Ethics of outsourcing

ALBINO BARRERA presents an idealized picture of international trade that fails to take into account either the concentrated corporate power that drives the trading system today or the role of elites in production-for-export countries ("Fair exchange," Sept. 21). Together these factors prevent the benefits of trade from reaching the masses of working people and make Barrera's admission that "not everybody gains from trade" an understatement.

One has only to visit the wretched colonias growing up around spotless maquiladora factories in Mexico or see the young women locked into lethal Bangladeshi sweatshops for 80 hours per week to see how the system is rigged to prevent shared benefits. Barrera writes that "poor countries have subscribed to international trade rules" despite the "adjustment costs" involved. But poor countries have no choice in the matter: the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and other arbiters of the system require poor countries to accept the kind of foreign investment that protects investors' interests but bars enforcement of local labor rights or environmental standards.

On the specific issue of outsourcing, Barrera acknowledges that changes in technology have made nearly every job vulnerable to out sourcing, yet he still clings to the neo-classical idea that a "leaner cost structure" forced on remaining U.S. operations by the threat of massive job transfers "should create more jobs." How, exactly?

If workers in Bangalore use the same or better technology as U.S. workers but receive one-tenth the pay, jobs will how back to the U.S. only when labor costs here decline to the same level. This is why Barrera's assertion that "future generations are the biggest beneficiaries of dynamic gains from trade" is doubly mistaken: not only will future generations in the U.S. (financial elites excepted) face a situation with fewer jobs and starkly lower compensation, but they will also inherit the runaway inflation and the sharply devalued currency that a galloping trade deficit (now at $5 trillion and counting) is bound to set in motion.

One final disagreement: Barrera states that the "Asian Tigers" (South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore) all rose to powerhouse status through free trade. Wrong. Many studies thoroughly demonstrate that these countries blocked imports, manipulated their currencies and protected their developing industries during long incubation periods. They rose to powerhouse status because the U.S. was willing to accept their exports, not because they practiced anything remotely close to free trade.

Peter Loarman

Executive Director; Progressive Christians Uniting, Los Angeles, Calif.

Albino Barrera's article has challenged me to think from a different point of view. My own observation and reading have led me to conclude that the companies that are doing the outsourcing are not seeking to help pick up the pieces for people in the U.S. experiencing loss of income and self-esteem. That concerns me.

The opportunities that seem to be available to those who have suddenly found themselves without work have either been nonexistent or offer less in wages and benefits than the jobs they previously held. I don't see companies or anyone else carrying out the moral obligation of helping displaced workers find a new niche in our economy: I have become pretty cynical about people's willingness--in the economic sector--to sacrifice for each other's well being.

A second concern is that we are homogenizing and so losing the individuality of the various cultures around the world. Most of what I have read has related to food, but I believe the concern applies to other areas, too. We are losing our dietary distinctiveness, and are beginning, worldwide, to rely more and more on just a few grains. Those who supply, the grain are playing around with it through genetic modification. So while the areas into which these companies expand may gain economic benefits, the overall health of the people of the world is being compromised.

Kaye Hult

Bellows Falls, Vt.

Yes, it is less expensive for U.S. companies to move jobs overseas. And perhaps jobs in the U.S. will someday be recovered. But Albino Barrera neglects to examine certain aspects of this globalization trend. Workers in many other countries are not protected as they are in the U.S. There are no laws to enforce worker safety or prevent child labor. There are no unions to maintain fair wages and benefits. There are no regulations to protect the environment. We have all heard of the overseas sweatshops, manufacturing plants and bottling plants, food producers, etc. that have nearly enslaved nations while destroying their ecology.

To speak of this theologically we would say that this model of economics does not promote the stewardship of creation, nor does it demonstrate love of neighbor. In stead, this economic model takes advantage of nations which are less "advanced." Let us remember that how we treat the "least of these" is how we treat Christ--even in economics. If we continue to use this new model (and as Barrera suggests, there are good reasons to do so), we must add qualifications to our policies that protect the rights of our international neighbors, not just our own pocket-books.