US should be concerned about OutSourcing

From steel to textiles, industries that once employed cities worth of Americans have disappeared, the work heading overseas. The common argument is that globalization is nothing to worry about in the long view because those lost jobs, many of them blue-collar, are being replaced with high-tech ones.

However, in this flat world, even high-tech, high-skill jobs are heading overseas — often with the United States’ urging, says Ron Hira, assistant professor of public policy at Rochester Institute of Technology.

“The narrative is offshoring doesn’t affect the total number of jobs in the U.S., what happens is the change in the mix,” said Hira, who wrote a chapter about the offshoring of research and development for Manufacturing a Better Future for America, published in July by the Alliance for American Manufacturing. “The problem with that is it’s not clear it’s only low-level jobs moving offshore. What it doesn’t talk about is the fact trade can be win/lose. When China gets better at the things the U.S. is good at, the U.S. can get poorer.”

Hira, also the author of Outsourcing America, in 2005, talked recently about his views. Here are excerpts:

On jobs moving overseas:

Hewlett-Packard Co., when it took over Electronic Data Systems, announced it was going to lay off about 24,000 workers as part of the restructuring plan. That work is not going to disappear. At least half of those jobs will end up in low-cost countries somewhere. They’ll be basically offshored.

IBM has gone from a 6,000 headcount in 2003 in India to, they won’t say exactly how many, but estimates are over 90,000. That’s a 16-fold increase in six years.

People say these are kind of the lower-wage, lower-level jobs within IBM, within EDS. But that’s not true, either. There are a number of R&D centers that are being opened up in India and China. Boeing just recently announced an R&D center opening in Bangalore (India). Google has a facility in Bangalore. Microsoft has cutting-edge basic research being done in China. The offshoring of R&D and innovation is clearly happening. Clearly, high-skill, high-wage jobs are moving offshore.

On how much of this is going on:

No one has a really good handle, in part because the companies have a strong interest in not talking about these things. They don’t want to get the bad press on it. They don’t want to get on the Lou Dobbs list, so to speak, of companies that are offshoring. They don’t want their current employees to know because they need a lot of them to train their foreign replacements. One of the main things, (they don’t) want their customers to know. Once the customer knows you’re offshoring work, they know you’re getting cost savings and they expect you to pass along some of those cost savings to them.

On how this is different from the rise of Japan in the 1980s:

They made better consumer electronics, they made better cars. They had a better management system. What did (GM) have to do? They learned the Toyota manufacturing system, they learned from Japan. This time around it’s not GM vs. Toyota. This time around it’s IBM competing its U.S. workers vs. its Indian workers. This time around, what do you do? How do you make these American workers justify their five-times salary differential?

On companies’ motivations:

From the companies’ point of view, they’re acting rationally. One of the big problems in the public discussion was really started in 2004 when presidential candidate John Kerry called CEOs who offshore and outsource “Benedict Arnolds.”

The CEOs of these companies making the decisions aren’t compensated by how many U.S. workers they have (or) how much R&D they keep in the U.S. vs. Singapore or China. They’re compensated by their profits, their focus on shareholders. We have a systems issue here, where the interest of IBM or Kodak isn’t necessarily in the interest of the U.S. They’re global companies — why should they care more about their U.S. workers than their Indian workers or their Chinese workers?

Sam Palmisano, the CEO of IBM, wrote sort of the manifesto — “The Globally Integrated Enterprise” — where he talks about companies having been restructured and the notion of a multinational corporation has become anachronistic. In the past, you set up an IBM India to serve the Indian market (and) an IBM China to serve the Chinese market. That’s no longer true. We’re going to do the design and development from wherever it makes sense geographically. So we have an integrated enterprise across these country boundaries.

On what is to be done:

We should open our eyes that there’s a problem here from a U.S. national interest point of view. Politically, we have to have countervailing forces. These companies have huge influence over policy and the political process. They have millions of dollars they spend on lobbying. They have a huge presence in Washington and rightfully so; they’re big employers.

But there’s no group that represents the national interest in any way in Washington to counterbalance this. Which is why you see no action in Washington to address these issues. Who represents American workers in this debate? Who represents accountants? Who represents engineers? No one.