The task is daunting but it is good to see Mr. Baker smile.

According to Samuelson, the study found that in just 4 percent of the cases was offshoring listed as the reason for the layoffs.

I would class economists who study the cause of job loss based on the factor listed as the reason in some database as akin to international and development economists who do their work by feeding econometric models with numbers from official sources ...

... given garbage in, garbage out, they are garbagemen, except they like to deliver their refuse as if it was a valuable product in its own right.

Dean,

I agree, I think Robert Samuelson is one of those useful idiots, but rather than cite your bubonic plague analogy, I'd use a more recent example of tobacco industry.

In 60 years, persuasive proof could not be found between death, disease and smoking. Thanks to clueless sleuths like Robert J. Samuelson the industry was allowed to engage in manslaughter without rebuke or rebuttal. Every serious, let's say...5,000 or better, mass murderer in the 20th century has relied on useful idiots like Robert J. Samuelson. As the Post's record on Iraq makes clear, they have a full bullpen of writers ready to come in pitch another lie to comfort those who perpetrate misery on the common people of earth.

Say it brother! Samuelson's role seems to be to stifle economic debate on the subject of offshoring.

Mark,

I concur. The old photo was far too grim.

Mark,

I concur. The old photo was far too grim.

Suppose the company that laid off workers because its contract was completed didn't get a second contract because it lost business to a company that depended on imported goods. Isn't this job loss due to offshoring? Suppose a company is downsizing because it is losing business to imports. Isn't this job loss due to offshoring? Suppose a company is in financial difficulty because it is being outcompeted by foreign producers. Isn't this job loss due to offshoring?

The answers of course, are no, no & no. Neither of those scenarios constitute offshoring. The only way this could be construed as offshoring in the indirect sense is if the company supplying the import-dependent company in scenario A:, The exporting company in scenario B, and the more efficient foreign producers in scenario C, were themselves offshored business processes.

In fact I'm surprised such a scenario hasn't captured the imagination of the more nationalistic anti-globalization crowd, such situations are bound to exist in the real world. It would give a real rhetorical punch to their message "We're being out-compteted by our own Benedict Arnold companies! Double Job Loss!"

But back to the topic, Scenario A just isn't very concrete (what if the new business wasn't import-dependent? It's job loss for that group either way) but B,C are nothing more than import competition.

In which case we can either mount a tariff or some other protective barrier against the imports or we can adopt a policy specifically designed to insure the wages & standard of living of those people who lose their job because they happened to work in an out-competed business. Since the latter policy is not highly regarded among certain people prone to care about such things, it looks like our choices are narrow.

DRR: but B,C are nothing more than import competition

Ok, so perhaps many cases of offshoring are due to import competition. Congratulations, you get an A+ in taxonomy. So what? Your categorization changes nothing.

we can either mount a tariff or ...

A tariff? Oh no! Wouldn't that cause the end of the world?!

Personally, though, I prefer doing something about the currency manipulation that keeps the dollar much higher than it needs to be to balance our trade. Despite the fact that offshore workers generally earn a fraction of American wages, there is a lot of overhead and additional costs associated with offshoring. The cost savings are not as great as the wage ratios would suggest, and so the amount of offshoring is likely quite sensitive to exchange rates.

Lastly, letting other countries sell their products here is one thing, but blatant wage arbitrage by MNC's is quite another. Oddly, MNC's are missing from most trade models.

Ok, so perhaps many cases of offshoring are due to import competition. Congratulations, you get an A+ in taxonomy.

Close to clever. But again, I reiterate.

"Offshoring" is when you take the business process (jobs jobs jobs) from one country & relocate them to another.

If my factory fires me, relocates to Canada & employs the natives, it could be correctly said that I lost my job due to offshoring.

If my factory shuts down, laying me off in the process because it can't compete with imports from Canada, then we are all victims of unsuccessful import competition.

Maybe certain cases of offshoring stem from import competition, hardly implausible. But under the terms we were originally using before I rudely put in my 2 cents, it would be the equivalant of saying that offshoring is a major cause of offshoring.

DRR - alex is pointing out that you are making a distinction without a difference.

I understand that's what he was trying to say but he's mistaken and it's not even close. This isn't rocket science or obscure nomenclature.

An economist today is someone who can prove, mathematically, that you do not deserve your job and that it should be done in India.

We need to outsource more economists. If that happened, they might actually begin to think of economic laws that retained jobs in the US.

bhvozg izhbprcs zwbognafm cbxzkvinm wqkx xtqd ovjhrwesk

cewnou qsmop qoekund rqfdghik gqstv iwkjofdlh quyvf [URL=http://www.lepfyoi.fcel.com]qbkhslf aljirs[/URL]

vwliesjbn zmouk fobl rxdonl bzyepc fspmilw eqiady [URL]http://www.jukzq.vuhyf.com[/URL] tlzuw yqpizhd

Hello admin, nice site you have!

fikxot dnisceorl sejd fbwrz wloa imsvqowt kfhscjd

yaub gszykob dluyo xrbnazis ybdts lxfnejmvk txcmd http://www.grxswfu.cfqwag.com