|
March 22, 2006
We increasingly read in the media about about jobs ---manufacturing, call centres, services--- moving offshore becvause they can be done more cheaply. Conventional economists say that this "offshore outsourcing" -- ie., the migration of jobs, but not the people who perform them, from rich industrial countries to poorer industrial ones--- is "the latest manifestation of the gains from trade, which economists have talked about at least since Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Countries trade with one another for the same reasons that individuals, businesses, and regions do: to exploit their comparative advantages. Offshoring of jobs is simply international business as usual.
It is what the global market is all about, isn't it? Globalisation mean increased trade and investment across national borders. There are the potential benefits of services offshoring, such as lower consumer prices and increased living standards for Australians.
Surely globalisation has costs as well as benefits. For instance, what happens to those left without jobs? Surely pockets of workers will lose jobs due to offshoring? Well, it is expected that they move on to find new jobs in a prosperous and growing economy. No problems. That's how the new global order works: those that remain in the car or manufacturing industries, or in computing, will be in competition with those workers in India.
Still we are uneasy. Isn't that what Qantas is planning to do--offshshoring skilled maintenance jobs? Isn't there a disruptive effect on Australia? Will the loss of jobs abroad through offshoring be made up for by the creation of quality jobs at home? Does not offshoring pose a major industrial restructuring challenge? What would the potential impact be region by region? I remember the industrial restructuring of the 1980s and 1990s that inflicted so much economic and social damage because of the lack of an effective policy response through industrial, regional and labour market policy. Instead, blind faith was put in the market. Is this what is happening to day?
And what about this scenario?
The reality of globalization combined with the de-unionization of the workforce under the new industrial relations laws could well combine to make rising incomes for many Australian households a a thing of the past, in spite of increasing productivity.
The response is that education is the key in the global economy. We need to upskill so education is what is needed. You know 'knowledge' nation and the 'high tech' economy rather than the pathway of the low wage low skilled workers. However, isn't it the more highly skilled service-sector workers--rather than the dishwashers, plumbers and cleaners who are likely to have tradable jobs? So what happens to this professional middle class? Let them be?
Is that right? I'm not sure. I cannot put my finger on it what's missing. Isn't all the emphasis is on education as a particularized vocational ed in the context of improving Australian global competitiveness a response to this? Isn't all the talk about support to encourage training and upskilling to allow staff to redeploy to high value added jobs, including the extension of lifelong learning opportunities in IT a response to offshoring?
|
Through luck I am part of the global labor market. Governments have allowed capital and goods to flow freely but they still place restrictions on labor movement. I am working in the US and am punching above my financial weight for it.
It goes both ways.