"Job creation" = more slots in which to put the excess job-seeker scum who are cluttering up the place and need to be removed
Also, whenever they ship your jobs to people from other countries, it actually creates jobs in the US economy because the corporations make more profits and immediately use those profits to hire more people.
You're right that free-traders are lying when they promise more "jobs" -- but why are they lying? and what's the truth they're not telling?
Whereas your demand is that they stop "shipping our jobs" abroad and return home to perform their obligation of providing more "jobs" for the natives, what they really should do is point out that free trade, globalism, outsourcing etc. makes the American economy better overall by improving the production of wealth for everyone and raising the living standard, and this is the whole purpose of business and the economy, not to provide "jobs" i.e. ---
BABYSITTING SLOTS FOR CRYBABIES, which is what Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump and other free-trade bashers are clamoring for.
So when these companies say they're going to "create jobs" by means of trade and globalism, they're only PANDERING to the idiots, to the mob, to the rabble, and to demagogue-politicians and political activists trying to win votes from these rabble idiots, of which there are many.
So you're not only making fun of these companies pandering to rabble idiots who imagine that we can improve the economy by turning employers into babysitters, but you're also lampooning the right-wing and left-wing protectionist boneheads who are clamoring to force companies to perform this babysitting role instead of producing wealth.
These panderers and babysitter-promoters are winning the trade-politics battles right now with their Trumps and other panderers and blowhards who keep whipping the rabble up into hysteria. And it is comical how companies and the Chamber of Commerce try to pander to these idiots.
Here is an article which mostly gives the rational argument for outsourcing, but it still ends up insisting that "creating jobs" is some kind of goal or measure of the performance of the economy, i.e., providing babysitting slots:
http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/outsourcing-is-good-for-the-u-s-economy-26113/
But is outsourcing bad for the economy?
Numerous studies have indicated that outsourcing has had a minimal effect on job losses and, in the aggregate, may have actually added jobs. How can that be?
The reason a company chooses to manufacture a product outside of the U.S. is very clear: The company finds it is less costly, even considering the logistical costs of shipping raw materials and the finished goods. The cost savings are often significant. This allows the company to sell the products at much lower prices, so more Americans can consume them. And, of course, it increases profit.
That cost-reduction and profit improvement often results in an increase in employment. Consider, for instance, Delta Airlines in 2003. Delta moved 1,000 jobs to India. By doing so, it was able to reduce costs by $25 million. It used the money to fund 1,200 new reservation and sales positions in the United States, resulting in a net job gain.
Similarly, consider a consumer who needs to purchase a new smartphone. She finds that she can purchase a state-of-the-art model for about $600. If the phone were made in the U.S., the cost would be more than $1,800. After saving $1,200, she has more money to spend on other goods and services which will encourage the economy to grow.
The bottom line is that outsourcing results in lower costs for firms, greater profits for stockholders and lower prices for consumers — leading to an increase in the standard of living and an overall increase in employment.
Why, then, did an Associated Press-Ipsos poll in May 2004 find that 69 percent of Americans thought that “outsourcing” hurts the U.S. economy, while only 17 percent thought it helps? Today the percentage who believe outsourcing hurts, is probably higher.
The reason is that it is easy to see the negative effects of outsourcing as we watch manufacturing plants close and our sympathies are geared toward the displaced workers. It is difficult to see which new jobs were added as a result of the lower costs associated with outsourcing. Similarly, it is difficult to see the positive effects on our standard of living from products and services being profitably offered to consumers at much much lower prices. In short, the negatives are easily seen, and the positives aren’t.
Though the above correctly identifies how the benefits are ignored and only the negatives (job loss) is noticed, it still tries to make the case that maybe there's an overall INCREASE in "jobs" resulting from outsourcing.
There is no way to prove this with any data. And it doesn't matter. The fallacy is to accept the premise that "job creation" has to be the result, or that more "jobs" is the meaning of economic benefit, or even only part of the meaning. It's not.
What is the meaning of more "jobs"? Why is more "jobs" supposed to be necessary? Why is this any measure of what's "good" for the economy?
