Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama Says Offshoring Fears Are Unwarranted

Posted by samzenpus on from the don't-worry-citizen dept.

alphadogg writes "The perception that Indian call centers and back office operations cost US jobs is an old stereotype that ignores today's reality that two-way trade between the US and India is helping create jobs and raise the standard of living in both countries, US President Barack Obama told a gathering of business executives in Mumbai on Saturday. President Obama's remarks come after some moves in the US that had Indian outsourcers worried that the US may get protectionist in the wake of job losses in the country. The state of Ohio, for example, banned earlier this year the expenditure of public funds for offshore purposes. US exports to India have quadrupled in recent years, and currently support tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the US, he said in a speech that was also streamed live. In addition, there are jobs supported by exports to India of agriculture products, travel and education services. President Obama, who is in India on a three-day visit, said that more than 20 deals worth about $10 billion were announced on the first day of his visit."

5 of 763 comments (clear)

  1. Not the change we wanted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Voter says: not the change we wanted Mr. President.

  2. Meet the New Boss. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Goddammit! We got fooled again!

    I think this is just a ripening up of the American public for Palin and the Tea-Nazis to come crash the party in two years time. It's all just part of the show and Obama is just the latest bit-part player.

    -FL

  3. BULLSHIT. by crhylove · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I work in tech support and I'm on the phone to India ALL DAY. Obama is another corporate whore, no different than all the other presidents since they shot JFK in the face. He's better than Bush in exactly one way: He can speak English. Too bad it's all lies. They share that trait.

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  4. Until it tears out jobs left and right, of course by sethstorm · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    My admittedly limited understanding of this is that of course it costs us jobs, because it's very expensive to hire US employees compared to the costs of hiring employees in most other countries in the world.

    Those countries' governments are cheaper to corrupt to the end of business; they are not cheaper on the worker end. If you want an example of this, see Foxconn.

    Economists say the widespread effects are a net gain. I don't know if I believe them--because I haven't done the math, and I've known a lot of economists who aren't very empirical.

    The standard of living is not raised; only the amount of junk-grade trinkets is raised. If you want to take it further, the economists fail to figure out what happens to those people who lose their jobs(who usually don't gain a comparable one back).

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  5. Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait
    During the election, about 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin. See the exit-polling data by CNN.

    Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable. (A maximum of 65% for McCain is okay. So, European-American support at 55% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)

    If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.

    At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.

    Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.

    African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.