Debate: Outsourcing of US jobs to foreign countries: Bad or Good?
Side: Bad

Given how much Turpificatus's arguments need to be deconstructed I'm going to have to start a new line of argument over here. (Also, if I oppose and opposer I am apparently affirming that Outsourcing is good according to the system). "Yes, it is ego driven. They lived a much more privileged life than can be expected for people who work in such industries, and demand that the lifestyle be maintained. If we take the living conditions of global manufacturing 'grunts' for want of a better word, the American 'grunt' is excessively well off. Really, all outsourcing is doing is re-balancing the equality, equal pay for equal work."Why is it the workers who must pay the price for outsourcing? Why is it egotism for them to want to live like the average American? In our society we have a certain standard of living that, if a person or family is below, they become low in status, power, prestige, honor, authority, regard..etc..etc. If noone in the United States owned a computer it would be one thing, but when computers are the norm, and in many cases a necessary aspect of our social, economic, and political lives it is harmful for anyone without access to it. Why, when the rich have an abundance equal to the wealth of nearly everyone else on earth combined, when individuals and companies have budgets and assets larger than many countries, should the factory workers pay the price, and be scorned when they complain? Why should they make sacrifices so someone else can get even more fabulously wealthy, and so the poor in other countries can see a small amount of an increase in prosperity?It is egotistical to want a certain standard of security and prosperity in a nation of wealth, or is it egotistical to disregard the hunger, the poverty, the want, the destitution of those in vulnerable economic positions for the sake of those with plenty of wealth to spare?"The problem in those communities that rely on manufacturing industries for survival is a shortcoming in the government, and it's inability to encourage high technology industry development. These people are not suffering due to corporate decisions to outsource, but the government's inability to observe the inevitable, and plan ahead."This is a rather interesting statement, and it amounts to this:It isn't the fault of corporations for practices that harm communities, it is the fault of the governments for not heading off and making plans to overcome these practices early on. First off, these companies with their wealth and power have a great deal of influence over local communities, state governments, and the Federal Government. That is well known and I shouldn't have to mention it. Secondly, your stance amounts to blaming the victim. It's apparently not the fault of companies for harmful practices but the fault of governments for not waving a magic wand and making things better sooner. As a Libertarian I find your stance all the more intriguing, you are practically saying that it is the government's job to fix this problem. I would like to see some suggestions as to how. "yes these immediate issues are destructive, however over the course of history, again and again during the era of industrialization, children are exploited, environments defecated upon and nations are exploited, however it strikes me that only after such a nation industrializes, do they preach suffrage and equality and fair trading practices. Do you really expect solar panels in Africa, three times as expensive as developing coal, and notoriously unreliable, to power a steel industry? Or that they won't employ child labour and cut their workforce in half?"I think you are simplifying and distorting a very turbulent and complex development. Are you forgetting how people had to fight and die for these programs? Are you forgetting how people were shot, hung, and murdered to keep children out of factories, how battles were waged across the country in courtrooms and legislative houses in order to pass environmental regulations. These things did not come naturally, they came from pitched political battles between the progressive forces and business interests. It wasn't after the nation became universally prosperous that these reforms occurred, it was when abject and terrible poverty were still very much a norm. It was during the great depression that many of our reforms occurred in the labor and welfare departments, and it was the turbulent 60s and 70s that our major environmental reforms were created. You have all of history on its head, first prosperity then progress; I am afraid it was progress then prosperity. There already large movements in the developing world in favor of better labor practices and environmental protection. Unfortunately, anti-democratic governments, democratic governments bought out by business interests, and U.S. backed dictatorships have kept these movements down. You are giving us a false choice between economic stagnation or livable working and environmental conditions. We have the money and the technology to provide economic, labor, and environmental prosperity; we simply lack the political will. In fact, Africa is seeing solar panels installed in many remote tribal communities due to the high cost of oil, their poverty, and western aid programs. We are seeing laptops that cost 100 dollars and are powered by hand-cranks, we are seeing community water purifiers that are powered by a person on a bicycle. We are perfectly capable of providing these nations with an entrance into the modern era without the problems and strife that we had to deal with during our development. "In relation to domestic production and ownership, yes, it will reduce domestically owned industry, however once enough wealth is achieved, the odds will begin to even. Also, Food is a tenuous example to use as it is a strategic resource as well as economical. Fluctuations in world food prices are also why countries like Japan give 700% subsidies to their farmers, to ensure that the domestic agrarian industry is never lost and in times of strife, will continue to produce. It is also why the EU refuses to reduce tariffs on imported foods, as it will decimate their agriculture."Here is the problem, and I mentioned this earlier on:Corporations and western governments who support their interests regularly force smaller governments to adopt practices that benefit them and not their own people. Nations that want their people to be prosperous, nations that want to ensure a minimum standard of living that ensures human dignity use protectionist measures to stabilize what amounts to a volatile international market filled with sharks, parasites, and institutions which regard humanity as a mere tool to place large wads of cash into their pockets.