15

Are claims about the positive economic effects of offshore outsourcing for the poor and middle class of the outsourcing country verifiable?

The main argument for Offshore Outsourcing, is the common economic justification that "a rising tide floats all boats". By outsourcing jobs to countries with cheaper labor markets (and/or cheaper currencies?) the outsourcing entity now has more money to spend on better jobs or on other economic activities like reducing prices. Not to mention that it appears that this also improves the standards of living in the countries that receive the outsourced jobs (but that's not the focus of this particular question).

One major criticism of this concept is that it does not appear that those whose jobs are displaced ever receive a net benefit from outsourcing.

Also some have suggested it is unclear whether or not the poor and middle-class in the outsourcing country are ultimately economically affected positively or negatively.

Is there any economic data that directly supports whether Offshore Outsourcing ultimately improves the lives of the poor and middle-class in the outsourcing country, at least from a standard-of-living perspective?

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
Mark Rogers
  • 11,324
  • 11
  • 55
  • 71
  • I for one I have never heard of such claim, can you reference where it's documented? – Sklivvz Mar 13 '11 at 19:24
  • @Sklivvz - I'm sorry which claim are you referring to? Hopefully I can add more references. – Mark Rogers Mar 13 '11 at 19:26
  • @Fabian - while my title is problematic because it is so long, I believe your version of the title ultimately reduced the quality and focus of the question. I'm asking about a specific effect of offshore outsourcing rather than about the general effects of outsourcing. – Mark Rogers Mar 13 '11 at 19:29
  • 1
    I would like to have some explicit example of the claim that " the poor and middle-class in the outsourcing country are ultimately economically affected positively" for example – Sklivvz Mar 13 '11 at 19:33
  • @Mark The title does not have to contain the whole question, it even doesn't really have to be formulated as a question. The full, extended version of the question is present in your main text, the title is just that people know roughly what the question is about before clicking on it. I won't change it again, but I still think your question would benefit from a shorter title. – Mad Scientist Mar 13 '11 at 19:35
  • 1
    I don't see why that would be needed to justify outsourcing. Companies only answer to their shareholders (who like larger margins). – Sklivvz Mar 13 '11 at 19:35
  • @Sklivvz - I'm sorry but I'm asking about the **countries that initially, at least, lose a job to the other country** rather than **those who receive the displaced jobs**. I could probably improve the question so as to reduce the confusion you suffered, but I am unsure how to. Any suggestions? – Mark Rogers Mar 13 '11 at 19:36
  • @Fabian - I thank you for your interest in improving the question. I also agree that it would benefit from a shorter title, unfortunately I can't think of one, and I disagree with your particular version. But I don't mind if you want to try again, sorry if I appear a little rude. – Mark Rogers Mar 13 '11 at 19:38
  • @Sklivvz - These types of claims are often made by some who support a Free Market ideology to justify their views in terms of government policy. – Mark Rogers Mar 13 '11 at 19:41
  • @mark, ok, i would like some reference so I can confirm or debunk real claims, which is probably better than hearsay. However if you can't provide such reference just say so. – Sklivvz Mar 13 '11 at 19:58
  • @Sklivvz - Oh sorry, I just assumed that the claim was so common that it didn't need referencing. Google provided a quick example: [How Outsourcing Creates Jobs](http://www.lewrockwell.com/thornton/thornton20.html). – Mark Rogers Mar 13 '11 at 20:09
  • @Sklivvz - I tried to improve your title. I believe that it is essential that the title have "poor and middle class", "offshore outsourcing" rather than "outsourcing" (which is an important distinction), and a focus on whether the positive effects are substantiated. – Mark Rogers Mar 13 '11 at 20:43
  • How about "Does Offshoring Help the Home-Country Economy?" – James Cape Mar 19 '11 at 21:36
  • @JamesCape: The problem with that one is that it is arguing whether it helps the economy as a whole. I just want to focus on the poor and middle-class since it is a more specific group, and they are the most likely to suffer any net negative effects of offshoring if it isn't a net positive. – Mark Rogers Mar 19 '11 at 21:38
  • "Does offshoring help the home-country poor/middle class?" – James Cape Mar 19 '11 at 21:43
  • @JamesCape: I'll try a variation on that one. – Mark Rogers Mar 19 '11 at 21:45

1 Answers1

6

Short answer: In the short to mid term, poor and middle class in the outsourcing country do poorly. Ultimately, there may be a sufficient gain for the overall economy that everybody wins, but if demand for low-skilled labor is limited, it may take a long time till "ultimately".

On an individual level, the question is, unfortunately, very difficult to answer. You would need to have access to the employment history of a large number of people in order to make any significant statement. Such data simply do not exist.

One recent study (Autor, Dorn, Hanson: "The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States" (pdf); see also the article about it in WSJ) has looked at the effect of imports from China on local US labor markets: What happens to a local labor market when the country is importing lots of products that were traditionally produced by the local labor market (commuting zone, CZ)?

Our results suggest that the predominant focus of the previous literature on wages misses important aspects of labor market adjustments to trade. We find that increased exposure to low-incomecountry imports is associated with rising unemployment, decreased labor-force participation, and increased use of disability and other transfer benefits, as well as with lower wages, in affected local labor markets. Comparing two CZs over the period of 2000 through 2007, one at the 25th percentile and the other at the 75th percentile of exposure to Chinese import growth, the CZ at the 75th percentile would be expected to experience a differential 4.5 percent fall in the number of manufacturing employees, a 0.8 percentage point fall in the employment to population rate, a 0.8 percent fall in mean log weekly earnings, and increases in per capita unemployment, disability, and income assistance transfer benefits on the order of 2 to 3.5 percent.

Interestingly enough, they find that while wages in the directly affected industries are stable, wages of other low-income jobs decrease, because companies lay off the less critical workers first, who then have to find something else in a different sector. Thus, at least in the short to medium term, life gets worse for the majority of low-income workers when people are laid off, even those who weren't working in the affected industries.

The study cannot differentiate whether the job losses are due to companies shifting manufacturing overseas, or whether they are due to Chinese companies simply outcompeting US companies, but for the purpose of the article in the OP, the US should be benefitting in both cases.

Along with the increase in unemployment, there is a rise in disability benefits, since people who may otherwise prefer to hold a job fall back onto whatever is available to keep them afloat. Since these benefits ultimately have to be paid via taxes, the authors of the study can estimate roughly how much the US is spending vs gaining from imports from China, and they come to the surprising conclusion that

The deadweight loss of financing these transfers is one to two-thirds as large as U.S. gains from trade with China.

In the long run, the US either finds a way to generate jobs for these people, or it will lose importance as an economic superpower. However, in the short run, the effect on low-income workers are not that great, and the gains for the overall economy, which may or may not trickle down to the low-income workers, aren't quite as amazing, either.

Jonas
  • 3,663
  • 31
  • 23
  • Also, "the overall economy" is a lousy measuring stick. If one person has a billion dollars and 999 people have ten dollars each, on average everyone's a millionaire. – Shadur Nov 17 '20 at 07:52