Is the offshoring of manufacturing jobs a good thing or a bad thing, on balance? Why?

It is the best thing that happened in twentiest century since global trade  (offshoring being the cardinal part of it) lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in China, India and many other countries as well as allowing consumers to consume more by keeping prices lower.

You never can exclude all parties involved in an economic reasoning, so “is it good” implies for all, competitors, regulators, subsidiaries: yes, as it encourages transfer of technology so in addition to the Adam Smith argument, you get incident innovation; not so much because it impairs control and you end up with quality issues and environmental catastrophy invisible to those who pay for it. The real issue appears to be the detachment: because buyers can’t see the good being made, they do not respect labour, and this might create a hacker gap in outsourcing countries: a lack of interest in the new generation for changing things; because makers are far from demand, they miss essential aspects. It is more true with complex, immaterial goods, like customer assistance.

Offshoring allows manufacturing companies to take advantage of lower labor costs, in some cases lower overhead (ie. energy etc.), and can potentially put them in closer proximity to raw materials thus reducing their manufacturing costs. Depending on what they are manufacturing and where the final market location is the savings may outweigh the costs. As for the original location of the jobs (ie. where they are being offshored from) the people in those locations may temporarily suffer from unemployment. However, on a greater scale the jobs may simply be transferred from one industry to another. For example, in Pittsburgh PA the steel industry has seen better days, yet the medical industry has flurished there. Or a more obscure example may be that a flat glass manufacturer moved over seas but a new glass company started up in its place that uses robots to pack the glass as opposed to humans. The new company would employ a more educated work force to maintain the robots but obviously would require fewer employees. Overall the newer company may realize lower costs while maintaining its operations in the original location.

Here is a good article about Evergreen, the third largest solar panel manufacturer in the US moving to China.  It seems that financing is the most evident reason to move. Maybe subsidies is a better term.  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/business/energy-environment/15solar.html?pagewanted=1&src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

Globalism - A FairyTale (or How Globalism Will Bring the American Way to the Rest of the World) How globalism was sold:      "As these other countries' economies develop, they will eventually become democracies, liberalize their economies, aim for a lifestyle like ours, and before you know it their citizens will all have two cars and live in MacMansions just like we do." How globalism has worked out for the U.S.:      "With open economic borders, the life of the average U.S. worker is getting more like that in the third world every day: less and less health care, fewer other benefits, a falling real income, crushed by debt." The force behind globalism is that of corporations, whose very existence is based on a drive for profits. It should be no surprise that opening economic borders results in pulling the U.S. standard of living down, far more than generously raising that in the third world. As a doc, I see a wide spectrum of society in my everyday life. I can tell you that this economic patient of ours is very sick indeed.

Are you asking if outsourcing is ethical?  I've encountered this video on Ted Talks that discusses real issues that affect global labor in developing countries: Outsourcing is a good thing - if it doesn't involve sweatshops or human trafficking.  But, who can monitor these things?  I guess, in the end, what's right or wrong depends on what our values are.

A good thing, to the extent that it results in equivalent (or better) quality goods available at lower prices. This is an increase to the of all buyers of those goods. This is at work.

Just as a student can't outsource studying to a student in a cheaper country, a country's population is unable to gain competency in a task it doesn't master. Loss of low-cost manufacturing know-how has knock-on effect on higher value added activities, like industrial design, machining, etc.

Rising salaries, the cost of transporting goods to the US Market, and concerns regarding the distribution of Intellectual property have made many US companies rethink their outsourcing strategy. As countries like China and India become leaders in manufacturing the costs of their expertise rises diminishing their advantage against US counterparts. Adversely, convoluted and increasingly risky supply chains dependent on inexperienced vendors have turned once stable brands like Boeing, into the perfect “reshoring” case study. Finally, companies are recognizing that their most important asset is their intellectual property. By shifting their supply chain to countries with little regard for US patent and copyright protections, they’ve inadvertently opened themselves up to a new threat: turning their vendors into competitors. Watch the video to learn more about why the best companies are using an insourcing strategy to their advantage.