Challenge to Offshoring claim by IIE

Neither Dr. Catherine Mann nor any of the 30 Institute for International Economics researchers would explain their claim that "there is no question that shipping jobs overseas creates even more jobs in the long run." I have phoned Helen Hillebrand, IIE Media Relations 202 328-9000 twice - still no response.

NOTE: IIE it closely associated to CFR, which is a key advocate of free trade pacts like NAFTA and FTAA: The chairman of both organizations is Peter G. Peterson. David Rockefeller is honorary chairman of CFR and is on the board of IIE. The following are on both boards: George Seros, Carla A. Hills, Laura D'Andrea Tyson.

Dr. Mann provided me the following supporting docs, but they don't resolve the questions I raised.

From: Kim Berry
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 9:29 PM
Subject: FW: MSNBC: How does outsourcing create jobs?

Research staff, Institute for International Economics,
To date Dr. Mann has not acknowledged my inquiry. Since she presumably speaks for your organization with her claim there there is "no question" that shipping tech jobs overseas will result in even more tech jobs within the U.S., perhaps one of you can explain the basis for her claim.
I will forward any explanation to the media and legislators I've bccd.
(Some of you might think it is "impolite" to email the entire staff. On the other hand, tech workers who are being forced to train their foreign replacements while Congress condones this - relying on "economic experts" - are arguably suffering the greater harm.)
Mr. Kim Berry
-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Berry
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 9:58 PM
To: ''
Subject: MSNBC: How does outsourcing create jobs?


Dear Dr. Catherine Mann, Senior Fellow at the Institute for International Economics,

I've read your quote in the following article:

"[Shipping jobs overseas] does create more jobs in the long run. They are different jobs. They will be more skilled jobs, but there is no question that it will create more jobs in the long run," said Catherine Mann, senior fellow at The Institute for International Economics.

 I keep hearing economists make this claim. But not one has been able to explain the basis for this claim - aside from abstract economic "unseen hand" theories.


1) Boeing transfers its entire R&D and manufacturing to China. 20,000 highly skilled U.S. jobs lost. No more airliners are manufactured in the U.S. How could this event possibly directly result in over 20,000 new highly-skilled jobs being created, which you claim "without question" would result?

2) HP and Intel relocate their R&D and manufacturing to India. Microprocessors are no longer designed and manufactured in the U.S. 50,000+ jobs lost. Since most gross profit is consumed by operating costs, the bulk of the assets from the continued operation would be a trade deficit with India. How would such a loss result in more jobs in the long run? Do you believe that HP/Intel's competition would hire more U.S. workers as a result? Or would they be forced to follow suit and relocate overseas to remain competitive?

3) HR Block terminates their U.S. staff and has tax returns prepared in India. How would this result in an increase in skilled jobs back in the U.S.?

(I will fwd your response to the parties I've bcc'd)


Mr. Kim Berry
Sacramento, CA
Outsourcing: training your replacement
Economists say eventually more jobs to be created for U.S. workers
By Andrea Mitchell
NBC News
Updated: 7:59 p.m. ET March  05, 2004    <--- quoted in this article