faetal on 13/5/2010 at 21:40
Quote Posted by DDL
I'll freely admit I'm not well versed in the subject, but I would guess that if you factor in things like "increased/decreased hiring in response to economic climate" and "general flux in job availability due to technological advances" and so on it becomes almost impossible to even approximately estimate the 'number of outsourced jobs' as any sort of useful benchmark relative to non-outsourced jobs.
Seems like you don't want to think that any significant number of jobs which used to be done in the UK have been exported. We seem to have lost swathes of manufacturing work and call centre work and an increasingly large amount of IT/tech work, and I'm not saying it is a good or a bad thing per se, just that it is my belief and a belief which I think could be corroborated if I could dig out relevant statistics, that jobs which can be done easily and do not NEED to be localised (cleaning for example, can't be outsourced - phone help can be), have been and are increasingly being moved to where they are cheapest, due to there being no regulation on business outsourcing. It just makes basic economic sense for the equlibrium to shift in that direction.
If you are somehow suggesting that there is a chance of this notion being confounded by new jobs being created, or equivalent jobs being insourced, then please at least cite the reason why you are raising this possibility, because I don't see where this could come from. I admit that I haven't figures to back any of this up, and so what I am saying is largely speculative, but I have witnessed a large degree of outsourcing both personally, through friends and through the media (which could also be hyperbole, I admit). Plus, my understanding of economics, market share and domestic corporate law suggests that outsourcing should be a large and increasing practice where nationality and location have no impact on the work done. Logically, it makes no sense that outsourcing would not have an effect on the UK job market, because if you lose jobs, then unemployment goes up.
Chade on 15/5/2010 at 14:19
I think you're over-estimating how much time I've put in to skim a couple of articles, but anyway ...
From (
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=688183) this paper:
By mid 2004 only 0.14% of the "EU-15" service sector had been effected by outsourcing, with (generous) estimates of up to 2% by 2015. Apparently this is a small fraction of the total number of unemployed. Other data suggests that about 1 in 14 lost jobs during 2002 - 2005 occurred due to outsourcing - not an insignificant fraction, but still pretty small.
(
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.95.6448&rep=rep1&type=pdf) This paper (pdf) takes a broader look at outsourcing, and claims that:
Both the UK and the US are net exporters of outsourced services. I don't know how this affects employment, as presumably the jobs you lose have lower salaries then the jobs you gain. However, clearly the UK and the US do gain some jobs due to trading services, and clearly this is not an insignificant number. Contrary to the stereotype, developing nations (and small nations) actually spend a larger percentage of gdp importing business services then large developed nations.
Finally, employment data from the UK showed no clear relationship between the amount of service outsourcing that in a particular sector and employment growth in that sector, and US data suggested that jobs lost to outsourcing in one sector were offset by jobs gained in other sectors.
faetal on 19/5/2010 at 22:24
Quote Posted by Chade
I think you're over-estimating how much time I've put in to skim a couple of articles, but anyway ...
From (
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=688183) this paper:
By mid 2004 only 0.14% of the "EU-15" service sector had been effected by outsourcing, with (generous) estimates of up to 2% by 2015. Apparently this is a small fraction of the total number of unemployed. Other data suggests that about 1 in 14 lost jobs during 2002 - 2005 occurred due to outsourcing - not an insignificant fraction, but still pretty small.
(
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.95.6448&rep=rep1&type=pdf) This paper (pdf) takes a broader look at outsourcing, and claims that:
Both the UK and the US are net exporters of outsourced services. I don't know how this affects employment, as presumably the jobs you lose have lower salaries then the jobs you gain. However, clearly the UK and the US do gain some jobs due to trading services, and clearly this is not an insignificant number. Contrary to the stereotype, developing nations (and small nations) actually spend a larger percentage of gdp importing business services then large developed nations.
Finally, employment data from the UK showed no clear relationship between the amount of service outsourcing that in a particular sector and employment growth in that sector, and US data suggested that jobs lost to outsourcing in one sector were offset by jobs gained in other sectors.