What if those "jobs" added by some program were totally worthless in producing any wealth? Suppose they were nothing but babysitting only, without any benefit other than providing a slot in which to put someone who would otherwise be out on the street panhandling or whatever. Would that still be a net benefit for the economy? Is that "job" a net gain for the economy because it took some rabble idiot off the street and put him into a job "slot" to keep him out of mischief?
Your answer has to be "YES" if you think that "job creation" is in itself a benefit or net gain for society. Because what this means is that there is some inherent good in the "job" that is independent of any economic or production benefit from the work done. It means that it's good for society even if there is NO production benefit added to the economy for the benefit of consumers or the public.
It works on the same principle as balancing the budget by cutting taxes.
No, just as cutting taxes may sometimes be good, but not to increase revenue, so also the benefit of letting companies hire foreign labor is not that it leads to more domestic "jobs" for the natives -- the pandering-to-idiots/more babysitting-slots argument. Rather, the benefit is that the increased profit from this is a REWARD to those companies for their greater success in serving consumers. This reward entices the company to do more of the same, which is to increase its production and offer more products/services at still lower prices to consumers.
In some cases this leads to additional "jobs" but in other cases to fewer. Maybe more often the latter, i.e., fewer domestic "jobs" because these workers are replaced by foreigners. But the benefit/harm is not measured by the number of jobs, but by the company's increased performance in doing what its real function is, i.e., to serve consumers.
Just like the company's real function is served by replacing the workers with robots/computers, which we all recognize is best for the whole economy, even if it means job loss. It's not these "jobs" that are the goal of the economy, but the improved service to consumers that matters.
Lastly, you just hate the Job Creators because they are so much more moral and harder-working than you are.
What's wrong here is the term "Job Creators" as if there is some basic function in the economy of providing "jobs" to people. There is no such legitimate function. The only function is that of satisfying the consumer demand, and the "job" is nothing more than a means to this end. The "job" has no intrinsic value in itself, and to speak of "job creation" as though this is a basic economic function is to believe that all those job-seekers out there, who crowd the personnel office when there are openings, are a basic stain on our society, an eyesore, a threat which has to be removed, and the "job" slots are a place to stuff them into in order to get them out of our hair.
If you have this fundamental contempt for the low-class masses out there, cluttering up the streets, then you believe we need this "job creation" and that we need these "Job Creators" to perform this service for us of removing this blight, of scooping up this scum from our streets and putting them somewhere that eliminates them as a threat to us, and you applaud those morally upright companies which perform the hard work of scooping up this scum and which seek your applause by boasting about how many new "jobs" they created.
You just want to punish them for being successful! [/lampoon]
I.e., for successfully serving this need, like President Obama thought the capitalists who received his "stimulus" dollars were providing a service by removing some scum job-seekers as a result of his "stimulus" program -- and he's one of those who praises those companies for being moral and successful in meeting this need to remove some of the scum. And you agree with this if you think there is a need for this "job creation" and "Job Creators" to perform this function to remove this scum.
And those capitalists who seek to be congratulated for performing this service, though they are buffoons we can laugh at for their babble-nonsense, are also making fools out of others who clamor for this "job creation" -- the economists and politicians and social critics and activists -- even the general public, e.g., the Trump and Sanders voters, who imagine that the marginal masses out there, who need these "slots" to be put into, are truly worthless scum whose highest good possible is to be removed from sight or neutralized as a threat.
They would not be so laughable and lampoonable if they would just admit outright that this is what they're saying with their code language.
The outsourcers play the semantical games because the critics force them to -- but what these capitalists must NOT do, to spare themselves from being laughed at, is to give in to the critics and literally "bring back the factories" etc. to provide "jobs" for the natives, out of guilt or shame, as repentant sinners seeking forgiveness, because the truth is that they are NOT guilty for seeking profit by doing their proper function of serving consumers.
To let Trump or Sanders or others bully them into bringing back "our jobs" would make them an even worse laughing stock, and also would damage the whole economy, all consumers, and reduce everyone's living standard.
The only gain would be some delight from an increase in some xenophobia hormone secretions.
