I have read a few posts about a very passionate exchange about non-Alaskans taking jobs from Alaskans (I wasn't there so I can only assume the discussion might have been about immigration). Assuming this is to say that Alaskan's labor and non-Alaskan labor are perfect substitute but research shows that, for example, in the case of immigration, that this is not the case. In other words, non-Alaskans tend to get jobs where they have a comparative advantage allowing Alaskans to occupy activities where they have a comparative advantage, which traditionally higher paid. In the short run, it might be true to some Alaskans lose jobs but in the long run there is no evidence that immigrants (or labor migration) displace "native" jobs or depress wages. Neither is there any evidence that proves that immigrants depress wages. Actually, if any else happens, in the long run, native wages increase because they specialize in activities with higher salaries.
The topic of the post is obviously not immigration even though it's part of the discussion. But I want to remind all students what Bastiat wrote in What is Seen and What is Not Seen: the difference between a good and a bad economist is that bad economists tend to focus on the short run, on what's immediately observable while good economists will look both at short run and long run effects because sometimes short run costs actually produce long term benefits.
When it comes to immigration and outsourcing, many see costs but those are short run costs. In the long run, both produce long term benefits. Outsourcing might displace jobs in the short run but in the long run, they produce lower costs of production which benefit to consumers in the long run including the people who lost their jobs as a result of outsourcing.
PS: I apologize for my late posts recently but I have both moved to a new apartment and hosted an IHS week-end seminar on my campus the same week.