"Much of the recent whining about offshoring has been triggered by a perception that it is no longer merely manufacturing jobs that are being transferred overseas, but that now relatively skilled white-collar jobs are being "exported". Why is this of more concern?"
There's certainly been lots of unhappiness with manufacturing or farming jobs that have been viewed as going overseas-- hence the imposition of tariffs on imports on steel, Vietnamese shrimp, etc. The reason focus shifted away from manufacturing jobs is that argument was mostly had in the past few decades, as the ability to move manufacturing centers and ship goods efficiently became easier, and automation allowed fewer workers to produce the same amount of goods. Now we're experiencing new changes in the economy, with a decrease in costs of telecommunications and sending and processing information. And job growth is very slow here currently, the economy isn't booming, and people are worried, regardless of whether it's sensible for them to do so. So of course it becomes a hot button topic for politicians. But the focus on white-collar jobs is because that's the thing that's changed, that the public perceives to be an issue, and that sort of momentum is what politicians use.
I also wonder if the loss of white-collar jobs is viewed as being less of a regional phenomenon. While decline in the American steel industry hit a few states very hard, it might not have had much of an impact in, say, Florida. But call centers and radiology analysis could be done anywhere, and so it's viewed as more of a nation-wide issue. Some areas would be affected more than others, of course, but maybe it feels more like nowhere is safe from this "threat".
Rhetoric will always be extreme, on any side of the political aisle. If we wrote off every politician who used such language, we'd have very few left. Whether this would be good or bad is another question. =)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
winterfish
What's new
Date: 2004-08-17 04:56 am (UTC)There's certainly been lots of unhappiness with manufacturing or
farming jobs that have been viewed as going overseas-- hence the imposition
of tariffs on imports on steel, Vietnamese shrimp, etc. The reason focus
shifted away from manufacturing jobs is that argument was mostly had in the past
few decades, as the ability to move manufacturing centers and ship goods efficiently
became easier, and automation allowed fewer workers to produce the same
amount of goods. Now we're experiencing new changes in the economy,
with a decrease in costs of telecommunications and sending and processing
information. And job growth is very slow here currently, the economy isn't booming,
and people are worried, regardless of whether it's sensible for them to
do so. So of course it becomes a hot button topic for politicians.
But the focus on white-collar jobs is because that's the thing that's
changed, that the public perceives to be an issue, and that sort of momentum
is what politicians use.
I also wonder if the loss of white-collar jobs is viewed as being
less of a regional phenomenon. While decline in the American steel
industry hit a few states very hard, it might not have had much of
an impact in, say, Florida. But call centers and radiology analysis could
be done anywhere, and so it's viewed as more of a nation-wide issue.
Some areas would be affected more than others, of course, but maybe it
feels more like nowhere is safe from this "threat".
Rhetoric will always be extreme, on any side of the political aisle.
If we wrote off every politician who used such language, we'd have
very few left. Whether this would be good or bad is another question. =)