Yeah, nobody ever outsources technical work. ;)

I don't think anyone is ever entitled to work, whatever the industry. Especially if someone else wants to do the same work for cheaper -- be it with a machine or in another country.

If you tell me someone lost their job and is having a hard time supporting their family, I do feel compassion. But the tool I reach for is charity, not a free job.

It's not like there's a shortage of opportunity. If your skillset doesn't support your desired income -- especially if you find yourself unemployed -- go get some new skills. Whether it's reading a book about PHP or learning to repair refrigerators at the local community college, someone can pivot in a few months' time. (I wish this were more of an expected fallback; it seems like simple common sense to me.)

In the mean time, the rest of us have cheaper products, and are that much richer.

It might be possible to reach that goal without rapid destabilizing change. Some folks don't retrain as easy as us, and have a real hard time when we change society as fast and often as we do.

You know, I would normally let this sort of argument go, but you've stepped on a pet peeve of mine and it's been a while since it got some fresh air.

I dislike arguments that focus on a particular consequence producing a particular strain of human misery, and dare the reader to disagree at the risk of being cold-hearted. I find the argument inappropriately personal -- focusing as it does on the virtue and piety of the person. But mainly I find it . . . well, myopic. Near-sighted.

Take the outsourcing we're discussing. The suffering of the fellow who loses his job and maybe his house and has to move back in with his parents is one piece of the equation. The other piece is his counterpart in China who lives in worse conditions, and wants to work hard to improve life for him and his family, but lacks the opportunity.

And then there's the cheaper product itself. There's the company that makes more money, which affects its shareholders and stock prices, which in aggregate affects people's retirement accounts. Perhaps one of them is in danger of losing a house? And then there are the customers, who can now afford the cheaper product, or who can afford more other things because it is cheaper. Perhaps one of them is in a tight situation, too?

And that doesn't even include tertiary effects. Perhaps this cheaper product is used as a component for something else new. Perhaps a whole new technology becomes feasible now. Perhaps it changes the world. Where does that fit in the equation?

That's why the argument strikes me as myopic. Our notional blue collar worker may indeed be miserable, but who is to say his misery outweighs everyone else's? Why is he special? In fact, I find the reasoning to be kind of . . . maybe not exactly racist, but kind of people-ist in some way or another. I'm sorry for the guy, but I don't feel his concerns ought to trump anyone else's.

I'm not saying you shouldn't try to figure out the impact of decisions on people at large. But I am definitely saying to have respect for how incalculable it can be, and to at least think in terms of all the people you can see right off will be affected -- and not just one class of them.

I'm also saying to use the right tool for the job. As a rule of thumb, I like industry to make progress, and charity to relieve suffering. Not that there aren't exceptions -- I myself am advocating the establishment of industry in a region as a way to improve conditions, and I certainly see the value of non-profit research.

But usually I don't want the wires crossed. If you're worried about the suffering of folks who have lost jobs and are having trouble making ends meet, the right approach seems to me to start or assist a foundation that helps those sorts of folks financially and educationally (or whatever). Limiting the help to, say, textile manufacturing workers, and having the help come in the form of keeping their jobs at the expense of jobs for folks in other regions, and ignoring an economic opportunity and possibly retarding progress in general . . .

. . . well, that seems to me really inefficient. And kind of morally dubious, too.

The counterpoint to "yeah it would be better for the rest of the world to catch up" would be multiple free-trade zones with a common currency, free trade in goods and free movement of labor within each zone, and then tariffs between them. So the US would be one such zone, the EU another, etc. Lowering tariffs between zones would be conditional on greater freedom of movement and coordination of monetary policy. In theory, this would allow each zone to prosper while preserving some degree of social stability.

China operates this way today, and the US operated this way in the 19th century. Not sure why the US gave it up. One can site economic theories, but economists don't make policy, coalitions do, and I don't know who the members were.

You seem to imply that a blue collar worker in your country is somehow more important than a blue collar in another country. I'd take a liberal philosophy over scary nationalist tendencies any day.