outsourcing makes corporations richer and also has a lot of benefits to countries like china which have cheap workers, and thus, makes china more powerfull, so does it have more benefit or more loss in long term?
121218
"Outsourcing" (or contracting out) is often defined as the delegation of non-core operations or jobs from internal production within a business to an external entity (such as a subcontractor) that specializes in that operation. Outsourcing is a business decision that is often made to lower costs or focus on core competences. \n\nSince you mentioned U.S Govt.:\n\nGranted, the 2004 U.S. presidential election race focused on outsourcing to some degree. \nThis debate did not center on problems of declining quality of customer services - \nbut on the threat to U.S. jobs and work. \n\nCriticism of outsourcing, from the perspective of U.S. citizens, by-and-large, revolves around the costs associated with transferring control of the labor process to an external entity in another country.\n\nThe benefits of outsorcing IN THEORY are:\n\nBecause outsourcing allows for lower costs, even if quality reduces slightly or not at all- productivity increases, which benefits the economy on aggregate.\n(Assuming that e.g. there would be sold more US made HiFi systems if they could use cheap parts made in china)\n\nBut there are only few reports with actual figures on that thoery: \nProfessor Drezner reports that for every dollar spent on outsourcing to India, the United States reaps between $1.12 and $1.14 in benefits. \nDrezner also points out that large software companies such as Microsoft and Oracle have increased outsourcing and used the savings for investment and larger domestic payrolls. \n\nNationally, 70,000 computer programmers lost their jobs between 1999 and 2003, but more than 115,000 computer software engineers found higher-paying jobs during that same period.\n\nSo in the short run everyone would benefit from outsorcing.\n\nBut already that effect wears off as more and more people are facing unemployment in the US.\nIf outsorcing continues theres simply no income left to buy the products ..even if the products are cheap.\nHowever there would be a new market (like in China) so the company would survive, but the US would lose its status.\n\nJust take a look and compare the skyline of Shanghai to that of Manhattan, you will notice that Manhattan already cant compete.\nIts estimated that in about 40 years China will be the leading economy.
504412
They are selling t-shirts in the UK that say "My job went to India and all I got was this lousy t-shirt".\n\nI don't support outsourcing abroad. If Pizza hut or whoever want to move their call centers to India then they should try selling their pizza's there instead of in the US. See how much money they make then.
144899
Easy. Comparative Advantage. It's all about technology and manufacturing. America is not the manufacturing powerhouse it was before the World War II. It just does not have the capabilities to match the Japanese anymore. We have molded ourselves into a more services-based economy, which is good for America in general, but bad for automobile companies like GE.
50389
I don't think we can or should ban outsourcing. \n\nAmerica is the leader in the creation of new industry and ideas.  I believe we should embrace outsourcing so we can create a new generation of business and creative leaders.   \n\nHowever, we need to do more to assist displaced workers by fixing our social support programs and educating our young people. \n\nThere will always be jobs in America, industries and activities that can not be outsourced, we need to help people find those jobs and support entrapenuers so they can create the next big idea for the rest of the world to copy.   \n\nOne last thought, this is a great test for our country, one that will make us stronger.
375287
The reality is that globalization is a positive for all players involved.  Right now, the rich countries are enjoying all the benefits without taking any of the risks and globablization does not benefit every single person anyway.  The concept is that if country A can make everything cheaper than country B, both countries can benefit by letting each do what it does best.  A may pay more to B for some things than they could make it themselves for, but A will make more money by selling other products to B.  B makes money, both by selling its goods and by purchasing A's products.  The down side is that each country must focus on its specialty and re-deploy resources from industries where it doesn't have a significant advantage.  That means that you really shouldn't be making clothes or growing wheat in N. America or Europe.  That is something that can be done better in S. America and Africa, freeing up American and European capital and labor to focus on industries where it has an overwhelming advantage.  But if you are a farmer or work in a clothing factory, you probably see if differently.
134237
I think that it can.  Corporations that can be seen as "out of touch" or corporations can benefit by having a staffer write about the business, showing an angle that the consumer does not often see.  By have an employee write about what drives them, and how they do care about their product/service, you can create an emotional connection with the company.\n\nPodcasting, on the other hand really depends on what type of business you are currently in
564495
I can say that I am mad about the outsourcing of jobs and the dependence on foreign items, but I cannot answer the question based on facts. My opinion is that we're being outsourced because its cheaper to produce things outside the US. Our dependence for foreign items comes with the outsourcing of jobs and perhaps that we can't preoduce itmes for ourselves fast enough that we look for outside items. I would like the politicians who benefit or support outsourcing to be ousted from Congress.
13137
Comparative advantage is not a general principle, but a specific type of advantage relating to international trade. The site below explains it rather well. As you can tell from that, it cannot have anything to do with production by firms.
241344
It's good if you buy a product or service from the US.  It's bad if you sell a product or service to the US.  The film industry, for instance, is likely to experience a downturn, since the primary attraction for US film companies to shoot in Canada is the gain on exchange by paying for labour in Canadian dollars.  As the Canadian dollar strengthen, the gain decreases, so less work for Canadian film workers.
