We’re heading into an election year in the U.S., which means facts are largely going to be irrelevant to most public discussions of issues for the next fourteen months. Instead, we’ll be treated to spin, counterspin, and more spin. The big Indian software & services companies realize this, and the Times reports that they’ve decided to hire lobbyists to counterspin the inevitable protectionist rhetoric (the original spin, as it were) that “outsourcing is costing America jobs.”

The economic impact of outsourcing is complicated, far too complicated to be given justice in a 30 second ad or crowd-pleasing stump speech. While it’s hard to argue that no jobs have been lost to outsourcing, there’s no reliable number on how many jobs are actually being lost (it’s certainly nowhere near 3.3 million, as was predicted earlier). There’s also some evidence that “insourcing” creates far more jobs than outsourcing takes away (the U.S. remains a net exporter of business services, for instance). And yes, some Indian companies are now opening up decent-sized offices in the U.S., and hiring American workers. (As you’ll recall, this came up back in June, with the infamous Obama campaign memo on Hillary Clinton’s purported connections to India.) See the conservative Heritage Foundation for more; and see this article at IHT for why it may not matter anyway.

The lobbyists quoted in the Times article are even adding some new arguments and approaches to their arsenal:

But the core of the Indian vendors’ new strategy appears to be removing themselves from the limelight. Outsourcing is not about us, goes the new pitch to lawmakers, it benefits Americans, including ones in your district.

The Washington lobbyist who asked not to be identified said that a focus of the campaign was to collect data on Indian companies’ investments in the United States and then to lobby members of Congress from districts where those investments have created jobs.

For example, a lawmaker from Washington State might be told something like this: Indian outsourcing companies may funnel some Seattle-area technology jobs to India, but with the affluence that creates in India, more and more Indians are flying. That has made India a huge buyer of Boeing aircraft and thus a creator of jobs in the Seattle area, where Boeing does much of its manufacturing.(link)

I don’t know — the tradeoff described here seems awfully indirect, and I’m not sure a politican could really sell the rising Indian middle class as a positive to an American middle class that’s currently dealing with economic uncertainty. Readers, do you buy the argument above? Can people think of other instances where the trade-off works this way? What about cases where it doesn’t? Continue reading →