Exporting America by Lou Dobbs

Lou Dobbs, Republican CNN anchor and managing editor of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight is making the talk show circuit promoting his new book, Exporting America. To the chagrin of his Republican buddies, and while enduring being called a communist and worse by conservative publications -- both financial and otherwise -- Dobbs is relentless in his criticism of American corporations that are shipping jobs overseas.

In an interview I saw the other day on PBS's NOW with Bill Moyers, Dobbs pulled no punches and even surprised Moyers with his uncharacteristically un-Republican sensibilities on this issue, and his harsh characterization of the corporations that are on his ever-growing list of U.S. companies that are exporting jobs. I haven't even been through every letter, and I've already found over two dozen companies on the list that surprised and disappointed me.

I never thought I'd be offering the likes of Lou Dobbs an atta boy, but offering it I am.

 

Right on Lou. It is about time the Republican's got out of the big corporations rear ends and stood up for something. In the Silicon Valley, a great many of these "exported" or outsourced jobs require a Masters or better and paid over 80K a year. So the argument that we are only exporting the low level jobs is more Republican crapola.

We need to outsource Bush and Cheney back to their respective hell holes they call states for good. Only 2 more months to go!

 

Outsourcing is just one aspect of the larger phenomenon of globalization.

The world is homogenizing, transforming itself from a collection of separate histories, traditions, economies and soverign states, into a world civilization, the final shape of which is as yet unknown.

The trend is apparent everywhere.

Multilateralism replaces the "great game" in international affairs. There is increasing emphasis on international organizations, laws and treaties.

Corporations are increasingly multinational, operating globally and owned by shareholders worldwide.

Immigration, legal and otherwise, is mixing the world's ethnic groups. Step outside the door in any large American city and it isn't exactly the United States that you stop into anymore. (Los Angeles county is home to 4 million Mexicans and close to a million Asians. English is a minority language in that county.)

Culture, particularly youth oriented pop-culture, is global. Step into a cafe in Laos and you are apt to find kids watching American music videos.

People everywhere dress in similar clothes, live in similar architecture and drive cars made by the same manufacturers.

Communications spread the world's ideas. The world's press, to say nothing of an infinite variety of personal opinion on any imaginable subject, is available everywhere. Distance learning is a growing example of this. Degreeinfo itself is an example. How many times have you people suggested that students consider foreign schools? Well, that's outsourcing.

Traditional authorities are undermined everywhere. Everything exists in context of choices, everything must accomodate to new alternatives.

Religions are decreasingly something that people are simply born into and accept unquestioningly. There are alternative faiths setting up shop down the street and only a click way on a computer screen. Like everything else, salvation has become a marketplace.

That's what is motivating Osama bin Ladin to declare war on the West. He fears the foreign influences that threaten traditional Islamic piety and polity. He hopes that by creating unbridgeable animosity between Islam and the West he can stop the rot.

It's also what makes all of the Degreeinfo theology discussion so anachronistic to my ear. It simply accepts the beloved Bible as unquestioned truth and responds dismissively or with anger when the question is raised why one should choose Christianity in the first place. That's not a question that our theologians want to answer. It's not a question that they can answer. But it's probably going to be THE theological question of the 21'st century.

OK, that's the context for outsourcing. Outsourcing is just international trade in services rather than in unfinished products. It's just another aspect of a larger worldwide evolution that's already been underway for centuries now.

That suggests that it's much larger than the trivial question of choosing between George Bush and John Kerry. Turning this stuff into partisan bickering just trivializes it. It's just a heads-in-the-sand attempt to minimize the problem.

And problems there are. The United States is rapidly deindustrializing. Our manufacturing capacity is moving overseas as rapidly as it can.

Basically, preserving the American standard of living at several times the world average will probably turn out to be impossible without anything to justify it. Superior prosperity certainly isn't a natural entitlement for the American worker. I fully expect the 21'st century to be a century of American decline and by 2100 we will probably be approaching the world mean in per-capita income. That in turn will bring about major changes in the world balance of power, economically, politically and culturally. In 2100 American kids may be running around in stylish T-shirts bearing Chinese characters.

Frankly, I think that it's completely asinine to suggest that this is all a Republican idea and that the Democrats can quickly stop the rot. They can't, they won't, they don't have the first idea how. They are as helpless as Osama bin Ladin.

