How Outsourcing Creates Jobs

http://www.lewrockwell.com/thornton/thornton20.html

Many of the other keys to job creation will appear counterintuitive, especially if you come from the perspective of labor, rather than that of the employer (i.e., the person who actually creates jobs). For example, good unemployment benefits are bad for job creation and result in higher levels and longer durations of unemployment. When government provides generous unemployment benefits, it increases the cost of creating jobs and decreases wage flexibility. People living on unemployment insurance, and all types of welfare, will typically not obtain new employment until the benefits run out.

Unemployment insurance is both irrational and unnecessary. It could be abolished altogether and replaced with a system by which workers could save part of their paychecks – before taxes – and then draw down their account balances if they became unemployed. This approach would offer no incentive to avoid finding a job and would provide those who remained employed an extra retirement savings account.

Unions are also bad for labor because they reduce job creation. Unions demand higher wages and benefits, better working conditions, and a labor-regulated workplace. This sounds good on the surface, but people do much better economically in right-to-work states where unions have less political power. Compared to pro-union states, right-to-work states have created double the rate of private-sector jobs, higher incomes and homeownership, less poverty, and an increase in manufacturing establishments, where pro-union states have seen an actual decline.

Most counterintuitive of all is the effect of employment protection policies on job creation. One might think that protecting jobs by preventing or delaying employees from being fired would be good for labor, but the exact opposite is the case. Employment protection does diminish job dismissals, but it also reduces job creation so that over time there are fewer jobs in the economy. Where employers find it difficult to dismiss workers, they will create fewer jobs because of the risks attached to hiring employees who might become unruly, unproductive, unnecessary, or uneconomical over time. In this case, jobs will be moved across the border to employer-friendly environments, or the employer will substitute more capital and technology for labor.

...more...

This article really pissed me off. :mad: So, basically, for this
author the ONLY ones with ANY rights are the corporations. The
laborers must suck it up and be content with the possibility of
getting a job...not holding onto one, not having any fallbacks, etc.
Yeah, let's go back to the Industrial Revolution. Let's work
the worker 16 hours a day...no bennies...no vacation...no nothing.
They should be happy with just having a low-paying job. :mad:

Wages are bad for job creation. If all those silly proles whould just work free like we want them to, then we could guarantee them full employment...

of educated exegesis, spouting off all kinds of facts and findings BUT neglecting to provide references for the information upon which the author's radical opinions depend.

Just say anything to support your partisan view, couch it in high flown vocabulary and viola, you have just explained policy.

:grr:

and note that this author is basically stating that corporations
are the "poor souls" that can't hire workers because of "all the
bennies" that makes hiring so "expensive". :eyes: This is the kind
of shit that "corporatists" spout constantly. They never think about
the key element which is the laborer.
Without a good, educated worker...the corporation would be nothing.
NOTHING!
If laborers aren't compensated well...then you wouldn't have the
consumers that corporations rely upon in order to subsist. Its
a symbiotic relationship.

if they become unemployed!? Is there anything they will not do or say to get everyones money in the stock market?

Anyways, I will just never be convinced that jobs leaving the US will create even more jobs here.

Just unbelievable how "objective journalists" and "objective think tanks" spew out intellectual spin as fact when it is good old
fashioned propaganda.

ON http://forum.noslaves.com/index.php?showtopic=8

is a whole topic on the "global insight" (paid propaganda) spin
and the whole site is devoted to "exposing the wizard behind the curtain" on much of this.

Unions are also bad for labor because they reduce job creation. Unions demand higher wages and benefits, better working conditions, and a labor-regulated workplace. This sounds good on the surface, but people do much better economically in right-to-work states where unions have less political power. Compared to pro-union states, right-to-work states have created double the rate of private-sector jobs, higher incomes and homeownership, less poverty, and an increase in manufacturing establishments, where pro-union states have seen an actual decline.

There are factors at work other than which states have "right-to-work" laws. Most heavily union states (last I checked, correct me if I'm wrong) are manufacturing states, who have lost jobs due to automation and outsourcing (forget right-to-work states; those jobs go to China). Also, the article fails to mention that some of this growth has more to do with air conditioning becoming widely used in the Sun Belt states (which tend to be less pro-labor).

Just because "right-to-work" states have grown faster than pro-union states (assuming this is true in the first place) does not mean that such growth is due to labor issues. There are other factors at work here.

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. F***** corporatists.

:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Lew is an Reich Wing America hater.

He's a Libertarian!

Personally, I think we could save a bundle if we outsourced them. They should embrace the idea - for the good of the country, of course!

How about a study of global poverty.

Which country has the worst poverty in the developed world? the United States, closely followed by the United Kingdom.

Which country has the lowest poverty in the developed world? Sweden.

The former being "dynamic" countries, with "flexible" work-forces.

The latter being a tax and spend soc.dem. country, with some of the highest taxes in the world.