What Does Obama's Remark on Offshoring Mean? Maybe Nothing

Ann All

Political conventions are mostly about rhetoric and saying what people want to hear, as all of us watching coverage of the U.S. Democratic and Republican national conventions have been reminded over the past two weeks. This is especially true of hot-button issues like offshoring.


So perhaps it's not surprising that India's outsourcing industry does not appear unduly concerned by Democratic nominee Barack Obama's convention remark that "companies that ship jobs overseas will not get tax breaks." An Indiatimes Infotech story quotes Som Mittal, chairman of India's National Association of Software and Services Companies (Nasscom):

Democratic governments in the past were in support of free trade as the U.S. has been all along. We don't think that practice will go when a new administration takes over early next year. The stakeholders are well aware of the advantages of outsourcing, especially in the service industry.

Mittal also says he thinks Obama's statement refers to the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs rather than the outsourcing of IT services. True, the average U.S. voter is more aware of -- and thus more concerned about -- manufacturers moving their operations to countries like China and Mexico than companies sending IT chores to India. But if tax breaks are wrong for companies with offshore manufacturing operations, won't they also be wrong for companies sending IT tasks overseas?


This question points up the difficulty of attempting to apply blanket policies to a nuanced issue. And offshoring is definitely that. For every person who insists that huge numbers of U.S. jobs have been lost to offshoring, there's someone who says no real proof of this exists and, in any case, the economic gains enabled by offshoring outweigh any losses.


There's another problem with Obama's statement. What does it mean exactly? I am not a tax code expert, but I don't believe companies currently get any tax breaks for offshoring work. Multi-national companies can defer taxes on profits by moving money overseas, an issue larger in scope than outsourcing. And foreign governments offer some attractive financial incentives to attract U.S. investments, but again, this is a far broader issue.


Obama last August introduced the Patriot Employer Act, which seeks to reward American corporations with tax breaks for keeping their headquarters in the U.S. and maintaining a certain ratio of domestic-to-foreign employees, among other criteria.


Offshoring obviously factors into broader trade issues. Interestingly, despite an approach to trade that seems more restrictive than McCain's, Obama so far has been more popular in California's Silicon Valley, which is filled with tech companies clamoring for more H-1B visas and green cards for their foreign-born employees. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the Connecticut Democrat who has angered members of his party with his support of McCain, recently knocked Obama for his opposition to trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea and for his apparent willingness to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement.


A Wall Street Journal item quotes Lieberman:

... Depending on who gets elected, our policy on trade will be dramatically different and if Sen. Obama really follows through on some of the things he said, those anti-trade policies will have the net effect of--I don't want to be an alarmist--but putting us into a lot worse economically than we otherwise would be.

There's an interesting nugget on McCain's approach to trade in this Money Morning piece that compares the two candidates' positions on a number of issues, with a slant toward how these positions will affect U.S. investors. Writes Martin Hutchinson, who according to an editor's note has interviewed economic advisors for both McCain and Obama:

A further advantage of a McCain presidency could be the conclusion of more trade deals, and the consequent expansion of both world trade and of the economy in general. McCain is even more of a free trader than President Bush and has more credibility abroad; hence, it must be possible that he could make progress on the Doha Round of trade negotiations. That would be particularly important for the economies of emerging markets, which would be given greater access to the U.S. market, and reap rewards in the form of economic growth and corporate profits.

Subscribe to our Newsletters

Sign up now and get the best business technology insights direct to your inbox.


Add Comment      Leave a comment on this blog post
Sep 7, 2008 3:23 PM Suja Suja  says:
Part of the subdued reaction to Obama's viewpoint is probably due to the lobbying by the offshoring vendors and service providers? Reply
Sep 7, 2008 5:38 PM krishna krishna  says:
It appears that his remark is to make an impression among the working class democrats. He won't be able to completely reverse the offshoring process by tax breaks as the cost advantage offered by offshoring is so high. Reply
Sep 9, 2008 7:15 PM Robert Robert  says:
Perhaps another facet to this issue is the rising protest of all classes of Americans who have endured the infuriating agony of trying to get assistance for products from unintelligible and useless foreigners. These Americans vote!!! Reply
Mar 20, 2009 6:26 PM Brian Brian  says:

I think it should be illegal for certain private intellectual property of consumers to leave US soil without their permission.

For example, you should not be able to have employees on foreign soil handle health care information. Obviously, an Indian would not be subject to US laws regarding the transfer of such information to others.

Nov 3, 2009 6:31 PM mark mark  says:

How long can American business erode away the very consumer that buys there services?  Sooner or later, this country won't be able to purchase the goods and services they hope to sell.  

The reality is American business does not care, the new markets are India and China and American business will leave us in the dust chasing wealth overseas.

The day will come when American intellectual capital is stolen by China or India and those markets will no longer NEED the business leaders who forged into these new markets.  Diversity is not a core value in China or India and the ex-patriots will be pushed to the side.  The prodigal will come crawling back home with hands out crying foul, looking for a bailout or legal help and finally realize, the cupboard is empty.

America has always provided the most innovative and productive workers the world has ever seen.  We need to reduce our costs in this country and drive our wages down to be competitive with the emerging markets.  In a generation the skills needed to manufacture in the US will be lost, once that happens, it will take generations to recover.  Time is of the essence. 

Nov 26, 2010 9:29 AM Vidya Devaiah Vidya Devaiah  says:

The proposed curbs and restrictions on outsourcing are no more than political rhetoric. Such curbs make no economic sense. We addressed the issue of curbs on outsourcing on our blog two years ago during the run up to President Obama's election: The tax code that President Obama refers to 'has been in place for decades, and the setting up of overseas operations by American corporations is an economic reality that cannot be turned around merely by changing the tax code. Simply put, those American companies with manufacturing and service set-ups abroad haven't made these arrangements to take advantage of the tax deferral. They have done it because of lower operational costs, or because of the proximity to target markets, or for other reasons that may have nothing to do with tax breaks or outsourcing of jobs. Changing the tax code to remove the deferral will only create a barrier that will reduce the ability of U.S. companies to compete in today's global marketplace. If the U.S. government offers incentives and tax credits to companies that create more jobs for the American workforce, that might help a bit. But then again, those benefits would have to be enormous to outweigh the benefits of offshoring.' Please see more at my blog post at Law Without Borders. Nothing has changed in the interim.Vidya Devaiahhigh-end legal outsourcing


Post a comment





(Maximum characters: 1200). You have 1200 characters left.




Subscribe Daily Edge Newsletters

Sign up now and get the best business technology insights direct to your inbox.

Subscribe Daily Edge Newsletters

Sign up now and get the best business technology insights direct to your inbox.