Off shoring ethics

Proponents of offshoring point towards globalisation as a reason to support it. Part of doing business in an interconnected world means that, yes, we’ll lose some jobs overseas, but we’ll also gain others. Or, at the very least, the exporting of low-skilled jobs leaves Australians with more fulfilling high-skilled ones.
Offshoring’s advocates also suggest it provides economic benefits and positive PR in the beneficiary country, making that population more likely to buy Australian goods. It similarly increases Australians’ purchasing power because products are cheaper when they’re manufactured overseas.
Then there’s the profit motive. If offshoring enables Aussie firms to make more money, that creates a stronger Australian economy, greater shareholder returns, and healthier superannuation balances. There was a study released this year by Harvard, for example, which showed that a 10 per cent increase in foreign investment leads to a 2.6 per cent increase in investment back home.
And we haven’t even touched on the skills shortage yet. If companies can’t source the right workers in Australia, it makes sense to look elsewhere. To not do so would restrict economic growth.
That, in a nutshell, is the argument in favour of offshoring. In short, the most efficient allocation of resources is paramount. Even though it’s sad to see people lose their jobs, there’s a net advantage overall from a macroeconomic viewpoint.
But now for the downside.
Professor Greg Bamber from Monash University is a co-author of International and Comparative Employment Relations. He provided me with four compelling reasons to justify why Australia should reverse the offshoring movement: * “Offshoring tends to decrease employment in this country as jobs are exported.” * “Offshored customer-service staff in overseas call centres tend to annoy customers.” * “It may