That’s a pretty self explanatory, though misleading, characterization, I’d say. It seems he’s outsourcing his job because he can reduce his own personal costs significantly without a detectable decrease in quality. That’s efficiency enhancing, no?
Further evidence to support my conjecture comes near the end of the article:
The kicker: Further digging found that Bob was taking jobs with other firms and outsourcing that work to China too. “It looked like he earned several hundred thousand dollars a year, and only had to pay the Chinese consulting firm about fifty grand annually,” said Verizon.
All this seems to suggest that there is no world equilibrium wage in the software industry right now.
Coming on the heels of a post where everyone seems to have an opinion, I would guess that in this case you just have to shake your head and laugh.
So this post isn’t totally bereft of content, I point you to Rick Geddes’ review of postal reform in the Economics Journal Watch.
This essay examines the published views of vital economists regarding postal reform. I define a vital economist as one who has produced scholarly research on this issue, and who has expressed an opinion about the direction reform should take. The ten vital economists surveyed here express surprisingly similar opinions on the proper direction for postal reform. The vast majority advocate some combination of privatization and elimination or relaxation of the delivery monopoly. Those opinions are in stark contrast to the published views of economists who have not carefully examined this issue.
One of my more clever colleagues was telling me how impressed he was with the noticeable effects of our Freshman Studies curriculum, even extending well beyond affecting just Lawrence students and faculty.