[geofft]

1. "Overseas" is a curious definition. Linux was written in Finland, after all. Would blocking US workers from aiding Finnish technology have been productive?

2. Can it be stopped? If US companies refuse to work with Indian or Chinese employees, what is preventing India or China from out-competing the US company in the international market? If the US places tariffs on technology products and services from other countries, what is preventing those other countries from outpacing our standard of living?

[TheAdamAndChe]

1. It depends on where the work is shipped. Global trade between countries with similar minimum wages and labor laws is a net positive because it takes advantage of the varying resources of other countries without exploiting labor. Yet when a country has a vastly different economy, it can be not fair at all. For example, minimum wage in Mexico is $0.48/hr, and their quality of life is very low. How is it fair to the world when a richer country facilitates the poorer country's poor labor laws by shipping all its work to the poor country, all while gutting the richer country's middle class? It just leads to a race to the bottom to see which country can offer the cheapest labor.

2. It can be stopped. The US was an economic powerhouse before globalization, and had an incredibly powerful middle class with a high quality of life. What China has done is use the money from outsourcing into creating its own internal industries, which is why their economy is rising all across the board, while in the US we've been outsourcing our industries to the point where only the capital owners who exploit globalization are seeing an increase in quality of life. If we stop that, the globalists will suffer but our middle class will rise. As far as competition goes, what does it matter if we have the "strongest market" or whatever if the majority of people don't benefit from it?