real life, the loss of jobs due to automation can be painful but if job retraining is available to displaced workers, being laid off can lose a lot of its sting. Give people a shot at moving up the economic ladder and the net loss is largely nullified, assuming the entire economy isn't slowing down and good jobs are still out there waiting to be filled. Those workers might even return to work at the same production facility doing a job that requires a different skill set.

Now compare that to a factory being shuttered and everyone who works there losing their jobs. The difference in lost jobs is huge. Also, companies that used to supply that factory with parts and raw materials, trucking companies that used to handle its product, stores where employees used to shop, professional services employees used to hire, and every other business that was connected to that factory is negatively affected.

So this is not about harm to the economy from job loss and reduced incomes and demand, but about some kind of deep resentment about workers being replaced by other workers who are more competitive.

No, it's about the loss of good paying jobs, and the widespread effects that loss of income has on businesses that depend on customers having disposable income.

It is not a sympathy toward the laid-off workers, which is absent if it is machines that replace them. Rather it is a hate or resentment toward the more competitive workers who replace the higher-paid workers.

I doubt anyone here hates, envies, or resents workers in Bangladesh laboring in factories that might collapse or burn to the ground at any moment, or Chinese kids being exposed to dangerous levels of heavy metals and other toxins, or Pakistanis chained to their looms.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why is it moral to prop up some factory workers by stomping down consumers who have to pay for it?

First, as Arctish pointed out, politicians are not required to lie.

As a practical matter they are "required" to say what the voters want to hear, in order to win approval or project a favorable image, even if what they have to say is something they know is dishonest or misleading.

Probably all of them know that companies do the outsourcing as necessary business practice to reduce cost and thus serve consumers better. The politicians are not so ignorant as to be unaware of this, and yet so many of them preach the trade-bashing rhetoric against outsourcing, knowing it works to get some extra votes even though it is dishonest because consumers generally benefit from the cost-savings due to outsourcing.

So they are "required" to be dishonest in this way in the sense that they are rewarded by voters for this dishonesty.

Second, regardless of one's feelings about the sentiment, many people think or feel that keeping their neighbors' jobs here is more important than faceless consumers elsewhere getting a less expensive product.

No it's not just elsewhere, but consumers EVERYwhere are served better by the outsourcing. Including that voter. That voter is setting aside his/her own self-interest by giving priority to "jobs" for a few uncompetitive but conspicuous workers who might get laid off or see a pay reduction because of their decreasing value in the market.

That voter is placing the interests of those few workers above his/her own self-interest, out of a guilt feeling, or out of a false patriotism, or other emotion-based irrational impulse. Voters should not be pressured into voting against their own self-interest out of some guilt feeling or out of intimidation or fear that laid-off workers will go on a rampage through the streets, or out of emotion-based sob-stories about certain individuals who lose their jobs -- you can always find some "victim" and their family to feel sorry for if you go irrationally seeking them.

Should the voter feel sorry for every business that fails? for every job-seeker who didn't get hired? Should voters be flooded with stories about every victim's special problem? Why make a special case out of laid-off factory workers? Why are these "victims" any more important than the consumers, including the voter, who will have to pay higher prices if companies are not allowed to cut their labor costs?

Why doesn't the voter show concern for the real consumers next door, across the street, hundreds and thousands of his/her neighbors who are consumers and will have to pay higher prices if companies are prevented from practicing cost-saving measures? What is it that makes the high-profile factory workers so special that they get priority over all the consumers?

Why doesn't the voter see the needs of low-income consumers who benefit from the lower prices, and give these "victims" equal consideration to that shown to the poor victim factory workers who are demanding to be paid more than they are worth in the market and thus driving up costs and prices consumers must pay?

Third, sometimes the (re)locational decision is not based on improved productivity or lower costs of production, but special tax deals.

That's not about relocating the factory or the jobs, but about relocating the business offices and corporate headquarters. "Outsourcing" refers to relocating the production operations in order to save on production costs.

Finally, the OP rhetoric of "babysitting workers" reveals a rather amoral view of human kind.

Imposing unnecessary labor costs onto businesses makes consumers worse off, and thus makes the world overall worse, increasing the total suffering in the world, or reducing the total welfare of all. It is not "amoral" to want to reduce suffering and increase the general welfare of humans by letting businesses do what they need to do to keep down their costs to better serve society/consumers. How is less suffering and more well-being "amoral"?

