Slashdot Mirror
How India is Saving Capitalism
alphakappa writes "Salon goes onsite to Chennai (Madras) in India to investigate the whole offshoring phenemenon (free daypass) and comes up with an interesting series of stories. Katharine Mieszkowski starts with a company CollabNet which creates collaboration software for teams to work together on projects from locations all over the globe, and has centers in Brisbane (CA,US) and Chennai (India) - a company that would not exist if they didn't have access to engineers from India. She makes the case that in most cases, it is the necessity to survive, rather than greed that has fed the offshoring process. As Behlendorf from CollabNet puts it - 'We saved the jobs of the people who are employed in San Francisco by hiring people here [in India],' he says. 'I don't know that we would be around as a company if we hadn't done that. What was the right thing to do, morally?'"
Since when did capitalism have anything to do with morality?
that every company's situation is different. While it may be true that CollabNet has to outsource to survive, other companies (Dell comes to mind) DO NOT need to outsource to survive, they outsource because it is cheaper. We can argue all day about the morality of outsourcing, but the bottom line is going to be profit in many cases.
'I don't know that we would be around as a company if we hadn't done that. What was the right thing to do, morally?'"
The right thing to do, morally, is probably to go out of business. What if the choice was to not pay for workman's comp insurance or go out of business? Or to pay their employees $2 an hour or go out of business? Using "but... but... we'll go out of business if we don't do this" is a lame ass excuse.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Nike wouldnt exist if it wasnt for childeren in Pakistan. http://www.american.edu/TED/nike.htm
Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
It's a system where you compete against your fellow human. I prefer co-operation. That's one reason I use linux.
Then maybe instead of whining and complaining about it, Americans need to be proactive about making employment more competitive. There's no good reason why a company should keep jobs in the US if they can get the same quality of work somewhere else for half the price or less.
"Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
The real question here should be not was this right morally, I think we Americans are being far too self-righteous (not like that'd be unusual..) if we put it in terms of morality. What we really should be asking here is what can we do to warrant our pay? How can we become more competitive in an increasingly connected world? Rather than complaining about outsourcing, we need to find out how to be more competitive. Any ideas?
The old rationalization was "we outsource to increase value for our shareholders". How generous!
Now, this rationalization, it's "we outsource so at least some people in the US can keep their jobs". How noble!
Prediction: later it will be "we outsource because otherwise we'd have to move entirely out of country and then the US wouldn't get our taxes." How civic!
All have the same underlying message they wish to send, "we want to help people!" But corporations don't generally exist to help people, they exist to make money.
There are 2 _good_ reasons to outsource, both based on the fact that labor is always the number one expense for a company.
1) We can stay in business, whereas otherwise we can't. 2) It makes us more money long-term (not just short-term profit sheets). Unfortunately, both may be true right now.
A.
How is refusing to go off shore in the best interest of the company and its shareholders if they can cut costs and increase profits?
"Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
If companies refused to go off shore, then everyone would be able to survive and we wouldn't lose any jobs.
Or the company cannot keep costs down and thus fails to meet shareholder's expectations and flounders, bringing everyone down with it.
The important thing here is that the race includes labour protection laws, minimum wages and even basic human rights. As soon as you start the "This is better than nothing" justification you should know you are wrong. I am not against outsourcing (hey, I don't live in the US), but I think we should restrict our trading with countries that follow basic human rights. If not we will all loose the few rights we still have.
I believe that it can be shown with little doubt that it is corporate greed that has led to the current situation. That said, it is not necessarily corporate greed that is the current motivator... it just started the chain of events.
With all other corporate scandals and problems taking place, greed is essentially at the center of the motivation wht with pump and dump activities, monopoly abuse, anti-trusts and the lot going on. But the start of the trend changed the landscape considerably.
I complained in-person to a Dell representative about Dell's off-shoring of support to India. I exclaimed that I would never again buy Dell while they are off-shoring the ONE thing that made Dell great -- their support. The representative said it was a decision made so that it could remain competitive. I still think it's a tremendously stupid and inappropriate thing for Dell to do -- sell-out on their one and only unique selling-point and gambling with their brand-name as their primary value...bad idea guys! Now Dell is just another clone! Back to IBM for big business.
Anyway, I digress. I believe that the start of this is corporate greed and the current status of the problem is now competitive culture. The end of it, if there will be any, will start with legislation. Only law can correct the problems that greed/capitalism creates.
I was planning on making some "In Soviet Russia" joke, but I guess you won't understand why it was funny.
/. probably means that you fall in that top 2% (when you consider the planet as a whole). Remember, the majority in this case is the billions of people in the third world who also want a piece of the action.
PS. Just the fact that you are posting on
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
In one sense this is helping to achieve some economic unity, but by and large as far as I can see the general trend is for things to "spiral down" into a competitive frenzy.