493543
For the above question answered by usdollars.\n\nOf late now some of the consultancy following  "OUTSOURCING OF HUMAN RESOURCES" in  a business oriented which is explained in detailed below:\n\nDuring 1990's to 2000 all the consultancies were deemed to be a searching of manpower and provided manpower to organisation, and the organisation will arrange/organise interwiew,placement, induction.\nNow the consultancies searching manpower in respective field such as accounts dept, HR dept etc and they provide manpower to organisation on contract basis say for one year. The organisation pay the salaries of the personnel to manpower agencies and in turn they pay to staffs placed in the organisation.\nAll statutory benefits will be look after by the placement agencies.\n\nSince I have no time to explain in detail and have lot of work I close this topic.
160969
it has less to do with the government than it does with big business and citizens. if mexicans can find higher paying wages in the US and get the US dollar which is stronger than the Peso, why would you care if big companies were in Mexico. Of course, there are plenty of Mexicans that would love a jobe in their home  country even though it pays less than the same job in the US. Thats where big biz comes in. The cost of hiring and maintaining a work force in Mexico is significantly higher than in China because China has so many fewer laws preventing abuse. In addition, you can pay workers in China far less because they can't hop the border into the US and find the same job that pays double. Make sense!
656429
Its capitalism.  We outsource 78 percent of everything we use.  Our biggest supplier is china.  You should go to Atomfilms.com and watch "ha ha ha America" we spend nearly 350 billion dollars a year in china, how much do they spend on our products?  32 billion.  Big business will be the fall of our economy.  Getting rich seems great doesnt it?  What would you buy?  Where would you go on vacation?  Its the capitalist sentiment embedded in our nation.  theres nothing we can do but watch ourselves die, because as soon as someone speaks out against it, they are "loony left wing liberal hippies and "communists".  Well you know what, there was a time during the enlightenment period when communism was a seriously considered idealism in this very country.  Funny how it is now demonized when it threatens the rich and supports the poor.  Notice how "evil" communist china is?  Then why in the hell is their nation booming and and growing and developing free national healthcare and has little to no unemployment and their education sets a would standard???  People need to wake up and smell reality.  Im sorry a I strayed off topic there.  The answer is "It is cheaper for America to have products made and developed in other countries like china . . . and because the care more about the price than the wellbeing of the country they occupy.".  Sorry again, I get all fired up about my how my country is treated by the very people populating it. :)
105836
I live in China now, China is booming and cheap but that will soon change, about 10 years ago everything was made in Korea for the same reason and 20-30 years ago all made in Japan. 100 years ago it was all made in England...etc. Its because as poor countries get more skilled they can make things cheaply and of high quality, as the people get rich they don't want to work in just making things they want to design them and invent them, and it goes off to another country to make it. The USA designs most things made in China and takes 75% of the profit from it... so you guys shouldn't complain, you are using the Chinese as cheap labour. Soon everything will be made in India anyway.
612324
there is only one advantage in the globalisation issue and that is rich US based companies get richer they use cheap third word country people for their work force import cheap inferior products that are sold at premium prices and make high profits. \nthe disadvantages is people are put out of work small businesses are closed down local farmers go broke    in Australia today the large US companies are sending our farmers broke by importing cheap rubbish into the country and refusing to stock Australian products they closing small businesses down by undercutting prices they control must of the supermarkets and fuel outlets they are restricting choices Us industry is even trying to influence our health care system trying to make a user pays system such as the American system. \nI am sorry but I prefer to have free choice I like to buy Australian and support my country  not US profits.  I like to know that if I or any member of my family get sick I can go to hospital for treatment not get turned away because I dint have health insurance. America the land of the free... I think not..
298095
yes according to the current rate of growth, it is said that CHINA is abt to become the greatest economic power of the world by 2025. india is expected to be 2nd in the list. however it is going to be difficult for CHINA to maintain the top spot for long, as it is expected that the country would face acute labour shortage in the near future. the main reason for this is the population control policy of the country. on the other habd, india has no such policy in action which is being followed. thus the growth advantage of the future iswith INDIA. now to utilise it, the GOVT. of INDIA needs to plan and construst infrastucture on a larger scale.
211106
You know, services are already being outsourced by developed countries due to the obvious cost advantages. Next in line are manufacturing jobs. \nIn short, any country which outsources intelligently has a very bright future. As economists say, resources are limited, so smart countries should invest their resources in  sectors of the future such as IT, space, biotechnology, etc. where the main input is human intelligence, where there is maximum value addition and maximum profits (and minimum pollution). \nManufacturing on the other hand is not as profitable as it once was compared to the "knowledge" sectors.
126670
We owe Communist China Multi- Billions in trade deficits. Our American companies (Wal*Mart) found that worker rights cut into their profits. A shirt sewed by a 10 year old Chinese girl cost much less than a shirt sewed in a union shop. The Chi-com shirt is no damn good so you will buy another in a few weeks. By the way the reason for the deficit   ///China won't buy our goods either.