 

[laughing dog]

Never mind.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

lower labor cost = lower cost of production = higher standard of living

You have to decide what the purpose of the economy is.

The purpose is to provide to people what they want, as much as possible.

You believe that the purpose of the economy is to provide low prices for the consumer . . .

And also high quality. Sometimes a higher price is OK if the higher quality is worth the extra cost to the consumer.

. . . and to distribute the rewards from production of goods and services primarily as profits to the wealthy.

Would you cut out that class-warfare crap! You know that the rewards are supposed to go proportionally to those who produce more wealth. The better the production, the more the producer should receive as reward.

. . . the redistribution of income from the poor and the middle class wages to the wealthy as profits is a good thing.

No, any "redistribution" should be from the less productive, or less competitive, to the more productive, or more competitive.

There are a lot of us who believe that the purpose of the American economy is to develop American resources including . . .

Not just American resources, but ALL resources that can be exploited from anywhere. Why should the American economy be limited to developing only American resources? Why shouldn't we extend our greedy hands out everywhere to develop as much resources as we can get our greedy greedy capitalist-pig hands on? Don't impose arbitrary limits!

. . . the most important resource of all the human one, Americans, to bring . . .

But not just Americans, but human resources everywhere. What's wrong with also developing Chinese and Malaysian and Bangladeshi and Vietnamese etc. human resources? Why do you want to draw these arbitrary lines and exclude the non-American resources? Such limits end up making Americans worse off.

. . . to bring those resources into production in American production facilities and . . .

But what's wrong with Americans owning foreign production facilities, or having foreign-owned facilities do it for us if they can serve us better? Why are you so anti-American that you want to box all Americans up into these limits and make us all poorer?

It doesn't matter how inexpensive consumer goods are if 99% of the country doesn't earn enough to buy them.

And therefore what? We should force companies to shut down all foreign operations and hire Americans to do all the work and pay much higher labor cost? and prohibit any outsourcing?

If that's supposed to increase the standard of living, because then more Americans will have high-paying jobs, then by the same logic we should make the companies eliminate all the computers and robots and hire American humans to perform all that work at higher cost than the computers and robots.

If you're arguing that it's bad to replace high-paid workers with cheap labor, then you are also arguing that it's bad to replace high-paid workers with robots/computers to save on labor cost. Is that your argument? that workers should not be replaced by robots or computers?

The lying that is going on is the Republicans' claims that they are working for anyone's benefit who are not rich, who are in the 99%.

The worst lie is that outsourcing is bad for the economy. It's good for everyone who is a consumer. Just as it's good to replace those workers with robots.

 

[Jayjay]

The purpose is to provide to people what they want, as much as possible.

So, if people as voters want to keep the jobs for factory workers, what are you complaining about? That's just another way of providing to people what they want. You seem to think that it's ok to provide people what they want, as long as they want the right things that you approve of, instead of letting them decide for themselves.

 

[barbos]

And I bet chinese workers want comparable to US salaries instead of what they currently have.

 

[SimpleDon]

You're confusing which politician is lying. There is no politician saying that outsourcing or firing people is better for the economy. No politician is campaigning on the platform that it's good to outsource or to lay off workers.

Rather, there are several who campaign on the platform that outsourcing is bad for the economy and that any CEO who does it is doing harm to the country, even though they know that it is really necessary and beneficial for the economy, just like automation (replacing workers with machines) is good for the economy.

In addition to Nunn in Georgia, several other politicians do this, like Sen. Brown of Ohio and Bernie Sanders, and formerly Sen. Dorgan of North Dakota, and many others. They all condemn corporations for outsourcing jobs, even though know the companies have to do it in order to function more efficiently, and they know that consumers benefit from the lower costs. And yet they lie and claim that it hurts the economy.

That's the lying we're talking about. And meanwhile, there is no politician who tells the truth on this, i.e., that outsourcing is good for the companies only because it's also good for consumers, just as automation is good for profits and also for consumers. So any politician who would explain the benefits of outsourcing would not have to lie. However, if they tell the truth, they will lose votes. So they either remain silent on this, or they lie in order to win extra votes. The voters will not tolerate any politician who tells the truth about the benefits of outsourcing.