 

Allow me to butt-in, if you may...

We are moving towards an era of open mindedness. And gone are the days where people see the world as the 4 corners of their own community (having common belief, traditions, and practices), where group of people think that they are the only blessed creatures created by God to dominate and subdue the earth and everything thereof, where same group of people believe that the great “heavens have been created exclusively for them”. Those days are a long past and a history.

The information age has come, and technology is changing the world so rapidly that an average mind would probably have a hard time coping up with. People are becoming well informed of all available resources and alternatives for them to choose at their own discretion.

And oh yes.. I definitely agree with BillDayson that

cheers,

 

response to Gregg

Hi Gregg and all,

I'd like to draw your attention to an excellent article that I recently read on this subject. I generally agree with the perspective of the author; granted it takes a holistic, non-personal view of outsourcing, but I believe it provides some excellent guidance for the future of the U.S.

Here's the link:

http://www.conference-board.org/articles/atb_article.cfm?id=239

A snippet:

Business thinker Stan Davis, Meyer's frequent co-author, uses a pipeline metaphor to describe the pattern of job creation and motion. "I'm not concerned about U.S. job losses so long as we're feeding the front end of the pipeline with growth and innovation," he says. "As each new innovation creates new jobs and new sectors mature, those jobs migrate down the global food chain. The issue is, 'Does the United States represent the front end of the pipeline?' It's a question of how long we stay healthy and grow and innovate and create new sectors."

And no matter how many call centers and programmers head overseas, the United States has a head start in invention and innovation, according to Glen Hiemstra, founder of Futurist.com: "Our biggest competitive advantage will remain creativity and innovative thinking—as compared to routine churning out of information—because of the innovative history of the country, because of the cross-cultural mix that leads to fertility of thinking," he says.

and...

Keeping U.S. workers on the cutting edge will require efforts both individual and national. It won't just happen. Hines calls it a national imperative: "If we stand still, there will be up-and-coming economies that will take the things that we're doing now," he says.



I'm interested in your (and everyone's) thoughts and comments on this article.

Cheers,
Adrienne

 

I think that Bill summed it up pretty well. The questions that remain are whether the trade-offs of globablization are worth it and how much of a choice in the matter a country has anyway.
Globalization has the potential to enslave nations, or to quickly, through technology that is already in use by the industrialized world, raise the standard of living in third world and quasi-developed countries.
Globalization has the potential to draw nations to conflict, in response to feelings of powerlessness to preserve their culture, or to draw nations together, through the interdependence of trade and expansion of individual and national cultural horizons.
Globalization has the potential to lessen the chasm beween haves and have nots, or to drive a wedge further between the two groups.
...and on, and on.
Like many (but not all) of the worlds ideas, globalization is neutral. It's effect has less to do with it's native attributes, and more to do with it's wielder's attributes. Although the fact of globalization can not be changed, it might be possible, politically, to navigate this rocky shoreline more safely, if a different captain is at the rudder. Then again, in uncharted shoreline, it's hard to know what direction to take. Or if it is even a shoreline.

Tony

 

Re: response to Gregg

Hi Adrienne,

Though I’m not American, but the thread just got my attention and interest. So, hoping that you guys won’t mind if I put-in my few cents (in centavo currency).

The author had (of the article in your link) pointed out a significant issue when he said that, "to maintain our innovation lead, we need to push for more people receiving advanced math, science, and technology education”, which emphasizes that educating the work force is the key. And that, "knowledge workers should be working to acquire more knowledge," ... "You've got to keep learning in new areas and improving your skills as much as you can. You've got to keep asking yourself, 'What will I be learning in the next six months?' And you need to look for opportunities to be more innovative in the settings you're in.". He also noted that, "most of the traditional management functions get in the way of innovation. That doesn't mean that a company shouldn't have a CFO, but you have to have a different kind of CFO—an interdisciplinary CFO."

This is an issue that applies not only to the American society but I think, to all – the issue of training and continuing professional development. I guess, the leading professional societies (institutions) have had foreseen this need, that they, as part of their membership or re-certification requirements, encourage members to continually train and expand their knowledge and expertise through various courses/seminars/etc. so that, through thick and thin, its members will remain competitive and employable. To list just few examples, the British Computer Society requires its members to accumulate certain number of hours of learning experience every year, the ICCP asks for 120 hours, the Canadian Information Processing Society requires 300 hours for its I.S.P. re-certification, and I believe many other professional organizations do likewise.