Ideally, standards in developing countries should rise to those in developed countries. Instead we are seeing some rise in developing countries at the expense of a fall in economy in the developed countries.
IMHO, protectionist import taxes should be avoided, but it is high time the wto encouraged countries such as India to impose taxes on these boom industries and feed the revenues back into thier own infrastructure so that health, education and other structures can be improved. Perhaps a start would be impose "export taxes" to limit thier growth to agreed limits.
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
" The moral thing to do is for management is to uphold their DUTY to the shareholders"
That isn't a moral imperative, that's a fiscal imperative. But fiscal duty can and must take a back seat to moral imperative, otherwise you can justify virtually anything by saying "I had a duty to the shareholders...".
NO.
Corporations exist as a legal fiction primarily because society decided the benefit outweighed the risks. If corporations become more of a burden or risk to society than they pay back, they will simply be done away with (in a legal sense).
There is no inherent right for a corporation to exist.
Keep bringin in the problems: -Capitalism -Outsourcing -Jobloss in US Now give me the solution? -Communism? Anarchism? -Companies going down? -Still no jobs for countrys like India It seems to me that this egoism of some countries is that they want their jobs kept, on the cost of jobs for people from countries who arent as rich as the US. We all are so noble to keep saying we want wealth spread over the world, and not let "those capitalist pigs" from the US keep the most money. But how do we react if countries like India take our jobs for being cheap and being good? We scream as if we where an poor country! C'mon, those countries and companies are beginning how it works, how the US has done it for decennia. Dont start worrying if they get the jobs for being cheaper, cause thats how capitalisme works, the cheaper guy gets the job, just as you buy the cheaper product for same quality. So the problem is capitalism? Maybe, but that because we need to evolve to a form a capitalism (opposed to the original form of Adam Smith), where we can care about people. And with people I mean the US, Europe, China, India, and all others. We could manage ourselves perfectly, because we where the strong ones. Now that other formal poor countries are coming to an strong and educated civilation we cry like we get hurt where it hurts, like we have been hurting them for a long time. So now it is time for us to show we are 'more civilisized' once again, and come to a more social form of capitalism, where we care about the people who get or dont get the jobs. But dont yell at the India or their companies for picking up any job they could get, we have been doing it for way to long.
(:
You know, there's a similar situation going on in the farming industry. It's been declining since the 70s - THE 1770s. Back then I think 90% of people were farmers, and thanks to *progress*, we don't need that many people working to feed the country. There are people all over the midwest complaining that their way of life is going to disappear, and we all pay extra taxes to subsidize their plight -- the plight of people unwilling to change jobs when the market disappears.
And not only do we pay higher taxes, and higher prices for food, but farmers in places like Africa have nowhere to send their goods, and they don't have the infrastructure to do anything else.
I think it was Bill Maher who said (and I'm paraphrasing), "Americans seemed to be more concerned with taking their own lifestyles from 10 to 11 than to help others bring theirs from 0 to 1." And that's the absolute truth. No one reading this is starving. Even if you did nothing but collect welfare, your lifestyle would still be better than 90% of the world.
So, you're a programmer. Someone else can do your job for 1/4 of the price with the same quality. You have a few choices:
1. Find an employer who requires a warm ass in a seat in the States.
2. Raise the quality of your work.
3. Be your own boss.
4. Change careers.
You know how the RIAA doesn't provide a unique service anymore? Neither do you. You have lots of competition, and right now you can't compete. Or can you?
You can't just look at this in a company by company basis. Capitalism works of the principle of supply and demand. There will only be a demand for products when there is money to buy them. There will only be money to buy them if people have jobs.
That is, if you see any bandwagon passing by that sounds like a plausible explanation to the real motivation, jump to it and see where the ride takes you.
First, it was because it just meant reconverting lower-tech jobs into "creative jobs", whatever the hell it means. That didn't quite float.
Then you see another bandwagon, say, a study that says students are not choosing computer science as much as they used to and claim that the reason why you're moving the jobs is because you can't find enough skilled people locally. Apparently the masses of skilled people finding themselves in the unemployed lists didn't quite bite that one either.
Next one, let's turn things around and show how the offshoring is actually helping the economy and the people by creating New Exciting(TM) employement opportunities as a middle-man parasite. Anyone wants to wager how far that bandwagon will travel?
The fact is that companies are doing that to cut costs and increase profit. Plain and simple in a capitalist market. The interesting thing is that they have to try so hard to make whacky justifications about it, pointing out the general consumer population (remember, we're not people, we're consumers) doesn't quite like the idea.
---- Take the Space Quiz!
My biggest problem with outsourcing is that it is the product of a system which is skewed in favour of corporates, and screws the little guy. The problem as I see it is that one of the reasons why wage costs are so high in developed nations is because our cost of living is equally high. And one of the reasons for the cost of living being so high is because people cost too much to hire. But the problem we are getting now is that companies don't want to hire expensive people so they outsource. But the prices don't go down to reflect this. So as a labour force we still can't compete because our cost of living remains too high.
