[KevinTheOmnivore]

I haven't read your link yet, but I will later on when I have more time.

As for Senator Clinton's argument-- well....I dunno. I would rather read the research base behind the article, rather than ger one-sided article, to be honest.

I think the example she provides, unknown offshore costs such as relocation and security, are a bit exaggerated and not specific enough.

On security, perhaps that might be a relatively high cost in hostile regions, but Mexico, China, and India don't strike me as being security threats along the lines of Iraq and Afghanistan (on a side note, I think it'll be interesting to see how corporations approach the open markets in Afghanistan and Iraq. This may all be down the road, so whatever).

On transition costs-- I doubt it costs that much. For an example, I used to work for the Van Heusen mens wear company. I did some research on their dress shirt production, and found that they generally just contracted out with various (aswell as nefarious) characters in countries like Mexico and Guatemala. If they had a problem with one plant in Mexico, they'd merely close up shop and sign a deal with the Mexican down the street. I don't think PVH ever went in to Guatemal or Mexico and literally constructed factories, etc.

Now, I don't know what the deal is with a lot of the recent white-collar outsourcing. I'd be interested to see where some of these relocation costs Senator Clinton mentions are supposedly coming from.....