According to that article "The information age has been about disintermediation; the next age will be about reintermediation," he says. "It's not that we don't need middlemen—we just need different kinds of middlemen, and that's where the new jobs will be."

And those middlemen jobs are supposedly reserved conditionally to those with guts to strive for more interdisciplinary knowledge and skills.

One centavo, I guess.

 

Lou Dobbs has strong views on illegal immigration also.

 

I disagree with Lou Dobbs on some issues, but I like watching the guy. Unlike some of his fellow political talk show hosts, he thinks before he speaks and gives his guests the opportunity to do the same; watching his show I know I won't see stammering, hyperventilating talking heads pontificate with absolute certainty about issues they haven't even bothered to research. Dobbs actually makes me think.

That said, my position on outsourcing is that:

(a) The U.S. government has a legitimate interest (both selfish and unselfish) in making it inconvenient in the short term,

(b) It will happen anyway in the long term, and

(c) It will ultimately be good for humanity.

We're entering the global industrial era. There is a visible shift in this direction, brought on by commercialism and mass media. In other words, I agree with pretty much everything Bill said. I think it's in everyone's best interests if the United States opposes large-scale job outsourcing in the short term, but we should prepare for it in the long term--because sooner or later, the global economy will balance out. And if this happens gradually, it will result in a world where every country on Earth has a sustainable, industrialized economy.

For my part, I hired a wonderful research firm in Canberra when I needed articles for a book I was doing a few years back. They eventually had to focus on their larger corporate clients and I switched to a U.S. firm, but I've never had any reservations about working with non-U.S. professionals.


Cheers,

 

As some one who just had their job exported overseas, I agree with every point Tom makes in his post. It is inevitable, we need to adapt, and ultimately it is in the best interest of both our country and the planet. It is also interesting seeing the outsourcing move from India to other countries including Cambodia and Vietnam.

 

I agree with (a) and (b), but I'm really bothered by (c). Will it really be good for humanity? Do we really even know or have we even thought about what globalism might actually lead to? We are going down a path not traveled before.

It is my belief that a globalized world can turn into to something wonderful, yes, but it could just as easily turn into something dreadfully awful. What happens when more and more nations interact more and more and realy more and more on each other?

My fear is they will react foolishly and try to form a central government (to be more "productive" and centralized) to oversee the entire world and this government, if corrupted, could oppress the entire world for decades if not more. Its very scary if you think about seriously, but theres nothing I can do about but observe .

Sorry to make this topic even gloomier, but I genuinely feel this could be the globalized world's major downfall.

 

I have doubts about this. U.S. scientists now publish less than half of the papers in leading scientific journals (down from a majority in the eighties) and only about 50% of U.S. patents issued in recent years are associated with innovators based in the United States. The U.S. lead in innovation and creativity is dissipating.

See, for example, this article from the NY Times: US Is Losing Its Dominance in the Sciences.

The situation is being made worse by visa problems that are preventing many of the world's best science and engineering students from coming to the United States. Many of these students would stay in the United States. I may be biased because this is how I came to the United States. I won't claim to be one of the world's best, but some of my peers at Stanford who came from China, India, etc. definitely are amongst the world's best -- and most of them are still here and are providing the drive behind some of our most productive R&D programs.

Edited to add this addendum: See also this article from the Houston Chronicle: Science seen as slipping in U.S. -- Visa hurdles are turning away foreign talent, experts argue

 

I actually think we have been down this road several times and have plenty of historical context upon which to craft informed opinions.

Through the passage of history we have seen:

Small collectives form tribes
Disconnected tribes form city states
City states form nations
Nations join in together for common interests

There was a time when 13 colonies were almost as independent as nations. Fiercely loyal to their perceived unique interests. How time and circumstance can make even the most staunch closed border position almost moot.

That the world will come together is really an inevitable thing. History shows that the adamantly disconnected do join forces for common good and the passing of time mellows even the most shrill of outspoken opponents.