"Major American companies get most of their business from the WORLD. It was convenient for Americans to enjoy record growth and prosperity when the world sent their huge investment dollars to the U.S., purchased tickets to watch Hollywood movies, and purchased American products. During these very same boom years, 99.9% of Americans completely ignored the plight of poor workers in the Third World who complained of illegal farm subsidies and globalization issues. Now, some of these same Third World countries have opened up their markets (India/China), educated themselves, adopted American-style marketing and are competing on a more level playing field. American workers...have to show why they should be paid more for a job that can be done equally well for a lower cost in India/China. If they can't show this, they will have to develop new industries and skills to adjust for their lack of advantage."
How can we have happy shareholders who boost stock prices if we don't have a gainfully employed population. We can't invest in if we have nothing to invest with.
Can I bum a sig?
Yeah, you've pretty much hit the issue - Americans want cheap shit.
It's our consumeristic, throw-away society. When it becomes cheaper to throw away a broken piece of equipment and buy new (TV / VCR / computer / microwave / etc) than to repair it, we've got a self-perpetuating problem:
1. People buy cheap stuff
2. Companies that have the lowest prices get more business
3. These companies cut costs even more by integrating everything and greatly reducing the possibility of repair
4. People's cheap stuff breaks
5. Goto line 1.
Regarding NoseSocks' suggestions, I think we need to do a little of both - get rid of the screwy tax system and replace it with something simple that has fewer ways to game the system (so the tax burden is spread more evenly), and then reign in the massive healthcare insurance industry.
That gives more money to the people, but then we also need some kind of a fundamental cultural shift to say, "Hey - maybe if I saved and invested a little more, and spent less on frivolous goods, then I might actually have a solid financial future!"
This is not a moral issue. They are not morally obligated to employ you. I guess I don't understand some peoples attitude that companies are obligated to give them a job?
Now if you want to argue this from an ethical standpoint you may have an argument. What they are doing may be unethical, in certain circumstances. However, I think it would benefit us all to remember that they are doing us a favor by employing us and if the situation changes, hey, that's hard luck.
Note: I am not even a manager where I work. Just someone with the right attitude.
The rules of the game haven't changed, just some players are playing better than others. Unfortunately, America is one of the not-so-good players at the moment, and India has all the good cards.
It's simple economics, consumer prices would be higher, but the population would be employed and making more money, allowing them to afford the higher costs, and reinvest in stock options.
The free market works on a small scale, but not a global scale.
Can I bum a sig?
It's a dirty little secret of modern Capitalism that it basically can't work the way it's "supposed" to, given the current conditions. I'm not trolling, and I'll be specific.
The Classical theories on which Capitalism is based were written in the 19th Century. At that time, capital was basically land, and labor was much more free to move about than it is today. Before anyone objects that transportation is more advanced today, let me explain what I mean: in those days, workers were not locked into compartments from which they could not escape, and could basically go where the work was without having to worry about passports and work visas. Anyway, because of the conditions that obtained in the 19th Century, the Classical theories are based on assumptions of immobile capital and highly mobile labor.
The conclusions of the Classical theories are nice, especially "mutual advantage." Unfortunately, those theories have about as much to do with our current reality as the "spherical cow" of every physics nerd's favorite joke. In today's world, capital moves at a high fraction of the speed of light through wires, or even at the speed of light as radio signals in the air or visible pulses in fiber optic cables. Meanwhile, because of the fortified borders between countries and the need for passports and work visas and such, labor is basically locked into little compartments. As a result, the situation of today is almost exactly the opposite of the situation assumed by the Classical theories.
Because of this, the conclusions, like "mutual advantage," are utter bunk in today's world. In fact, there is basically nothing now preventing capital (a term I also use to refer to those who control large amounts of capital) taking total advantage of labor. So when American workers want adequate safety conditions at work, capital dumps them and goes to Mexico. When the Mexican workers get uppity and want a decent working wage and don't want pollutants dumped in their rivers, capital takes the jobs to Vietnam... etc., etc.
More relevant to this discussion, when computer programmers in Silicon Valley start getting six-figure salaries, capital starts by importing Indian programmers. When the imported Indians get wise and jump ship to higher-paying companies, capital gets smart and takes the work to India. In general terms, capital (the "2%" mentioned in the parent post) can play the labor forces in different countries against each other and pick and choose which countries' laborers will get work.
Is all lost? Maybe not. It might be possible to restore something more closely resembling the "mutual advantage" ideal of the Classical theories (though I'm sure there are some who don't see "mutual advantage" as a positive ideal and prefer the current situation...). All we have to do is restore the mobility of labor. Make the borders as open to people as they are to capital. Yes, in the short term, there would be disruptions, like a huge mass of people whose knowledge of the USA comes from Hollywood, who would flood the USA temporarily looking for that streets-paved-with-gold-and-everything-works paradise, but eventually, things would settle down again, only with better conditions for workers (read: people).
