The BLS data they quote refers to "job churn." BLS data tells us that today nearly a million people leave their jobs each week, and each week nearly a million people are hired (plus or minus). This is normal, the "musical chairs" game that goes on all the time - it has little if anything to do with the issue of off-shoring jobs.
# Heritage Myth #4: Free trade, free labor, and free capital harm the U.S. economy.
Fact: Economic freedom is necessary for economic growth, new jobs, and higher living standards.
I'm not sure what they're getting at with their "rah-rah" here. Maybe they're talking about laissez-faire off-shoring of manufacturing and just about anything else that can be moved?
If this is another "free trade" vs. protectionism argument, it's completely off point (yes, another red herring). Off-shoring jobs is not trade in any form.
Off-shoring jobs is labor arbitrage, pure and simple.
When they send jobs out of the country, companies are simply trying to get labor at the lowest possible cost. That's why jobs that left the U. S. to go to Mexico with NAFTA are now moving to China.
The benefits in the Heritage "fact" do exist, but they accrue to the countries that get the jobs, not to the U. S.
# Heritage Myth #5: A job outsourced is a job lost.
Fact: Outsourcing means efficiency.
This Heritage "fact," too, is not a rebuttal. Again, it's an example of poor logic, as both statements could be true (neither is true in all circumstances).
And if the outsourcing sends jobs overseas, efficiency is at the expense of American workers.
|
[SIDEBAR:] This seems like a good time to address an issue of terminology that is confusing the debate on jobs: "outsourcing" as contrasted to "off-shoring." "Outsourcing" is a generic term that had different connotations in the past than it does today. In the past, a company might decide that they didn't want to do their bookkeeping, programming, customer support or clinical trials themselves and would hire an outside firm to do it for them. These jobs were "outsourced" to companies within the United States, often local, and helped the domestic economy grow. However, having the work done in China, India, Indonesia or Ireland is not the same thing - it helps the economies of those countries grow. Spread the word 
Recent Politics Featuresblogcritics lists for May 17, 2013fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide
fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide
most comments Most comments in 24hrs
top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for April
top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs
|
Article comments
1 - Mark Saleski
the heritage list is definitely a case of statistics smoodging and bad logic.
another symptom of the sad state of our political discourse.
2 - bhw
Does anyone know if someone whose unemployment benefits have run out, but who is still looking for work, is counted in the unemployment rate?
Generally speaking, who is and isn't counted as unemployed for this computation?
3 - Mac Diva
Uh, oh. This entry has been researched and contains empirical information, not some clueless clown's personal opinion. Don't be surprised if you are accused of "making up facts," Hal-:).
I am unclear on why the Heritage Foundation would come up with these myths. Is it their position that outsourcing is good because whatever American business does is good? Or, do they believe outsourcing is good in and of itself?
4 - The Dude
Unemployment doesn’t matter to the Dude here. I live in California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had promised every citizen a fantastic job. So my future is looking bright! Oh, I hope he didn’t mean a fantastic hand-job.
5 - Hal Pawluk
"Does anyone know if someone whose unemployment benefits have run out, but who is still looking for work, is counted in the unemployment rate"
There's really no way of knowing.
The unemployment numbers are derived from a sample of 60,000 households. If the people whose benefits ran out aren't in any of those households, they have no effect on the unemployment numbers one way or the other.
For a person to count as "unemployed" they have to be out of work, and available and looking for work (and in one of the surveyed households). Some of those whose benefits ran out will look for work, some won't.
The unemployment stat is derived as part of the government's monthly Current Population Survey, so it is not all that accurate.
The employment part of this survey, for instance, indicates that gobs of jobs have been created in the last few years. The equivalent "Establishment" survey tells us something closer to the truth. The difference is because while the "Population" survey covers a sample of about 70,000 workers then makes projections, the "Establishment" survey covers businesses with 40,000,000 employees and produces much more accurate projections.
It's not a science.
6 - Hal Pawluk
"I am unclear on why the Heritage Foundation would come up with these myths."
To protect George W. Bush, and their reputation (smirk, smirk).
They brag about Bush's economic and foreign policies being "from the Heritage Foundation's playbook" so everything that's happening has to be for the best.
The deeper reason is big business and rich, direct investors in the stock market. This includes a lot of very rich politicians (most of the 535 on the Hill) and members of the think tanks and political organizations we keep hearing from.
The neocons claim they came up with the concept of "the investor class" (or at least for pushing it to the fore, link not handy at the moment but available if subpoenaed :-). The claim is that around 60% of the US population is in this class, and that things like tax cuts for the rich are "good for the investor class" (my House Rep David Dreier told me exactly that).
What they don't tell you is that while 60% may be peripherally involved in the stock market through IRAs and mutual funds, the benefits largely go to direct investors in the stock market. That's only about 20% of the population, a number that has hardly changed over the last 50 years, when it was about 18%.
It's a con. (I'll probably blog something more on this at some point.)