Friday, January 27, 2012

America: Historic Insourcing to Current Outsourcing

"We are the 99%" was named the quote of 2011.  The ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor has been a very pressing issue in our country.  It is a real trend.  I believe that among other factors, this very present gap is caused by the outsourcing of jobs.  We have transformed from a nation to which foreign workers relocate themselves into a nation that relocates work to foreign workers.  Those who migrated here built this powerful country into what it is, and now sending work away is starting to tear it down.  It only makes sense for us to personally support domestic companies that remain domestic.  

As U.S. companies outsource work, the owners of these companies definitely benefit now that they can provide lower wages and less restricting working environments to foreign workers. Meanwhile, the American workers and managers that helped these companies get how far they've come.  Now they are left jobless as more and more of these types of jobs are depleted.  Preventing outsourcing legally would infringe upon the individual rights of the owners.  But, we as customers should seek business with companies that work to preserve domestic jobs.




Contrast this with the 19th century.  This period was marked by the largest scale immigration the world has ever seen.   Instead of the U.S. rushing jobs to workers elsewhere, workers were rushing to jobs here.  The U.S. felt such a surge of arriving immigrants because there were jobs to be had and jobs to made.  At the time it was because of economic inequality in Europe (those who migrated were generally poor, outcast, and/or looking for a better life) that immigrants sought this land.


As I said in my personal intro, I am a native of North Carolina, as are my parents.  Historically, North Carolina has had a major portion of its economy based in textiles.  However, because of cheaper labor forces in other countries, almost all of North Carolina's textile production has been relocated to countries like Mexico, India, and Pakistan.  The businesses themselves may actually remain in the state.


A company in Duram, NC by the name of Mitts Nitts is one of the few exceptions.  This company, which is actually owned by my uncle, sells on wholesale all of the clothing that it makes here on U.S. soil.  Many clients are drawn toward the product lines of Mitts Nitts because of its domestic roots.


We need to have the attitude of these clients.  Any company that is willing to keep jobs here in the U.S. is swimming upstream and they deserve reasonable support for doing so.  I am not saying that I am a part of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.  They  admittedly don't even suggest solutions.  I do recognize the problem, but I also have a solution in mind.  It is my opinion that in order to turn this around, it will require individual initiative and changes in government policy.  It would be blatantly unconstitutional to force companies to keep work on U.S. soil.  However, we can make favorable climates for those companies who do remain domestic.

I actually came upon my next bit of information after I started thinking about my stance on this topic.  It is from President Obama's  State of the Union address, and it was surprising because I agreed completely with him when I usually do not.  He said,
         
               "We will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt and phony financial profits. Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that's built to last -- an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers and a renewal of American values."


His blueprint included a tax policy that rewards companies that create jobs in America and eliminates tax breaks for those who ship jobs overseas.  An additional point I would add is to loosen restrictions on working condition codes, which Obama may not be in favor of, especially openly since he is running for reelection.

If we can redirect the current trend of outsourcing back to insourcing, we can reverse the widening the economic gap.  Insourcing is what built this country and is what has maintained it.  Maybe we could even have other countries outsource to us.

 Also, be sure to view this link about how Apple outsourced its production to China.
  Apple Outsourcing

Should we pay to use Facebook or should Facebook pay to use us?

Or YouTube.  Or Flickr.  Or Google.  As you continue to post information in various forms, you are most likely seeking some form of response.  Views, shares, attention, likes, comments.  You do this on a very regular basis, and your doing so provides these entities with their most essential assets: publicity and intellectual-property.  It is through combining these two assets that these free-to-use websites can actually make much of their money through targeted advertising.
 
One of my books talks about how much we actually provide to social media sites.  They are completely dependent on us.  Anil Dash, a vice president with Six Apart posed a question that stuck out to me: "Should Flickr compensate the creators of the most popular pictures on its site?"  I actually really considered this question and did so considering that compensation didn't have to be a monetary value.  But I ultimately realized the answer in any case is no further compensation is needed for either party.

The internet now is a "culture of generosity."  Users willingly take the time to provide information and publicity while the social media sites provide an open outlet to do so.  The users and social media sites obviously both benefit from the exchange.  As long as terms are legal, the benefits between the users and sites are beautifully and exactly equal.

In the case of the Flickr question, yes, the creators of the popularized pictures did bring publicity to the site, BUT the amount of publicity the pictures brought to Flickr is equal to what Flickr as a medium brought to the pictures.  The more I think about this, the more I hear the Newton's Third Law:  To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.

I feel that Adam Smith's concept of "the invisible hand" included in The Wealth of Nations is very present here.  Our economy is self-correcting when exercised legally, including in the realm of the internet.  Users of social media unavoidably give up their right not to be used.  The key is that if the process is legal and both parties is willing, how can it not be fair?


Saturday, January 21, 2012

FREE IPOD!! (brand new, still in its case!)





My dad currently works for Apple as an accountant and as a bonus he was given 20 free 64gb itouches, and he gave me a few of them and I just... oh wait, you actually looked at my blog post, good. 

I doubt that anyone actually came to this post thinking that they would get an iPod.  You're probably here because you know that scamming people with digital media is very prevalent, and you were interested because you thought my blog would be about that.  Well, kinda. 

There is so much information available to us that it is difficult to discern between what information we really care for and what information is not worth reading.  

We could spend lifetimes reading information that is just a waste of our time.  What is it that sets apart an article we read from the seemingly endless lists of others?  As seekers of information and as informers, it is important for us to know why people are brought to read what they read and why they continue or stop reading what they've stumbled upon.

Accessibility is the first important characteristic of effective information.  Whether it is of use or not, information has to be accessible if anyone is ever going to read it.  Websites pay thousands of dollars to be listed early on search engine results.  Recommendations from peers will also get the sought-after views, readers, hits, or customers.  The phrase "If you build it, they will come" does not always apply to digital media (unless you are Google).

Obviously, a potential reader will not decide to read information based on accessibility alone.  From the title and scanty description provided, a reader must somehow be convinced that the information is so important that he or she needs to take the time to look at it.  People naturally want information that is personal, applicable, and/or controversial.  The more the potential reader thinks they need this information the better.  This doesn't have to be deceptive (like me) in nature.  People write about what they think is important, and they should want others to think the same. 

The second half of the battle is maintaining a reader.  Maybe I'll make another post about that...