For those who worry a lot about the short-term consequences, consider that that worry is part of the "playing labor forces in different countries against each other" I mentioned above. You want to preserve the apparent advantage workers in your country currently appear to have, and capital plays on that to make you oppose the kinds of changes that could actually make Capitalism work for many people, instead of horribly failing the great majority, as it has been for quite some time.
--Mark
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
With all due respect to Mr. B and Collabnet, "we saved the SF jobs" sounds like a well thought out rationalization, for a much larger problem which is ultimately destroying IT, research, and technical innovation in America.
The first excuse from companies from two or three weeks ago, was, "American colleges are not producing graduates with strong enough skills in CS, math, science, and engineering, so we are forced to outsource"..
Now we're hearing, and I bet other corporations (of Collabnet's size and position) will pick up on this, that in order to save a few jobs and the company there was a "moral" directive to go get cheaper labor.
Nobody says American companies are required to create jobs - but by outsourcing everything they're destroying the next generation of technological innovation - you saw the last wave of hackers in the dot com boom. The next wave you see is going to be a mix of MBAs and sanitation engineers - the new U.S. demographic mix.
The technical industries are far more important to preserve than say, the automotive industry, ever was. Cars burning petroleum were never going to be the final answer for the planet - we knew that since the 50s.. technological innovation is going to save the planet. Too bad it won't be coming from the U.S.
For decades, the US has taken great pleasure in participating in the global market. It's always done well, thanks to an abundance of raw materials and manpower, and technology ahead of most of the world. Unfortunately, now the rest of the world has that technology, more people and more raw materials. Now, the US is the underdog, where things cost far more to produce (and "skilled" staff demand far higher wages). Just those two points mean people will go elsewhere. There's no moral or legal justification to stay. There's no difference between an Indian dude and an American guy - they both get hungry when they don't have a job. If you want something or someone to blame for this, blame your government. By not keeping prices down, it's caused this to happen. Any "Keep our jobs!" legislation passed will be borderline racist and not address the problem at all.
If outsourcing to india saves jobs in the US, just think of how many jobs could be saved if we stopped criticizing sweatshops.
I mean, cheap labor = good, right?
If you want to save jobs stop paying management absurd amounts of money and start giving a shit about the health and well-being of your employees. That way maybe they'll feel good about the company and start doing work instead of spending time on the net looking for a new job because your company fucking sucks. This saves jobs because maybe then your company will actually prosper.
Or you can outsource your tech support to india and just piss off your customers.
'Sup EA.
The whole "outsourcing is destroying our job market" is a political red herring ANYWAY, tossed out by a Democratic Party that cannot seem to find an issue where they can get any traction against the Republicans, notably George Bush.
/.'ers :)
Since NAFTA was enacted, something like 600,000 jobs have gone overseas where NAFTA was a factor, while the US economy created 18 MILLION jobs over the same timeframe. I recall recently hearing on NPR that the economy has continuously created roughly double the number of jobs outsourced, even in the last 2-3 years.
Besides that, the shrill keening by IT professionals who are remarkably OVERPAID* (typical contract computer service work is at LEAST $90/hour, more frequently $120), losing their jobs to people who can do the work just as well for cheaper, well, it rings about as hollow as Longshoreman whining that they can't manage to afford to kick in for their medical insurance on 'only' $90,000 per year.
Personally, it sounds very much like people started thinking they were 'entitled' to dot.com fat bonuses, big paychecks, and the high life.
From 1992-2000 we went through a period of ridiculously inflated job and concomitant salary growth, fuelled by a soap-bubble economy. I watched a lot of tech friends of mine parlay their salaries into multiples of my own. I was pretty darn jealous, I'll tell you, being in the relatively static paper industry. But now- they're scrambling to make their house payments and I'm helping them as much as I can. But even they say: when a bubble bursts, the economy corrects. They lived through the high times, now they have to suffer the lows.
* I realize this is really going to ignite
-Styopa
Retrain to do what? Please name some fields that we can retrain to do that can not be offshored. And factor into your response the fact that education in Inida is FAR cheaper than in the US and that most indian grads do not near the level of student loans to payoff.
You cannot become competitive with people who make less than minimum wage.
What is needed is "financial parity". The US dollar needs to drop in value (or foreign currency needs to gain value) until it is no longer a cost advantage for companies to outsource.
All the worlds indeed a
Simplistic model.
The economy operates on satisfying the demands of others, and in turn getting your own demands satisfied.
Jim makes red beads for 6 demand units, 2 of which he spends on glass, 3 of which he spends on red dye.
