The Costs of Outsourcing

Outsourcing jobs seems to be something that is here to stay in the U.S. today, the question is: is this a good thing or not?  Outsourcing is basically sub-contracting a process, especially part of a business or company, to a third party outside supplier.  It is about obtaining goods or services from outside or foreign sources instead of from internal sources, especially to contract work out or abroad. 

There are significant effects, some positive and some negative on our economy when work is outsourced.  Outsourcing jobs outside of a particular business can actually be good because it would allow a business that is not expert at something to contract out that part of their business to a company that specializes in what they need done.  For example, a small business might outsource their bookkeeping to an accounting firm that can keep track of their finances.  This can still be done internally, that is within the United States.  However, the other side of outsourcing is when large companies and businesses outsource outside of our country to foreign suppliers of services.  In this case, jobs that could be done internally in the U.S. are being done in foreign countries.  For instance, some of the biggest outsourcing locations are India, China, and Brazil.  Some people say that this will help the third-world countries to develop and increase their employment opportunities, but with the problems our economy is having, the focus should be on our own problems with jobs and how to alleviate our high unemployment rate.  Limiting the amount of jobs that are outsourced to foreign countries could help our job situation in the U.S.

President Obama, during his 2008 campaign, promised to stop giving tax breaks to companies outsourcing jobs overseas and to start giving them to companies creating jobs in the U.S.  Those who oppose outsourcing worry that the President will not uphold these promises and is not going to do anything at all.  These critics believe this is mostly because many of the President’s economic advisors outsource jobs themselves or are unconcerned about the effects of outsourcing.

As companies continue outsourcing to foreign countries, there continues to be a large-scale job loss in the U.S. as jobs are transferred to these off shore services.  There could also be confidentiality or security dangers with having people’s private information and sharing this information with a third-party.  This is especially true in regards to IT outsourcing.  There are also potential negatives for the businesses engaging in the outsourcing, particularly if they do not do proper research on a foreign third-party company before allowing them access to their clients.  This could include the confidentiality issues, problems with the quality of service, or even negative publicity, which could occur because outsourcing is becoming an increasing concern to average citizens.

Overall, outsourcing seems to only benefit the wealthy that gain profits from transferring jobs. What good has come from foreign outsourcing except corporate profits?  It has lead to American citizens losing jobs due to this outsourcing of their work and therefore higher unemployment in the U.S. and has also contributed to our weakening economy.

The Draft Bill

The author of “Why We Need Universal Service” is trying to persuade people that compulsory service in our country should be re-instated.  The author includes different arguments from his point of view but does not explain any of the other side’s opinions.  However, the author is credible because the arguments seem capable of convincing others that his idea has a solid foundation.  The author’s intended audience is people who are active in politics and will advocate their representatives in government to support the author’s reintroduction of the Universal National Service Act, commonly called the draft bill.

One of the author’s arguments is that only a small percentage of the U.S. population, about one percent, currently serves and this low number means that many enlisted soldiers must be deployed multiple times which can lead to additional problems.  This is evidenced in that twenty-five percent of active duty personnel in our military have Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD.  Also, the current suicide rate in the Army’s personnel is significantly higher than civilian rate and for the Marine Corps it is even higher. 

Another point the author makes is that universal service doesn’t necessarily mean that people will have to serve in the armed forces, but claims that they could serve in civilian service.  This would include places such as schools, hospitals, or airports.  This might prompt more people to support the idea of a universal service.  The author also claims that reintroducing the draft will end our wars more quickly and that young people will gain discipline for honorably serving our country.

I agree with the author that wars need to be ended as quickly as possible and that too many American soldiers have died in this “war that should not have been in the first place”, but I don’t think that compulsory service is the way to go about it.  I think that if they are worried about low numbers in the military then our country needs to just stop getting involved in other country’s problems if it doesn’t directly involve us.  I also believe that instituting the draft bill would undermine our country’s known society of volunteerism.  However, I also agree that no soldiers should have to do six tours of duty and that civilian service is a good option but I believe joining our military or even civilian service should remain voluntary.

Paying Bone Marrow Donors

The author of the editorial “Battling Over Bone Marrow” is trying to persuade people that although there is a valid argument in paying people for bone marrow donations, at this point the risks outweigh the benefits.  The author includes arguments from both sides of the issue and doesn’t discount the possible benefits of the other side’s ideas.  This makes the author very credible and believable, even though the article is an opinion piece.  The author’s intended audience is anyone who has considered donating but hasn’t because they are unaware the procedure has changed or people who might be motivated to get the word out about registering donors for bone marrow transplants.

The article begins by explaining that the current federal law prohibits payment for donating organs, but that it is legal to pay people to donate blood or plasma.  The federal law considers bone marrow in the same category as other organs, currently making it illegal to pay people to donate it.  The argument is that bone marrow was wrongly included with organs because it can regenerate like blood and plasma and therefore it should not be illegal to provide financial compensation for donating.  The author admits that a suit filed by the Institute for Justice, which argues this fact, has some valid ideas about the good that could come from paying people to donate.  For example, it is more likely that people will register to donate if they get paid for it.

The argument against it points out that the lack of donors is not the reason why many people don’t get a bone marrow transplant.  There are other factors that prevent them getting the transplant, such as lack of heath coverage or access to advanced medical facilities or their condition worsens too quickly to receive the transplant.  The author says that financial compensation has a lot of risks that come with it and only a small chance of it benefiting people who need it.  It could backfire because money sometimes motivates donors to hide medical conditions, which could negatively impact patients receiving donor bone marrow.  The author suggests community outreach programs to encourage people to register to be a donor.

I agree with the author, and I think that at this point there are still other issues preventing people who need it from getting bone marrow transplants, such as the lack of health care and lack of access to facilities that can provide the service.  In this case these issues should be addressed first.  Also, I think that if more people knew that the new procedure for donating bone marrow is not as painful as the old method of puncturing the hipbone with a large needle and is now “not much tougher than giving blood” more people would register.  Donors should not have to pay a hundred dollars just to register.  Eliminating the fee would encourage more people to become a bone marrow donor.  I believe that these changes, rather than paying donors, could save many more lives.