Sorry. This is simply not true.
The oursourcing has dramatic effect. US economy although heavily involved in moving sector does not mean it does not have a significant manuf. sector.
Productivity is not what is keeping employment low. Company after the bubble burst are very reluctant to add to payroll in US. The fact that productivity rose is simply because more people are now required to do the more jobs. What you call a productivity increase is actually putting more work onto less employee. In other words, employers are now working their employee harder with less pay and benefit.
If the company found that they could not push more jobs under american's throat. They hired cheaper labor from other country or send jobs off shore. Yes the productivity is higher on paper. Because work is now getting down with less cost. But it has no benefit to American economy as consumer like us are either working much harder or without jobs.
Let me give you a quick example. Suppose an IT
worker here can earn $100k a year. That 100K that could be used here in US to consume goods. For example he can buy a caddilac for $60,000.
However by sending this job to country like china or India. The same worker is making probably $20,000. He would never be afford to buy a $60k cadillac. So even though company A saved $80,000 on paper, the US economy lost a worker that could by more expansive goods. Yes there are $80,000 saving in labor cost. But often labor cost less than 20% of cost of goods. Hence, the saving brought on by lower labor cost when passed onto consumer is low.
Therefore, my argument would be that the real loss in consumer purchasing power from shifting jobs to lower cost country outweighs the benefit of lower cost of goods. Therefore the entire world economy suffers.
Yes, i know about theory of equilibrium. However, country like china has a fixed monetary policy. Hence the equilibrium will never be reached.
I am no economist. But I did have an economic degree with a master in business as well (although I am actually an engineer by trade).
Everyone can have their opinion. But at least the current status of economy would probably support my view better.
And yes, the less amount of people that works here, means less demand on business travel. Which will in turn lead to cut down in leasuire travel as well.