Joe makes red dye for 3 demand units.
John makes cotton candy for 2 demand units.
Jim and Joe use their demand units to buy John's cotton candy.
Indian Sandeep enters the market and produces red dye for 2 demand units. Jim buys his red dye from Sandeep instead of Joe.
Jim now buys his red dye from Sandeep and has one additional demand unit to buy cotton candy from John.
If Sandeep bought cotton candy from John, then the market would have two new demand units for cotton candy. Joe could get a job as a cotton candy maker.
But Sandeep doesn't buy goods from the US, so Joe is screwed.
Do you see? Off-shoring is acceptable for the US if the off-shored workers create a market for US goods.
The free market is in transition. When the free market stabilizes, Indian IT workers will have the same demands as American IT workers, and the system will stop screwing over US workers. But while the market is in transition, Indian IT workers will be less demanding, due to the rapidly growing pool of educated Indian workers.
And it's going to get worse. The improved Indian economy will result in more money for education which will result in an expanding educated labor pool, which will result in sophisticated jobs moving to India until the free market corrects itself.
A lot of people are saying, "We'll just have to move people in the US to higher skilled jobs." Not good enough! Indian workers will eventually get all the education they need to be competitive even in the financial markets.
It's not India's fault. You need to have a global free market from the get-go in order to avoid problems like this. The free-market is self-correcting, but the self-correction will prove painful to US workers. We're talking about 1 billion people the market needs to correct for, for Christ sake.
I don't know what the answer is, but it may very well be a measured amount of protectionism. Protectionism is only good if it still permits the free market correction to occur, but just makes it gentler. An obvious and effective example is unemployment pay. Maybe we need to slow off-shoring by requiring a restricted reverse Visa... and perhaps some not-too-harsh tariffs on buying goods and services from India.
Comments?
Well not compared to other Americans anyway. What happens is that value of the Almighty Dollar falls as the economy weakens, becoming worth less on the global market. *That* effectively reduces your wages compared to the rest of the world, making you cheaper to employ and your products cheaper. Your pay remains at a similar level compared to other Americans. e.g. A Harley now only costs 5200GBP. That same Harley cost nearly 9,000GBP a couple of years ago.
I don't know if you've noticed but the Dollar has been falling for the last couple of years. In 2002 1 dollar would have bought you 0.7 pounds sterling (GBP) or 50 Indian Rupees (INR). Now, 1 dollar will only buy you 0.55 pounds sterling or 44 Indian Ruppees (INR). That's more than a 10% reduction in all American's wages right there.
Another example is the Japanese Yen. It halved in value during the 90s while their economy was contracting, effectively halving the wage bill compared to the rest of the world. Harder times for everyone in that economy.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Sweden again, as an example |(I'm not Swedish, but i do think this country is the most advanced culture in the world).
A whirlpool/electrolux factory was here making microwaves, but 1 person working in the factory cost the company the same amount of money as 40 people working in a Chinese plant. So, they moved. Swedens old paper/textile industries are largely run by robots, as is thier automotive industry. All the old unskilled labouring jobs are gone, So what did they do?
They have responded as a country by doing what cannot be done in India or China. They have specialised in extreme high tech areas of work, and do shit loads of research. Biacore systems were INVENTED here for fucks sake. You can't get more high tech and shit cool than shining light at some gold to find out how much cocaine is in the blood on the other side of the fucking gold! The guy who came up with the premise of surface plasmonic resonance lives down the road from me here! This is hardcore research that isn't done in developing countries.
Or, in Ireland, they responded by making taxes on Industry a miniscule little number. So loads of companys set up in Ireland. they make a component (any component) and price it to themselves as a very expensive commodity, and pay very little tax on it. In all other countries where this company works, they pay high taxes but can pretend they make cheap components and then as a global company they save a lot of money. And Ireland gets lots of jobs and tax money. The US is a big country and it can handle itself, I'm sure it will be bouncing back in no time at all.
You know, I'm so fucking sick of hearing people bitch and complain about all of the jobs flowing overseas. You know what? Get over it! The United States encompasses less than FIVE PERCENT of the world's population. Do we have a God-given entitlement to jobs? Fuck no! Why should 80% of the world live in squalour whilst we drive around in our two-mile-per-gallon Humvees and gorge ourselves on Mickey D's supersized value meals? Short answer: they shouldn't. If offshoring means raising the standard of living for the 4/5 of humanity who have to worry about an empty belly at the end of the day, I say let it happen. I will survive.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
> If they offer more, the jobs will come flooding back to US soil.
Eh, no. It's about "accepting less": less pay, less benefits, less freedoms. A US programmer is just as capable as an Indian one, he just needs to be paid more.
Companies outsource because they can pay a fraction of the salary, a salary that in america would put you below the poverty line.
What you're basically saying is that in order to get jobs back in the US, computer-related jobs have to drop to a level equal to flipping burgers at mcdonald's.
