and on the whole they are all a good thing. The NY Times had an interesting article in the most recent Week in Review, titled The Bright Side of Sending Jobs Overseas. The article takes a hard look at the current political rhetoric around the transfer of jobs outside the US and throws a lot of cold water on it. Economists from both sides of the aisle are in agreement that productivity improvements are good for the long term health of our economy. This includes the movement of jobs offshore where they can be done cheaper. The politicians would have us believe the loss in jobs over the last 3 years primarily went to lower cost locations, but the facts do not support this. In the 1990s the movement of jobs to offshore locations happened at a much faster pace that it is today and the US increased jobs. From 1999 to 2003, business and financial services added 600,000 jobs in the US while researchers argue this area is prime for offshore outsourcing. Computer and mathematical occupations added 150,000 in another area considered to be ideal for moving offshore. Many jobs moving offshore could just as easily be lost to automation.

Let’s face the facts. Productivity improvements displace workers. In the US, in Europe and around the world the displacement of workers will continue. It will even accelerate. The issue is not should you prevent this or slow it down, it is how do you best deal with the postive and negative effects of this.
We should not be talking protectionism but agresively preparing to train employees for a career of change. We can no longer expect career changes to evolve over several generations but must prepare for the reality that many workers will need to learn new skills in order to take advantage of the effects of global trade.

We should not be talking protectionism but building free and fair trade across the globe. The economies and lives of those trading with us should and will improve.