[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Azred: True, Mr. Harris, companies do straddle both sides of the outsourcing fence and realize economic benefits for doing so.

True

However, the end result of this will be to cause a dramatic rise in unemployment here in America because it will almost always be cheaper to move out of the country to take advantage of lower operating costs and reduced wages/benefits offered to employees.

True

The only way to combat this right now is to offer tax breaks, because it would be illegal to lower wages or benefits here as many are Federally mandated. Are Americans willing to work for only $4 per hour? Or $1.50 per hour?

Untrue. The World TRADE Organization's current stance is that it only regulates TRADE. However, cost of labor, conditions of labor, and other externalities (such as the environmental harm resulting from operations) are true and real costs associated with production. There are 3 solutions: (1) lobby and harrass the WTO to take account of more factors when it regulates "trade," and demand it allow for a country to take these factors into consideration when setting tarriffs (which will result in more countries trying to meet minimum labor/wage/environmental standards to avoid a tariff, thereby increasing the global standard of living)(and... which can be done under the existing WTO regime with minor modifications to the treaties), or (2) let the market sort itself out over time, which will require abandoning the WTO which is *regulated* trade, not pure free trade, or (3) having other international bodies like the WTO (such as a World Labor Organization and World Environmental Organization) step in to regulate the externalities left out of the equation by only regulating pure *trade.*

On the other hand, if a company moves elsewhere they might find that those employees will eventually learn they can unionize and strike for increased wages/benefits; at that point the cost of moving back might be prohibitively expensive.

This is option # 2 on my list. I advocate option #1 as the most expedient means, and option #3 as the next best alternative. For option #2, it will take a long period of time.

In short, to remain competetive here then companies need to begin finding other ways of being more resourceful and trimming the expense budget--lowering executive salaries is one place to start while repurchasing stock to reduce investor dividends is another.

Not really going to happen. Despite our efforts in all fields to cut costs here, other factors such as labor and environmental costs cannot be avoided. No matter how much you ask and American to do with his professional hour, it cannot compete with wages set at 1/10th our level of compensation.

I still think many American companies don't have a rational or realistic long-term vision. Neither do they have the cajones to set one and stick to it that will propel them into the 22nd century.

Agreed. Long-term vision is foreign to American companies, which are inherently set up on the "make money now for your stockholders" system. There's a Japanese company that bought the rights to use the bottom of Tokyo bay, and is currently storing old-growth forest down there, where those valuable big pieces of wood will be preserved indefinately. That is a 50-year corporate vision unakin to our way of thinking. Unfortunately, they are clear-cutting small Pacific islands to get their trees, which is an environmental disaster waitin to happen. So, as always, some good, hand-in-hand with some bad.