The United States is a third world country that hit the lottery. We were the last man standing after WWII. People bought our stuff because most of the rest of the manufacturing base in the world was bombed flat. Rather than invest that money into improving education, we squandered it as profit, has a moon shot or 4, and built a really big road system.
We are now sliding back into a largely agrarian economy. About the only thing we produce that the rest of the world wants is food. For a while it was computers, but in our absolute lust for profit we sold the production capacity to Asia for cheap.
We have a first rate University system, but increasingly our own students aren't educated enough to use them. We can spend 600 billion dollars protecting ourselves from missiles that don't exist, but we can't spend 6 cents on education without some regulatory string attached to it.
We have fine hospitals that none can afford. When my wife delivered our baby, we were surrounded on all sides by women with no insurance, who often had no pre-natal care. And that stuff is cheap at twice the price.
We have sports fields that are subsidized by taxpayers that few citizens could afford tickets to. Our schools are scraping change, but we can cut massive tax breaks for a couple of billionaires to build a new ballpark.
And hey, I am an American. Born here. Educated here. Live here. But this place is a playground for the rich. There is the resort, but outside the resort is abject poverty.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Well I will agree with you that tax cuts almost always help the rich out more than the poor. However, it should be noted that the wealthiest 10% in this country pay 50% of the taxes. The top 1% alone in 2000 paid 27% of the taxes. Look at the tax bracket system, the poor pay almost nothing.
Now lets look at where this money goes. 33-41% (depending on who you believe), thats at least 1 out of every three of your tax dollars, goes to transfer payments- Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, etc. These clearly do not benefit the rich in any significant way. About another 40% goes to defense, another 8 to paying off interest on our debt, and only about and another 15 to general government functions. Clearly, on the spending side, the middle and lower classes win, though thats generally not an argument made against the gov't.
So yeah, we hear alot about people evading taxes this way and that, buy when you have a barrage of bullets coming at you, aren't you going to dodge them? The rich still shell out. A 1995 figure says that the top 1% held about 35% of the wealth. In that respect, the rich fall short by about 8% in their "share", which is not the outrageous figure most people make it out to be.
What is the solution? a flat tax? A flat tax would skin the poor alot more than the rich. Meeting halfway at a 27% tax (or whatever) for everyone would hurt the poor alot, and actually provide relief for the rich.
Just to let you know, I am purely middle class, and at the moment would even be considered lower middle class based on net worth and income (admittedly because I am young). However, I do think our tax system is fair enough, though I do NOT support the many tax breaks the republicans hand out to the rich, especially when they put them under the banner of helping the elderly. I do not feel that the top 2% is really screwing anyone over though.
The main reason for the outsourcing to India is quite basic at heart, their hi-tech sector is maturing later than ours did. Wages in India are rapidly rising, and once that tech sector reaches the maturity of the US, a balance will be struck between the two and some jobs will come back over here as the wage savings won't be enough to cover the other expenses of outsourcing (time zone difference, communication barriers, etc).
You are making assumptions. First anyone can educate themselves, get certified and do your job.
Second, they do have good universities in India.
Third India has a billion people, there are just as many geniuses in India as there are in the USA? No there are more due to the fact that theres greater numbers of Indians. To assume you have the benefit of being upper class which allows you to be lazy is a big mistake. Just because you from birth may have more money and better schools does not mean someone cannot out work you and reach the same point. We have kids finishing college at 14-15 years old who are minorities and in the USA. Competition is going to be fierce and thats good.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
Why not analyze the flip side of outsourcing. I am a software developer who is about to be "bangalored". Fine. I am not going to pout about it. The media writes that we are in a "global economy" so deal with it. OK I will. But we should take the global economy one step further. If US corps. can offshore their labor, allow US consumers to offshore their consumption. For example, if Pfizer Pharm. can offshore its IT staff to save money, then I should be able to purchase my drugs from Canada or Mexico to save money. I would like to see how IBM would react if I could buy an imitation Thinkpad laptop from Singapore for $300. US corporations are lobbying for the right to offshore yet also lobby for protection for their products. I say make it fair. If you want free trade, you should feel the sting a free trade. Allow US citizens to buy goods directly from countries with lower costs of living. I guarantee that offshoring consumption will make the big US corps. whine and pout and hopefully, the outsourcing proponents will deliver the same message that you are delivering to the US IT workers that are getting laid off. Free trade is good for you. It's a global economy. Deal with it. The threat of duty free imports will make CEOs rethink their offshoring strategies.
So, considering the Caste system still exploits nearly 200 Million people - called Untouchables -- treated as virtual slaves by their caste superiors, its nice to see American Capitalists praising India for its Capialist Victories.
