Offshoring an engineer's job improves the bottomline for the US owned company. In order for it to enhance the US economy in a way that would create a replacement domestic job, does it require some minimum percent of the increased profit be funnelled into job retraining and education for it not to be a net negative on the economy?
I know re-education or (job re-training) is a one time cost, and the increased profit is every year (forever), but if tax on the corporations is low, the dividend + income taxes on stockholders is low, and the amount subsidizing job retraining and reeducation is low (relative to other government spending), then the trickle down would be small enough for it to take longer than the lifespan of the employee to pay for her re-education (or job retraining). Right?
Given the Bush administration's regressive tax policy, cutbacks in colleges and financial aid, are we in danger of losing IT jobs overseas in a way that negatively impacts our economy? Or is free trade and job migration still always a good thing even if sometimes painful to individuals?
-Steve