Also I assume by "outsourcing" you actually meant "offshoring." But this was covered in the article -- it's part of globalization.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/austere-indeed/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/more-about-us-au...
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/american-austeri...
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/unprecedented-au...
SNAP cuts were one example of a deliberately inflicted austerian reform. The overall cost was actually pretty low, but the ripple effect is magnified.
With less SNAP, low income families are far more reliant on their jobs for sustenance, which turns them into more pliant workers and who accept lower wages/worse hours.
>The US government has spent more money every year throughout the financial crisis.
Yes, well, funneling ever more money into too big to fail banks and bloated military contractors while cutting food stamps is still austerity as far as 99% of the nation is concerned.
Here's a chart showing its extreme increase:
http://i.imgur.com/tGgtpmL.jpg
And as a share of GDP:
http://i.imgur.com/4JbxWiT.png
The primary problem in the SNAP program, was the flood of people participating. The per capita sum didn't quite keep up with the large influx of people wanting to be on the program. However, that has been partially offset by increases at the State level as well.
The US has never spent more per capita on food programs overall, between the local + state + national level, than it does today.
There has hardly been a drop of austerity in anything in the US.
Which is just a euphemistic way of saying that SNAP benefits have been cut.
It may not look like austerity from your oblique perspective, but then again, you're definitely not claiming food stamps.
And even if you don't consider that austerity, several states severely trimmed their budgets for public assistance, despite it being a time when it was needed more than before.
http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/
Oops, ruined the narrative.
Let alone demonstrating any causal relationship.
A lot happened between 1820 and 2000 to change the shape of those graphs - the fall of the British empire, labor movements (both national and international) & two world wars as well as industrialization and the rise of American hegemony.
Are you claiming that global wages would have increased even further without globalization? It would be fun to see some sort of argument in that direction.
To observe the result of immigration, you basically just need to compute immigrant wages - wages of whoever is left back at home. Those wage gaps are so huge that they dwarf anything which happens domestically.
Immigration makes workers participate in paying for your society's taxes and paying for its social expenditures. Outsourcing is a vote against your own standard of living. But it helps more people than it hurts, if you ignore national interests!
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ECICOM
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/RCPHBS
In short, everyone has become richer.
Also, outsourcing increases your own standard of living. Foreigners work while locals consume. What next, hiring a maid reduces my standard of living?
Outsourcing, austerity and union busting have caused vastly more damage to wages than automation ever has or ever will.
Automation is simply given most of the credit for it because it's a fantastic scapegoat. That's the real reason it appears at the the top of lists like these.
It lets American oligarchs and the politicians and elite economists who follow in their wake redirect blame for outsourcing, austerity and union busting and cast their opponents as luddites who are "against progress".
I think basic income is performing a similar, although slightly different function. Almost every person who advocates for it realizes that it's a political non-starter. This is, of course, glossed over every time that it is brought up.
The great thing about it being a political non-starter is that, as an oligarch you can advocate for it maintaining your progressive and 'forward thinking' credentials and your notional opposition to income/wealth inequality while safe in the knowledge that you will never have to actually suffer its effects (higher inflation & a less pliant workforce).
You can continue to enjoy the great benefits income an wealth inequality has to offer you and still remain "one of the good guys" in the public eye.