The trouble is simple, there are many many poor in India. They are many educated intellectuals, and a growing upper class. YET they still have teaming masses of poor. I can gaurantee you that India's poor will not tolerate the this -- India is a Secular Democracy -- and its people can see the "promise" of Capialism for what it is: Extending the domination of the Upper Class.
In a global context, the USA is the Upper Class. The rest of the world is being (via propaganda like this, WTO treaties and open Warfare(justified time and again by self-serving lies, but still never comes close to excusing the Imperial Warmongering Aggressors to anyone with perspective, a lack of jingoism, a bit of history and a mote of objectiveness) taught a lesson (and sold a noble lie) either continue to serve our economy or face conequences. The DOMESTIC US middle and lower classes had better wake the heck up -- only you will prevent the US plutocrats from extending their Empire over the world. If you dont, these (cluefull) foreign masses *will* eventually kick off their yokes. Inspite of all this flower-y "India as proof of Capitalism" propaganda. The only thing it is proof of, is that YET AGAIN, USA's Plutocrats will make league with ANY CORRUPT system that will butress their status... Saddam, Shah of Iran, Gen. Zia ul-Haq of Pakistan in the 1980's (who helped nurture what later became Al Qaeda), Gen. Suharto in Indonesia, Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, Ferdinand Marcos, and and and. Obviously the American people DO NOT CARE about justice and democracy in the world as long as they Can Get Rich.
So when you middle and lower classes in the USA finally realize that "Free Trade" really means "Tolerate sinking living conditions at home, so we can finance the extension of our empire and underclass-serfs, so we may get stinking rich or else be hungry today." than we can discuss what the implications of Free Trade with India's wonderfull New Capitalists.
It is ironic that India that succumbed to a single British corporation - The East India Trading Company - should be seen as savior of capitalism. Here is the classic example. Indian weavers and cotton and silk was some of the best on the planet. The Egyptians mummies were wrapped in Indian muslin (ends in an 'n'). The British at the onset of their Industrial Revolution had no consumers for the crap their power looms produced. So the East India company kills Indian cottage industry, takes away Indian cotton to England, processes fabric and sells it back to India. Some percentage of that fine industrial age English middle class must have immigrated to the United States.
It is not much different today. The iron ore produced in India gets shipped to Japan to come back as automobile engines, the GSM chip designed/QA'd locally comes back as Motorola cell phone etc.
Morality? Gimme a break.
It's the "Ant and the Grasshopper" story. During the boom, many people with high paying jobs purchased expensive house, SUVs, boats, and various other toys and got into even more debt. When the bust happend and their last their jobs, they blamed everyone except themselves. Meanwhile, the "Grasshoppers" saved their money and bought stocks at dirty cheap prices during the bust.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Maybe we should consider lowering our cost of living first if we want to compete globally.
We use alot of energy per person here and those resources are going to become more expensive as economies like Chine and India start demanding more.
Start by pressuring polititians to build better mass transportation so every man, woman and teenager in America doesn't need a car. Even the cheapest car costs alot.
Lowering our ridicuous housing costs and building energy efficient communities.
Lower the cost of medical care and elimate bs lawsuits.
We have to start working together as a nation to make our lifestyles cheaper.
Speaking of India. I hear there's a remote village there where if one person in the village gets something special - everyone gangs up on him and takes away whatever they can for themselves. Needless to say, instead of everybody striving to get alittle something, everybody ends up with nothing.
Unfortunately many have that problem here in the USA too - and isn't it ironic that of all the poor people who have migrated to the USA, the demogaphics that want to tax the rich the most are the ones that consistently end up remaining the most poor.
The worst part is that people are so green with envy that they don't realise that our tax system doesn't even tax wealth - it taxes income. That means the guy sitting on a billion worth in assets will barely even notice a tax increase while the small business person who busts his ass to earn his first 300K will get his teeth and nuts kicked in. Not only that, but the billionaire will get more tax deductions to boot - WTF do you think the Kennedys want to "tax the rich" for the sake of the little guy?
Taxes don't hurt the rich, they hurt the little people who are trying to become rich.
mostly any american clothing, you have no moral right to whine about outsourcing.
Oh wait, outsourcing is good when it isn't YOUR kind of job being outsourced, is that what you're really saying? tough luck.
i had a sig, once..
"10% in this country pay 50% of the taxes"
l /-/0393 310728/103-3832444-1218235?v=glance
This annoys me every time I see it. Your logic is flawed. The riches 10% of americans have 90% of the money, they should be paying 90% of the taxes. See the book "How to lie with statistics" available here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai
Labor is no different from any other good. Americans happily reap the benefits of cheap imported products, yet are outraged when firms do the same with jobs. This is not to say that firms have license to act amorally and disregard the impact of their decisions on real people; in fact, people--American or otherwise--will benefit most in the long run from open borders and free trade of all goods, including labor. At the very worst, offshoring is merely a short-term "growing pain" of the global economy. Realistically, it is a desirable step in that direction.
