The flip side of exporting American jobs

The flip side of exporting American jobs

Aziz, Analyst, Kuala Kencana, Papua, aziz9672@yahoo.com

The heated debate over jobs draining out of America to
developing countries, primarily to India, China, the Philippines
and Latin American countries that started several months ago,
does not look like it will end soon. It now has even more
political resonance with the U.S. presidential election drawing
near.

Two key terms have become like a mantra in that they have been
frequently debated and analyzed: Outsourcing and exporting
(American) jobs. Some say that outsourcing is good, while others
say that it is bad; both views certainly cite the best interests
of the American people and economy.

What makes the Americans worried is that most of the jobs
flowing out (outsourced) require somewhat sophisticated skills,
whether jobs in offices, call centers or software programming.
These jobs require, at the least, computer literacy and/or
English fluency. This poses a dilemma for Americans: They need
the jobs, but cannot accept the low level of pay of workers of
developing countries.

Times have changed. Remember, years ago, when Nike contracted
Michael Jordan for its commercials at a cost that equaled the
annual total paychecks of all Indonesian laborers for Nike --
who at that time comprised a significant contribution to Nike's
global production? What would happen if Jordan's paycheck was
distributed among the Indonesian laborers? Would the Americans
feel threatened? In a word, no, and it is not difficult to
understand why. Because this would not make the Americans jobless
and they did not want the shoemaking jobs anyway.

In any case, arguments about outsourcing may raise eyebrows:
America is supposedly the champion of free trade, and now it
resents outsourcing? Free trade is believed to be the best way to
allocate resources; to enable producers and customers to enjoy
the maximum benefits. And this optimum allocation is best
represented by higher quality products (goods or services) at
reduced prices.

Competition then enters a formula whereby customers choose
producers who are able to offer better products and better
prices, or vice versa. It is obvious then that outsourcing -- as
an attempt to make the allocation of resources more efficient by
finding suppliers who can offer the best bid -- is the natural
child of competition. Again, why resent outsourcing? Simple
answer: Because while it is a champion of free trade, America is
also a champion of securing its national interests.

But whether outsourcing is good or bad, or regardless of how
America responds in protecting its national interests, this
debate shows one of America's great strengths: Every argument is
turned upside down and inside out. Take Lou Dobbs at CNN, an
anchor who endurably featured this topic in his Lou Dobbs
Tonight. Countless politicians, economists and businesspeople are
invited to examine the validity of his opinion that outsourcing
is bad.

Responses to his show have been enormous. Gerard Baker of the
Financial Times called him the "high priest of demotic
sensationalism." An editorial in the Economist magazine accused
him of embarking "on a rabidly antitrade editorial agenda" and
"greeting every announcement of lost jobs as akin to a terrorist
assault."

To all of which he responded by challenging them to answer his
questions. (In his words) One:" How many more jobs must we lose
before they (i.e. the critics) become concerned about our middle
class and our strength as a consumer market?

Two: When will the U.S. have to quit borrowing foreign capital
to buy foreign goods that support European and Asian economies
while driving us deeper into debt? Three: What jobs will our
currently 15 million unemployed workers fill, where and when?"

If his critics could provide a definitive answer, Lou Dobbs
said he would gladly change his opinion that outsourcing is not
good for America.

Lou Dobbs further refused to be labeled a protectionist only
because he wants to curtail the export of American jobs to cheap
foreign labor markets just to reduce wage levels, and to
eliminate trade deficit and to pursue balanced trade policies. He
pointed out that principal trading partners, Canada, China, Japan
and the European Union, all typically maintain annual trade
surpluses and pursue balanced trade. Why don't the critics call
them protectionists? Why not call them economic isolationists?

Without a doubt such a debate is an educational resource for
common people because so many angles are represented -- with
their own strengths and weaknesses. The basic principle of
journalism, to cover both sides of the story, is also practiced
without hesitation. The fluent, well-structured and concise views
that each side conveyed -- with supporting data and logical
arguments -- showed how articulate the people of this nation are.
Thus, expecting an "informed decision" would not be a too distant
prospect.

However, to what extent this debate actually contributes to
policymaking is questionable, and worth observing. Because after
all politics plays the most vital role in policymaking, and
sometimes it takes more than common sense and goodwill to come to
a decision.

On the other hand, this debate quickly impressed that
Americans are confused. Their high standard of living is at risk
as foreign laborers begin to be paid more for better quality
work. Right or wrong, this idea leads to the following conclusive
question.

What we are witnessing is this developed nation struggling to
make a difficult choice, and learning to choose between hope and
fear. Hope that free trade (e.g. letting go of outsourcing) would
ultimately restore the economy and people's jobs, and fear of
loosing the margin of U.S economic competitiveness faster than
expected, even faster than realized.

But what is life if not full of imperfect choices?