In today's NY Times there is an article on
outsourcing that takes a new spin on the topic: the use of outsourcing by small, "Mom & Pop" entrepreneurs:
Philip Chigos and Mary Domenico are busy building a children's pajama business. They are refining patterns, picking fabrics and turning the basement of their two-bedroom apartment into an office.
Then there is the critical step of finding the right seamstresses in China.
Instead of looking for garment workers in this city, they plan to have their wares manufactured by low-cost workers overseas. In doing so, they've become micro-outsourcers, adopting a tactic of major American corporations, which are increasingly sending production work abroad.
More trip on the flip:
A growing number of mom-and-pop operations, outsourcing experts say, are braving a host of potential complications and turning to places like Sri Lanka, China, Mexico and Eastern Europe to make clothes, jewelry, trinkets and even software programs.
"We'd love it to say 'made in the U.S.A.' and use American textiles and production," Mr. Chigos said of his product. But, he said, the cost of that would be 4 to 10 times what was planned. "We didn't want to sell our pajamas for $120."
So here we have the prototypical family-run start up of yesterday meeting the Thomas Friedman's over-ripe "flat" world. On the one hand, these small business owners could be criticized for shipping work overseas that could have gone to employ their fellow Americans. On the other, their business may not even have the possibility to exist without outsourcing - which business provides an opportunity for them to have control over their own lives and livelihoods. In other words, freedom.
The ability of Mr. Chigos, 26, and Ms. Domenico, 25, to reach across borders has as much to do with technology as it does with the globalization of the labor market.
Computers, the Internet and modern telecommunications already make it possible for start-ups to market their goods to customers anywhere in the country.
Although its becoming a cliche, its still a true one. Technology is transforming our world in ways we could have scarcely imagined a short time ago. I am in my early 30s, born in the age of Nixon/Ford and Carter, grew up in the age of Reagan and turned into an adult in the Clinton years. When I see myself in the mirror, I still in some ways see that 20-year old college student at Boston University, with maybe a few less hairs at the temples. But when I take a step back, I realize how much I have already seen.
When I was born, we had a single TV the size of a small car that got a small handful of channels and sat like a giant behemoth in our living room. Today, I watch digitized movies on my 14-inch iBook while flying from coast to coast. Jobs were things you had for your whole life when I was born. Today, for good or for ill, we are each masters of our own fate. When I was born, my mother would take us to Sears for clothes - they came in three sizes - slim, regular and husky. Today, I can order customized sneakers over the computer. When I was born, we were struggling to get out of a failed war based on a string of lies....Okay, maybe some things don't change, but you get my point.
What I am struck with can best be captured by that word that describes the perfect synthesis of fear and excitement - awe. Techonology has and is dramatically reshaping our lives - not just here in America, but across the globe. China, where millions once died of starvation within living memory, now owns IBM computers. Korea, when my father served there, was one of the poorest countries on the planet. Now, it is one of the richest. 100 years from now, if we play our cards right, we may be talking not about the Asian Tiger economies, but the African ones.
It sounds silly, but the Star Trek universe is happening. Kos, I know, is a bit of a sci fi nerd (having professed his love for SciFi Fridays on the SciFi Channel.) I suspect there may be a few others here on the Internets. That hyper-idealized world of a single world, a single people, is happening. Slowly, yes, but it is happening. We can see with our very eyes.
That infrastructure also enables even the smallest entrepreneurs to find workers tens of thousands of miles away in countries they will never visit and in factories they will never inspect
Both, however, are concerned about the pitfalls of dealing with a far-flung manufacturer. In her youth, Ms. Domenico did volunteer work for Amnesty International, and she worries that the couple may wind up working with a sweatshop. "It's my biggest fear," she said.
"People in the U.S. won't work for 50 cents an hour," Mr. Chigos countered. "We also recognize that there are people around the world who are happy to work for 50 cents."
And there's the rub. A world that is "flat", a world where we can all "outsource" whatever we need, where half a globe away is available at the click of the button, has the potential to change lives for the better, and for the worse. Sweatshops are bad, but a sweatshop brings work and wealth to where none existed previously. The question isn't how do we stop that process. We shouldn't stop it even if we could. Its a process that brings with it freedom, both in the actual and the potential.
The question is how do we manage it. What role should the U.S. play? How do we set the standards and the ground rules? And how do we do that in a way that is not just a barrier to trade and economic freedom in disguise?