You should ask yourself, if a particular decision by a CEO to lay off people was beneficial to the economy, then why can't it be quantified?

It can be "quantified" if you mean that the benefit to consumers can be explained and demonstrated by reason and common sense. Just as the benefit to consumers from automation can be explained and demonstrated. However, it might not always be possible to determine the exact measure of the benefit. We cannot prove with data that automation always benefits consumers when the company saves on the labor cost and can improve its production as a result.

But it is a logical fact that lower production cost does benefit consumers, if the production remains the same or increases. The one needing data to prove anything is the one who denies the logic or the common sense of the benefit to consumers of lower cost of production.

There are many facts of economics which are demonstrably true, from logic and common sense, for which there may be no data. Such as the fact that a drought leads to higher prices at the store. This often cannot be proved with data. But every economist knows that damage to crops leads to higher prices as a result. We know many such facts without knowing the exact dollar figure of the resulting cost/harm or benefit.

And if it can't be quantified, who's to say that it was the right decision?

YOU can say it, because you have enough intelligence to know that it is good for consumers for workers to be replaced by robots which do the same work at lower cost. And yet you have no data to quantify this benefit to consumers. You can know the truth of it without knowing the exact numbers.

Plus, it may be that the "consumers" who benefit are in different districts.

I have acknowledged that in a limited region, perhaps one congressional district which is small geographically, the voters and consumers there might benefit from local employment conditions that benefit them at the expense of the rest of the nation. This is similar to the problem of keeping open an unneeded military base. The locals might favor it even though it is a net cost or net harm to the nation.

And those of other regions oppose this waste or this inefficiency, where the costs to taxpayers or to consumers is made artificially high in order to subsidize the workers in that one small district. It should be obvious that the good of the whole nation overides that of one limited district that relies on some form of subsidy paid for by everyone else.

A rational voter would make his decision with his own self-interest in mind, not some abstract idea of global consumer.

Yes, and that rational decision should be based on the fact that outsourcing generally means lower prices, which is in that rational voter's interest. Most voters and consumers do not benefit from any one company having to pay higher labor cost than necessary. All consumers benefit from companies finding ways to save on labor cost. Whereas only a small minority of workers benefit from companies having to pay higher than necessary labor cost.

Rational voters should not be opposed to automation, i.e., the replacement of workers by machines, because they benefit from it. Even though a small minority of workers are harmed in the short run. This minor harm should not override the more important benefits to the whole country.

And yet, the voters seem unable to apply the same reasoning to the case of outsourcing, which also benefits all consumers and does harm only to a small minority of workers in the short run. Why can't they see this?

Third, the skillset and function of a politician is different from that of a CEO of a business.

This is not the argument of the politician who condemns outsourcing. This was not the argument of Senator-Demagogue Barbara Boxer who condemned Carla Fiorina for outsourcing jobs. If this was the argument, the politician would not say that outsourcing is bad for the economy, but would acknowledge the need for outsourcing and say that the CEOs should continue doing this necessary function rather than running for U.S. Senate. But instead they lie and claim that the CEOs who do this are inflicting harm onto the economy. And they even try to pass laws to punish companies that do outsourcing. By imposing tax penalties onto them.

I think that the problem is that you are confusing efficient use of resources, what the economy does, with lower prices for consumers. The two are not the same. Often the best use of the available resources dictates higher prices, not lower prices.

Putting that confusion aside I don't see any proof offered that prices for consumers have gone down. If they had you would be able to point to massive deflation, the general decrease in prices. Instead what we have seen is continued, steady inflation, the general increase in prices, the opposite of what you are claiming. You are living a fantasy.

What we see in the data isn't deflation, but a huge increase in profits from globalization. Instead of lower prices, outsourcing has resulted as reduced wages always do, in increased profits.

The proper argument, the one supported by the data from the real world, is whether we should continue to reduce relative wages in order to increase profits even more. Can you or any politician make this argument? I don't think so, therefore the fantasy of outsourcing benefits all was born. It is a lie. Which you apparently have swallowed without question.

 

[lpetrich]

Lumpenproletariat's main argument seems like screaming "Consumers! Consumers! Consumers!" as if producers ought to be enslaved to benefit consumers, who get all their money from picking money trees each day and why never have to work or produce anything.