Outsourcing of knowledge economy jobs

Kim du Toit argues that knowledge based jobs moving overseas is a bad thing. One of his examples, and the apparent inspiration to post on this subject was IBM's announcement that it wants to move "4,730 programmers to India, China and elsewhere." Du Toit observes that the National Review takes an unabashedly favorable view of what is often called creative destruction.

I will put aside the observation that IBM was considered an old dinosaur when Microsoft became the master of software and that cost cutting measures by IBM strike me as good news for IBM. Because, even if it were a young, vigorous company still in its growth that was expanding overseas rather than at home, I would argue that this is a good thing. There are three main reasons it is good.

1) Democracies are based on knowledge workers. Knowledge workers, like the computer programmers mentions, strengthen the democracy in India, encourages the rise of reform in China, and so should be welcomed in the parts of the world where democracy is threatened or nascent.
2) Jobs is not only not a zero-sum game, market economics (including jobs) is a geometerical growth scenario. In short, high paying jobs produce more high paying jobs. American unemployment is low, remains low, and our standard of living climbs. All of this despite the creation of jobs overseas by American firms coincident with those same firms destroying jobs domestically. As it turns out many Americans end up going from thier old job to a similar job or a better job in similar or related fields. In a country that is still subsidizing the importation of programmers because of the huge undersupply of programmerlabor available, I'm not worried.
3) Over the long run (an I mean several years and longer) free markets produce more wealth for nearly all of their participants than to "fair" markets. When the price of bread got too high (say because of a bad harvest) the bakers would be forced by a mob to sell bread at prices that people could afford. This is because there was assumed to be a fair price for bread. Today this fair/free divison remains. But the fair market advocates are really playing a variation of the hand that the socialists play. One wants fairness acomplished by government redistribution, the other by government regulation (or investment) to prevent the free flow of labor and capital.

When free markets produce more than fair markets, when job production anywhere produces job production everywhere, and when the growth of knowledge based jobs (and white collar jobs in general) is a precondition for democracy, its an easy decision to support free and unfettered market activity over any alternatives.