Carly Fiorina: Robber Baron, Traitor — and Outsourcer!
If we still had a well-educated workforce and reasonable taxation and regulation, outsourcing wouldn’t be the wedge issue it is.


Victor Davis Hanson

One of Sen. Barbara Boxer’s sharpest charges against challenger Carly Fiorina is that, as CEO of Hewlett-Packard, she allowed thousands of jobs to be outsourced overseas — depriving U.S. workers of income while piling up profits for executive grandees like herself.

Outsourcing of both manufacturing and service jobs has become a wedge issue. It stings especially when times are tough. By Election Day, outsourcing will be portrayed as equivalent to child-molesting in its depravity. But the charge of greed and lack of economic patriotism is disingenuous for a variety of reasons.

Remember that outsourcing can be insidious — it knows no political bounds. When presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry once equated outsourcing with treason by promising to go after “any Benedict Arnold CEO or company [that moves] jobs overseas,” he was forgetting that his wife’s billion-dollar-plus fortune and thus his own luxury power boat were derived from the profits of the American-based H. J. Heinz Company, which made such gargantuan profits in part because it moved dozens of its American operations all over the globe. Take the most liberal icons of the business world — from Bill Gates to George Soros — and you will find ownerships of, or investments in, American companies that outsource production overseas.

Second, is there something called “insourcing” to explain why a Toyota or a Honda relocates plants to the United States, depriving Japanese workers of high-paying jobs in order to maximize profits for its corporate hierarchy? When Mercedes opens an American car-making plant, are we supposed to applaud a foreign company’s hiring our workers and attempting to share some of its success with the homeland of its customers or lament the loss of German jobs? Mercedes is a hero to us but a traitor to Germany?

Do we complain that China and India seem to have outsourced most of their higher-education responsibilities — from engineering PhDs to MBAs for CEOs — to American universities? And in turn are we even angrier that a number of American universities are opening branch campuses in China and the Middle East — depriving Americans of both staff and instructional jobs — to better capitalize on this new global market in higher education? Are there Japanese Barbara Boxers demanding an end to Nissan plants in the American South or Indian populists running Boxer-like campaigns by crying to stop sending Indian talent to be educated at an outrageously expensive Yale?

So apparently the problem is not so much shipping some jobs overseas, but shipping more jobs out than are shipped in. Or does the anger arise because we draw in foreign capital for our own labor in some areas, but not enough in others to balance it out? Should we worry that we are assembling some American-designed printers overseas or be relieved that we are taking over more and more of the intricate manufacturing of the most sophisticated jumbo jets in the world?

In other words, no one knows exactly all the real costs and benefits of outsourcing, or how to turn the equation to our sole advantage, or why we seem to do well in one area, but not so well in another, or whether outsourcing helps many of the very developing countries that buy our American-designed products. When we fail to beat the competition in high-end, highly skilled manufacturing, then we turn to damn those who sometimes outsource the fabrication of products that require less skill.


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

NRO Polls on LockerDome

Subscribe to National Review