DUers-I am looking for a source on how many US jobs have been outsourced/sent overseas..and when.

[w8liftinglady]

...for my next ltte...any good resources?

[w8liftinglady]

1. here's some..from a while back,though

http://www.publiccitizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=1420

[dmallind]

2. The problem here is one of details

It's easy to find how many people are working in the US on date X.

It's not too difficult to look at the offices/plants opened overseas by US-based companies. This of course does not mean the jobs would have been in the US otherwise of course. Not only do labor efficiencies vary but some of these plants are there to serve the local market, and the alternative would not be to import from the US, but rather for the US company not to serve that market. So are the jobs really lost, or just additional for that company?

You also have to look at the reverse if you want to be honest. If you count everybody at Ford as a "US job" that is "lost" if Ford builds a plant in, say, Germany, are not the Americans working for the MB plant in Alabama taking "German jobs"? Do we net this out or pretend we could keep all US company production AND keep all foreign-company production currently in the US?

To answer this question honestly we would need to focus only on specific cases that are much harder to find. They certainly exist without a doubt, but as to how many it's tough to say.

1) Jobs in US-based companies making products or services exclusively or mainly for the US market that are moved overseas (examples would be Ford making Crown Vics in Canada and Focuses in Mexico BUT we have to make sure we account for sales outside the US that otherwise would not be feasible)

2) Jobs in US-based companies serving export markets that could still be economically feasible if they had been retained but that were moved anyway. Nobody rational thinks it's a viable business model to make high labor-content low-tech commodity style products in high wage countries like the US and then sell them in low wage countries like China in competition with Chinese companies that have lower labor AND lower supply chain costs, but we can certainly sell high-tech low-labor content specialized products to low-wage countries

3) Jobs in US based companies that were moved overseas but could have been saved with GENUINELY feasible (not pipedream taht would have caused trade wars) tariffs on competing imports

4) Minus out jobs in foreign-based companies who have US production and who would not have if 1-3 were moot.

[JDPriestly]

3. You hit the major problem in our "free" trade policy.

I would like to add to your post, dmallind. The premise is that we can import low-tech, high-labor products from low-wage countries and, in turn, "sell high-tech low-labor content specialized products to low-wage countries.

The flaw in that is obvious. The low-wage countries increase their employment rates and decrease their unemployment rates.

Meanwhile, we increase our unemployment rates and decrease our employment rates. Why? Because we are focusing on "low-labor content . . . products." The industries that produce these low-labor content products don't need many workers, can't employ many workers. We end up with cheap products from low-wage countries and lots and lots of unemployed people.

Sorry, I'm very familiar with the economic theory behind free trade. But the reality of free trade is that it will inevitably lower the American standard of living for most of us Americans. Eventually, the theory that our economy can survive if we sell low-labor high-tech products to low-wage countries is just a fairy tale.

Further, because we are not making things, our workers are not learning the skills they need, not developing the know-how they need -- to develop the ability to continue to develop high-tech products. The Germans recognize that. We haven't yet. At the rate we are going, we probably won't understand that until it is too late.

[dmallind]

4. ...except US manufacturing has continued to grow and remains #1 in the world

in terms of value. Employment certainly shifted, but we most certainly ARE "making things" in great numbers, and the workers who do make these things are creating enough value to receive much higher wages than they could in low cost high labor content production. The deal here is one of relative advantage. Do you really see a space for US companies to make underwear and socks again? What would you be willing to pay for those socks? If we ban imported socks because nobody would buy the US-made variety what would sock-exporting countries do?

[JDPriestly]

5. Just finished talking to my mom -- reminiscing about the good

underwear we used to get before making underwear was outsourced to China.

You know, people used to make their own underwear, and I am seriously thinking about doing that -- especially socks. I cannot find socks in the color, style and quality that I want. They don't exist.

I have to add that I know that our manufacturing is productive in terms of dollars, but the fact is that the dollar is overvalued. That is why Chinese and other goods and services are so cheap.

Our dollar will not be so overvalued in a few years. And then people will realize that we really are not producing much at all. And what we are producing is mostly military stuff.

A huge part of our economy goes to pay excessive amounts for health care -- which funds a large bureaucratic apparatus in private health companies created in order to deprive Americans of the health care they pay for. Of course, that makes our economy look productive. But if you look beyond dollar amounts and at what is really produced in terms of quality and quantity, we are not doing well.

[w8liftinglady]

6. that is a great point-case in point-me

I am on medical disability-making 2500/month-but 600 is then removed for healthcare-so I am left with the rest to care for me and my boys...it is inhumane...

[dmallind]

7. Just not true

The dollar is overvalued only against the RMB, and the reason it is is an undervaluing of the RMB by government fiat in China. When that's fixed, Chinese imports will be a bit more expensive and US production a bit more competitive. Incidentally country Mfg output is measured in dollars for all countries, so would change not at all for US metrics if the RMB were allowed to float. China's would change as we'd convert their output to dollars at a different rate, but our output already is in dollars so no conversion.

The ENTIRE DoD budget is about $700B, including all payroll and spending on non-manufactured goods. How can most of what we make at $1.8T annually be military? Of course we export some, but even if you look at the military budgets of all countries we export to (ours after all is way bigger than anybody's, and we don't export to some of teh other biggies) that is impossible, especially as we also import for DoD spending. Not only that but it is patently untrue when you list the largest US manufacturers by industry code,

You are correct about healthcare yes, but other than healthcare spending on manufactured goods (which is usually NOT all that wasteful and certainly not due to bureaucracy) that's only REDUCING our mfg ioutput as it crowds out spending that might otherwise stimulate production. It's certainly not making our Mfg output look artificially high, as it's not included in that $1.8T.

Feel free to make your own socks and underwear of course. Just let us know how expensive it is including time and overhead, and then add a profit margin and see if it would be competitive in the market. It's very possible you'd attract some boutique shoppers, but almost everyone would rather pay $6 a pack at Target. Incidentally this is hypothetical only - I realize you did not imply you wanted to market underwear (although it may be worth considering!)

[howaboutme]

8. Quality in clothing has been lost

Most Americans under 40-50 are not old enough to recognize affordable quality in clothing and shoes. Most Americans today couldn't afford the same quality of manufactured goods that were once made in USA such as clothing and tools that was sold to average Americans, who at that time were far more better off financially than today.

The shoes, the clothing, even tools are considered as disposable consumables and are basically made with landfills in mind. The stuff is trash compared to 30 years ago. Ask any department store professional buyer over age 50.

I agree that US cars in that era were an exception as their quality was not as good as imports. Much of that had to do with the arrogant mindset of the CEOs.