Prosperity of government through capitalism

As my opponent stated, "Capitalism assumes everything is a commodity". Per the definition of commodity (an article of trade or commerce, esp. a product as distinguished from a service), it is reasonable to assume that labor may be considered such. My opponent also suggests that the offshoring of American jobs is a direct result of capitalism's demand for profit. One factor that must be considered is the degree of offshoring. In 2004, at a time when outsourcing was becoming more and more popular, a study was performed showing that "For the past 15 years, corporations have moved jobs to the United States at a faster rate than jobs have left, for an 82 percent increase in insourced jobs compared to a 23 percent increase in outsourced jobs". It is logical to assume that, with more competition entering markets all across the board, outsourcing has become more prevalent since 2004. However, offshoring can be incredibly beneficial to a company seeking to improve their standing in the market and is often a result of a company's desire to reduce costs. By lowering the overall costs incurred by the company, additional funds are freed up and often redistributed to other areas of the organization. The initial impact of outsourcing jobs to other countries may be detrimental to those who are immediately affected by the move, but when considering the long-term effects, the job loss is a small price to pay for the increased profitability and efficiency of a company. In due time, these improvements within the company will allow for growth, thereby creating more jobs and strengthening the economy. If a company were to keep the outsourced jobs here, it would be forgoing an opportunity to improve its status as well as essentially eliminating itself as a competitor in its respective market. My opponent claimed that "power will shift to other nations and our own economy will pay the price". Considering that the ‘other nations' already have the cheaper labor available to them, it seems apparent that, in order to stay competitive and powerful as a nation, we must export some jobs to other countries. As for a social force, capitalism may be seen as the enemy for some, and a friend for others. My opponent points out that "In an ideal world, individuals in positions of power would lend a hand to those in need of service. In lieu of this, the government must provide services such as welfare and subsidized housing". I agree with a portion of my opponent's statement – in an ideal world, everyone would be more altruistic and always lend a hand to someone in need. But we are not living in an ideal world (depending on what one defines as ‘ideal'), so we must consider a few things. Should the government provide more for individuals, people would be less inclined to donate themselves. In a piece done by ABC News in 2006, it was found that "people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away." You cannot blame these people though, because they feel that it is no longer their duty to care for their brethren. I am not advising that we abolish all government programs and rely solely on charities to support those in need, but one might wonder how effective it would be. It was also found that "people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income" than those who earn more than one million dollars a year. This may seem rather contradictory to my previous statements, but those "with incomes exceeding $1 million (about 7 percent of the population) make 50 percent of all charitable donations". They do not donate as high of a percentage as some other groups, but in the end, their money goes farther. Again, capitalism may be defined as "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations". By restraining capitalism, we may be handicapping the ability of the people at the "lower end of the income scale" to rise to the top, where they may continue to contribute greater percentages, and in turn help out more people than they would have been able to otherwise. Through government regulated and funded programs, those people in the lower end may stay in the lower end and not have an opportunity to give back even more to their community. Capitalism remains an effective method for increasing productivity and prosperity of governments. Yes, it may cost the occasional outsourcing of jobs to other countries, but provides a stronger economy and more jobs in the long run. I will concede that capitalism is a source of some social stratification in today's society, but the matter of eliminating stratification and class struggle is an entirely different matter. Regarding stratification, however, capitalism can provide individuals with greater social mobility than can government programs. Assuming a percentage of the aforementioned ‘lower end' individuals achieve success (in a capitalistic sense), they will then be able to contribute far more to "those in need of service". http://www.ncpa.org... http://abcnews.go.com...