FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The High-Tech "Competitiveness" Smokescreen

by JOHN PARDON

“Competitiveness” is a much-abused buzz-word with which “free trade” enthusiasts often salt their writings. No more prominent or public an example can be found than the influencial New York Times’ columnist Tom Friedman. When Friedman talks about economic issues, critics of the corporate managed state would do well to pay close attention.

In an April 15 New York Times column entitled “Bush Disarms Unilaterally”, Friedman criticises the Bush administration for “taking little interest in America’s economic competitiveness” while “focused on projecting U.S. military strength abroad”. Admonishing his readership that our “economic competitiveness” is the “underlying engine of our strength”, Friedman urges a big-government solution to this situation: a “New New Deal to make more Americans employable in 21st-century jobs. The hypocrisy of this man is incredible.

In previous columns and in his new book about globalisation, free trade (and, implicitly, offshore outsourcing of American jobs,) Friedman celebrates the movement of industrial and high technology work out of the United States to nations such as India and China. He considers this situation a “win-win” for Americans but he can’t point to “21st-century jobs” created in the U.S. for Americans as a consequence of offshore outsourcing. (Sorry Tom, the growing number of low-skilled and low-paying nontradeable services jobs in the U.S. economy are not the “21st-century” jobs you imagine.)

Months ago, while writing from India, Friedman noted well-known “American” corporate branded products in use by Indian companies and employees engaged in doing work once performed in the U.S. by American workers. Based upon the simple appearance of some familiar brand names on the products in evidence, Friedman announced in triumph that “American products” were being consumed by Indians – a “win” for American workers.

The truth that Friedman forgot to share or was to ignorant to discern is that the only thing “American” about the products was their brand names; the computers and bottled water used by the Indian offshore workers were likewise made offshore with foreign labor. (Even the “innovative” and “knowledge age” development of the products is increasingly done offshore by non-Americans.)

Now, Friedman is warning that the flattened “global economic playing field” is “enabling young Indians and Chinese to collaborate and compete with Americans more than ever before.” Friedman the outsourcing proponent and apologist for global labor arbitrage (i.e., replacing American middle class workers with low-wage Third World workers) is now warning of the dark threat of declining U.S. “economic competitiveness”

Sadly, or perhaps inevitably, Friedman fails to either acknowledge or comprehend the fact that the very outsourcing and “free trade” policies he has breathlessly praised are at the core of why Americans cannot compete for the “21st century jobs”. The “flattening” of which Friedman speaks is the result of political action — laws which have enabled American corporations to simultaneously move work offshore while continuing to sell goods and services produced by foreign workers in the U.S. market without restriction. Businesses are able to offshore jobs and pay Third World wages while continuing to sell the goods and services at “American prices”.

The “21st century jobs” of which Friedman speaks are in high technology and science. They are the knowledge age jobs requiring advanced education often focused on scientific, engineering and/or technical areas of study. Information technology (“IT”), computer science, computer engineering, biotechnology, pharmaceutical research, engineering and other areas are involved. These are the well-paying, “high labor cost” jobs which multinational corporations have targeted for elimination or sharp reduction in high labor cost developed nations such as the U.S.

So, while corporatations are busily drawing up outsourcing plans, and eliminating their costly American knowledge workers on the basis of labor cost savings, Tom Friedman is urging the Bush administration to spend more money on national projects such as high-speed broadband and internet access by mobile phone. This is ludicrous.

The nonsense continues. Friedman thinks that more American innovation will occur if tax law changes alter the treatment of stock options. This, he says, will allow “U.S. high tech firms” to “attract talent”.

Friedman is silent about the declining number of Americans entering high tech areas of study because they fear outsourcing or replacement by low wage foreign workers in the U.S. under a form of corporate welfare known as “non-immigrant visa” (NIV) programs. The sad fact is that formerly “American” high-tech firms treat their American workforce as a costly disadvantage and are rapidly shedding American workers — noteably highly-educated and experienced software engineers and programmers. It’s cheaper to use Indian and Chinese workers in the U.S. under NIV programs or offshore work to “subsidiaries” and foreign outsourcing firms, you see…

Against such a backdrop of massive job outsourcing and use of NIV replacement workers, it is truly ridiculous for Friedman to attack Bush administration cuts in the “Pentagon’s budget for basic science and technology research” or “slash[ing] the 2005 budget of the National Science Foundation by $100 million”.

What is the point of spending money on funding for research and education in the sciences if American citizens — American workers are not the beneficiaries of this spending?

Friedman does not have an answer. He has shown that he does not have the capacity to rationally discuss the real problems of American competitiveness. The demands for a costly “big government” “New New Deal” to make the American economy “competitive” and stimulate the creation of “21st-century jobs” indicate that at the core, the “free trade” policies of politicians and outsourcing policies of business have failed. They are destroying the American middle class and creating an environment in which knowledge-age jobs can only exist offshore in developing nations or will be filled in the U.S. by imported low-wage NIV workers.

It does not have to be like this. Perhaps the only point with which one may agree with Friedman is with this, “Economics is not like war. It can be win-win.” The first action which policy makers must undertake is to re-examine the rules of international trade with an eye toward benefitting American workers and maintaining a middle class society which will offer widening middle class employment opportunities for American workers. The present “trade” and “business” policies rationalised by terms such as “competitiveness” guarantee the loss of the knowledge age jobs by Americans will not be reversed.

JOHN PARDON is a software engineer and writer. In 2004 Pardon summarised the job loss situation faced by American information technology workers in a widely-read Computerworld article, “Lost Your Job Yet?“. Pardon is the policy analyst for Rescue American Jobs (and a supporter of the ITPAA (www.itpaa.org) and WashTech.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Alabama Democratic Primary Proves New York Times’ Nate Cohn Wrong about Exit Polling
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
Stephanie Van Hook
The Time for Silence is Over
Ajamu Nangwaya
Toronto’s Bathhouse Raids: Racialized, Queer Solidarity and Police Violence
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
Louisa Willcox
Delisting Grizzly Bears to Save the Endangered Species Act?
Jason Holland
The Tragedy of Nothing
Jeffrey St. Clair
Revolution Reconsidered: a Fragment (Guest Starring Bernard Sanders in the Role of Robespierre)
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail