For a guy who can rant with the best of them, Steve Earle was pretty quiet on March 10.

The ultra-political, alt-country troubadour spent the first half of his two-hour concert only strumming and singing, and he didn't get down to ranting until later in the show.

Even then, Steve only vented a little - but what he said made a lot of sense.

Introducing new song City of Immigrants, Earle said that the current immigration debate in the United States is just a smokescreen. The problem isn't immigrants taking jobs, Earle explained, but jobs being shipped overseas to save a few bucks.

So I did some reading about outsourcing, and while I understand that it makes economic sense for corporations to ship work where labour is cheap, I can't understand the underlying logic behind the decision.

The American economy, which is a huge part of the global economy, is based around consumption, which means people need to have money to spend on DVDs, SUVs and MP3s. When Johnny Six-Pack doesn't have any cash, as is the case at present due to the collapse of the housing market and increasing debt loads, the U.S. economy suffers in a big way. Stock prices plummet, banks foreclose and idiot presidents put together aid packages to keep consumer spending high.

Meanwhile, jobs are being shipped elsewhere and outsourcing victims are forced to find a way to replace lost income. According to the book Outsourcing America, by Ron and Anil Hira, 5.3 million American workers with three years of employment had their jobs moved elsewhere between 2001 and 2003. According to the Hiras, only 65% had found full- or part-time work by January 2004, and a third of those people had to take a pay cut of more than 20%.

So here's what I don't understand:

If the American economy is based on consumer spending, then isn't it in the best interests of the nation and its corporations to make sure workers have disposable income? Wouldn't that create a more sustainable situation whereby the average dude can afford to buy the products his company is selling?

Sure, corporations will benefit in the short term by shipping jobs to India and wringing every penny of profit from a business. The bottom line will look better, the CEO will get fatter, and shareholders will clink glasses of Champagne after reading the quarterly report - but is it really a good idea to attack the consumers who are the foundation of the American economy, to force a guy who used to make $20 an hour into a candle kiosk in the mall?

I don't think it is, even if wanton consumerism is an entirely different problem.

I know this is a simplified view of things. Globalization presents infinite challenges to governments and businesses, and economics is about more than some guy in Boston having to call Bangalore about his credit-card balance, but I just don't see the wisdom in keeping the average American poor.

Then again, common sense is dead and average people don't seem very important to anyone anymore.

Mike Warkentin did not outsource the writing of this column.