2 points - (1) I'm not referring to the EU 15, just the UK. (2) Losing lower paid jobs and gaining the equivalent *value* in higher paid is exactly what I am talking about when I say that tearing the rug out from under people claiming benefits would create a problem. I wasn't inferring that job value (monetary) in the UK was changing, I was talkiong about job quantity, which none of this seems to particularly refute.
I'm not saying "you're wrong I'm right" or anything, I am just genuinely curious / concerned and would like to know if there are less places of employment in the UK since outsourcing became the default option for call centre / manufacturing / IT / helpdesk roles.
Thanks for making the effort though - I wish I could be as useful, but I am literally having to plan my days out in excel at the moment to get stuff done. Debating the point with you is all I can really spare, but at least you're providing research, which is useful. I just feel we haven't properly answered the question yet.
Brian The Dog on 22/5/2010 at 11:54
Apologies for minor thread-necromancy, but if anyone's interested in the behind-the-scenes discussions that went on during the talks on forming the coalition, the BBC have interviewed people on all sides of the discussions and got some pretty interesting stuff. You can listen to the full podcast (30min, 14Mb) (
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/r4report/) here, or read the salient points (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8693309.stm) here.
SubJeff on 30/5/2010 at 10:14
First casualty of this government: David Laws crashes and burns.
Hilarious and ridiculous defending by his imbecile friends failed to blind anyone - he abused the expenses system which is a double fail since he was responsible for financial cuts! You couldn't make this stuff up! Lol
Brian The Dog on 30/5/2010 at 12:07
In slight defence, he's not allowed to claim for a flat he shares with his "partner or spouse". He was a bit vague about whether the guy was his partner or not - they didn't have a civil partnership or joint bank accounts etc, they just bonked each other a lot :erm: It'd be interesting to see if straight MPs who are having affairs with their London flatmates get accused of the same thing.
Not saying he was right to do what he did, but it's not in the same league as getting the tax payer to clean your moat or give you a duck-pond. I doubt it was about the money, since he's a millionaire anyway - it probably saved the tax-payer money since the rent he was being charged was quite cheap for London. What I find the most odd about this one is that he felt he couldn't "come out", despite being a LibDem MP, who are regarded as the most "progressive" of the main-stream parties.
But yes, he did the right thing to resign, you couldn't be the guy in charge of having to cut £100B+ over a Parliament's lifetime and be accused of fiddling your own expenses.
I am wondering which "Yes Minister" episode they will re-enact this week...
SubJeff on 30/5/2010 at 12:33
Quote Posted by Brian The Dog
In slight defence, he's not allowed to claim for a flat he shares with his "partner or spouse". He was a bit vague about whether the guy was his partner or not - they didn't have a civil partnership or joint bank accounts etc, they just bonked each other a lot
He has been with the guy for more than 3 years. If that isn't a partner then what is?
Brian The Dog on 30/5/2010 at 14:10
Yep, so either (a) he's been economic with the truth, or (b) the guys who defined "partner" in the paperwork were very lax in their definition. Either way, he shouldn't have done it and so had to go.
SD on 30/5/2010 at 14:15
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
First casualty of this government: David Laws crashes and burns.
Hilarious and ridiculous defending by his imbecile friends failed to blind anyone - he abused the expenses system which is a double fail since he was responsible for financial cuts! You couldn't make this stuff up! Lol
To qualify Subjective Effect's bare commentary, as anyone not from the UK reading this will believe that "abused the expenses system" means he was trousering public money he wasn't entitled to.
In fact, he was entitled to the money, and more. It was merely the fact that he was renting from his partner/non-partner (depending on how you interpret the official definition: "one of a couple who treat each other as spouses") which meant he fell foul of the rules.
Indeed, David Laws' expense claims are the lowest from any MP in his remote region of the country. Renting a flat for £950pcm in central London is absolutely not excessive when you consider he could have bought a property, charged the taxpayer £3k a month and remained within the rules.
It's all a terrible, terrible shame that someone has been forced to resign because he didn't want to out himself as gay.
