Obama Says Offshoring Fears Are Unwarranted

alphadogg writes "The perception that Indian call centers and back office operations cost US jobs is an old stereotype that ignores today's reality that two-way trade between the US and India is helping create jobs and raise the standard of living in both countries, US President Barack Obama told a gathering of business executives in Mumbai on Saturday. President Obama's remarks come after some moves in the US that had Indian outsourcers worried that the US may get protectionist in the wake of job losses in the country. The state of Ohio, for example, banned earlier this year the expenditure of public funds for offshore purposes. US exports to India have quadrupled in recent years, and currently support tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the US, he said in a speech that was also streamed live. In addition, there are jobs supported by exports to India of agriculture products, travel and education services. President Obama, who is in India on a three-day visit, said that more than 20 deals worth about $10 billion were announced on the first day of his visit."

Comments

Meet the New Boss. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

Goddammit! We got fooled again!

I think this is just a ripening up of the American public for Palin and the Tea-Nazis to come crash the party in two years time. It's all just part of the show and Obama is just the latest bit-part player.

-FL

BULLSHIT.

[crhylove]

I work in tech support and I'm on the phone to India ALL DAY. Obama is another corporate whore, no different than all the other presidents since they shot JFK in the face. He's better than Bush in exactly one way: He can speak English. Too bad it's all lies. They share that trait.

Until it tears out jobs left and right, of course

[sethstorm]

My admittedly limited understanding of this is that of course it costs us jobs, because it's very expensive to hire US employees compared to the costs of hiring employees in most other countries in the world.

Those countries' governments are cheaper to corrupt to the end of business; they are not cheaper on the worker end. If you want an example of this, see Foxconn.

Economists say the widespread effects are a net gain. I don't know if I believe them--because I haven't done the math, and I've known a lot of economists who aren't very empirical.

The standard of living is not raised; only the amount of junk-grade trinkets is raised. If you want to take it further, the economists fail to figure out what happens to those people who lose their jobs(who usually don't gain a comparable one back).