Companies for profit are morally a bad thing. These are not states of nature, they are socially constructed concepts.
Commodification of labor is fundamentally unethical and the real term, alienation, should be used whenever possible.
Farmers should farm to feed people, programmers should code to produce software, and automakers should assemble to produce cars, all of the above for people to use. Instead, each of famers farm for money (and the crops are merely another irritating step, much less the consumer), programmers code for money (and the code is merely a laborious inconvenience, much less the consumer), and automakers assemble cars for money (and the building a quality automobile is merely another tiresome stage in the process of acquiring money...)
You say "money is the root of all evil" and people treat you like you are saying something quaint and simple, but in reality, it's not far from the truth. Consider this analysis from one of the most preeminent social theorists of our era:
"Political economy, this science of wealth, is therefore simultaneously the science of denial, of want, of thrift, of saving -- and it actually reaches the point where it spares man the need of either fresh air or exercise. This science of marvellous industry is simultaneously the science of asceticism, and its true ideal is the ascetic but extortionate miser and the ascetic but productive slave. Its moral ideal is the worker who takes part of his wages to the savings-bank... Self-denial, the denial of life and of all human needs, is its cardinal doctrine. The less you eat, drink and read books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public-house; the less you think, love, theorize, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save -- the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor dust will devour -- your capital. The less you are, the more you have; the less you express your own life, the greater is your alienated life -- the greater is the store of your estranged being. Everything which the political economist takes from you in life and in humanity, he replaces for you in money and in wealth; and all the things which you cannot do, your money can do. It can eat and drink, go to the dance hall and the theatre; it can travel, it can appropriate art, learning, the treasures of the past, political power... All passions and all activity must therefore be submerged in avarice."
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
The problem isn't that Indian coding droids are getting jobs. The problem is that American workers are losing jobs to overseas labour simply because they cost less. It's not that the Indian droids are any more skilled (The article quotes somebody as saying they are indeed less skilled), it's just that they work for next to nothing.
You imply that there is some sort of entitlement issue here. If this were indeed the case, why don't you hear more about the native Indian IT industry? Why can't they compete with products, rather than simply the ability to fill a job for less money? (Yes, it is conceded that there IS a native IT industry in India, but that's not at issue here)
This, of course, is what the company profiled in the article seems to be driving at. Great, kick off a native industry in-country. Launch Indian-made software products to compete in the market. Great, more power to them, and good luck! That's how it should work.
"These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
Unless I am mistaken, all of this can be reduced to an imbalance between living standards and consumption in the East and the West. Because the West has higher living standards, (ie, more expensive), it will always be less expensive to hire labor in countries like India and China.
Only when everybody has approximately the same cost of living and consumption standards, will labor cost the same across the globe.
The problem is that there isn't physical space or resource for the few BILLION people in India and China to industrialize out of their mud huts up to the same standards Americans have grown to expect. And guess what? The result will not be one of everybody being pulled up by the bootstraps in cheaper, overpopulated nations, but rather a natural decline in the American standard of living.
This (of course!) is unacceptable. And so you suggest that we here in the West stay ahead of the game through "Hard Work and American Industry" (Who wants to live in a mud hut, after all?)
The only problem is. .
This isn't going to happen. Unless somebody invents a really kick-ass widget which nobody can produce off-shore, the American dream is in for a rude awakening. Heck, we reached peak oil production a few years back. What do you think will happen when every Indian decides to buy an air conditioner and a refrigerator? The petri dish is getting tight and we're nearly out of nutrient agar. And THAT is one of the big aspects of what this latest world war is all about; consolidating resources.
Conservative economic dogma is fine for a planet with infinite growth curves and resources, but this ain't SIMS, my friend. Unless you're in with Bush and the other Bunker Boys, you're going to hurt along with everybody else.
-FL
You can't just look at this in a company by company basis. Capitalism works of the principle of supply and demand. There will only be a demand for products when there is money to buy them. There will only be money to buy them if people have jobs.
This is a common economic fallacy. People seem to think that if businesses are "too greedy", there won't be any money left for customers to spend. The reality is that money is never (legally) destroyed; it is simply spent in different ways. If one group of customers becomes too poor, businesses merely need to move to a market where demand is high. Money will always be spent, no matter if "people have jobs" or not. The key to a successful economy is not circulation; it is production.
If the readers of Slashdot organized into a Pac we could buy a number of US Congresscritters and start making demands of corporations.
As long as we are not organized, we have no say. Organize or die.
When some one starts telling me to my face how they saved me or are doing me a favor. That can mean only 1 thing. They are screwing me in the a$$.
Isnt anyone amazed at the flood of articles on how great offshoring is. Makes ya wonder who is behind the media blitz. And also makes ya wonder whos dumb enuff to believe it.
nuff said.....