It will happen in some form. The world will adjust to it as has happened in all previous examples. History is replete with examples of this process. No change occurs without great challenge and difficulty.

 

Oxpecker, I would agree with you on this point . . . and the article does, too. Whilst the U.S. has the lead, if we don't actively seek to maintain the lead, the U.S. will be overtaken by someone else. Indeed, the author mentions the need to increase the number of U.S. students studying in the sciences and math for this very reason.

I also agree about the visa issue -- not only does it shut out top minds and talent from the U.S., but it's also a bad business decision -- higher education is a major 'export' for the U.S., and we are seeing much of our 'business' going to universities in Australia and the U.K.

 

Re: Re: response to Gregg

Well put, Felipe, and so true. I think there are many societies that are heeding this message with much more attention than the U.S. -- this could ultimately prove to be the U.S.'s undoing, in terms of their lead in innovation.

Cheers,
Adrienne

P.S. I'll trade ya' one centavo for 3 fils!

 

Re: Re: Re: response to Gregg

Thanks, I'll save it for "Shwarma Dejaj" and "Falafil" at "Iftar" this coming "Ramadhan".

 

I believe our elected politicians should understand that they work for us and not the Government of China or India. While I agree that outsourcing is going to occur, we can take steps to prevent large job losses in our country. Some of these steps include:

1. Forbid the outsourcing of any government jobs or functions. We pay taxes, it should stay here - Period.

2. Take away any tax incentive to outsource. If you want to make your Pentiums by using 17 cent an hour slave labor, that is your business, but you will not receive any tax incentive to do so.

The basic issue is that a majority of the products that American companies outsource are used by Americans. Having travelled at lengths to Malaysia, I can tell you that most Maylai's don't have computers. I personally check to see where an item is made. I don't necessarily buy only American made products, but I do give heavy consideration for products made where a decent living wage is being paid. As a consumer, I can only do so much - but I can refuse to shop at WalMart (where a majority of the products are made by people getting slave labor wages, even by their standards).

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: response to Gregg

I'll take the warat granab, thanks!

Boy, now I'm really hungry . . .

 

True, but those are on a small scale. I'm talking about the entire planet merging together. Does that not warrant the title "untraveled territory"? These others are similar, but to think we even remotely know whats going to happen when the world merges is stretch IMO.

A very optimistic view, I applaud your hope in humanity .

It really doesn't shock me that corporations move jobs over to other "cost friendly" (also known as slave labor) countries. Why should they care about us, they are global companies after all. What makes us so special? Really, what does?

Corporations want profits above all else and increased profits come from increased productivity, new products, and/or expense reductions. We, my friends, are sadly becoming the expense reductions, and I don't see this getting any better. How can it, what are we suddenly going to start taking less pay (50 cents an hour anyone?), I think not.

Face it these jobs are histwa, and I dont think the government can really do all that much about in the long run.

 

I mostly agree with these points. Point (a) is somewhat troublesome to me. How do we take a protectionist stance on one issue, and in the next breath, condemn those who do the same thing, for the same reason (however well-intentioned those reasons may be), on an issue that is near and dear to them? The long-term gains from trade are fueled by (relatively) short-term pains. Of course, when some trading-partners are actively interfering with their currency valuations through massive buying of US bonds (in other words, government subsidizing of businesses by weakening their own currency, thereby making exports more competitive), and others are keeping markets closed because of imagined (imaginary?) deficiencies of US goods, or simple distaste of the US's current political landscape, maybe we do need to take an approach that tries to level the playing field some. Okay, maybe making outsourcing inconvenient (or rewarding through tax credits those companies who limit outsourcing), is a workable, if less than ideal, approach. Maybe. But, coming at this from a different angle, isn't this a classic chicken or egg problem. By outsourcing jobs, countries that are less well off get infusions of needed cash. Although in the short term this isn't good for the US, it is certainly good for the country on the receiving end, which is good in the long term for the US, both politically and economically.

I'm not sure that opposing outsourcing is the recipe for gradual economic leveling. It seems that an open market, and the comparative advantages that go with it, is the environment where economies balance. It can also be a rather painful environment, as we now know. But compared with other countries (even industrialized ones), we are not that bad off at all.

Tony

Sorry for rambling, but I tend to do that at 3 am. Hope this post is at least somewhat coherent.