Slashdot Mirror
Asian Call Center Workers Trained With US Tax Dollars
gManZboy writes in with a troubling story about tax dollars being used for overseas call center training. "Despite President Obama's recent call for companies to 'insource' jobs sent overseas, it turns out that the federal government itself is spending millions of dollars to train foreign students for employment in some booming career fields--including working in offshore call centers that serve U.S. businesses. The program is called JEEP, which stands for Job Enabling English Proficiency. It's available to college students in the Philippines through USAID. That's the same agency that until a couple of years ago was spending millions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer money to train offshore IT workers in Sri Lanka. Congressman Tim Bishop (D-New York), told about the program on Tuesday, called it 'surprising and distressing.' Bishop recently introduced a bill that would make companies that outsource call centers ineligible for government contracts."
This just in: Politicians lie. Film at 11.
They *do* increase employment. In China.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
There is no way in hell that a politician is going to pay nearly a billion dollars to get into an office that won't pay out more than a couple of million in salary and perks over it's term without getting payback from somewhere else. It's as simple as that. And you know we'll never have meaningful campaign finance reform as long as the Republicrats have no meaningful competition.
Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. That means the majority of voters are insane. We're fucked until we have the political system overhauled.
Bishop recently introduced a bill that would make companies that outsource call centers ineligible for government contracts.
So they're saying that they're no longer going to purchase HP, Dell, or Acer PCs? Somehow I suspect that bill is just posturing, and will not amount to anything.
typical politicians. They find out they're doing something stupid, so they're going to do something stupid to make up for it. Quit paying to train the foreigners, and don't pass a new law disabling government contracts with companies that have overseas call centers, would be the correct thing to do.
Gee, I hope they succeed in bringing all of the call center work back to the United States! I would love to pay higher prices so that my countrymen can work menial jobs for 10 times the pay of their Asian counterparts (which still fails to provide a decent standard of living here), because more expensive products are good for everyday Americans already struggling to get by!
I wonder if USAID would be willing to sponsor a similar program up here in Canada?
We have lots of friendly college folk who need ESL training and an economic leg up -- so what better way than to operate your call centers up here?
It's as near shore as you can get and these ESL trained immigrants would do the natural, Canuck thing, and spend their USAIDed wages across the border at Costco and Wal-Mart.
Bishop recently introduced a bill that would make companies that outsource call centers ineligible for government contracts.
Here's a better idea: chop the size of federal government down so it's no longer a big slush fund for social nuts on the left or military nuts on the right.
It's ironic. Recently SallieMae called to talk to me about one of my employees who's delinquent on his student loans. The caller was clearly Indian. I remarked that it hardly seems to help American students repay their loans, in general, if SallieMae itself outsources its operations to India, thus depriving a number of Americans from the opportunity to repay their loans.
The rep hung up on me.
If not us, who? If not now, when?
...or else important programs like this will have to be cut!
Please elaborate.
He is just going to keep his head down and try not to screw up until he coasts into his second term. His only challenger is someone who has been hand picked to fail.
The government is spending taxpayers' money to train people to do jobs outsourced from America and it's all the EVIL CORPORATIONS fault?
So long as people continue to ignore the real problem, nothing will change.
Why do we fight so hard to keep/return the shitty jobs?
The Obama critque is not irrelevant. The problem with this election is that the guy against him has one goal and that is to help his corporate buddies. The GOP doesn't need to spend the time or the money on a platform committee this year because choosing Mittens makes it their sole platform plank. Romney already goes on the stump and says only what his pals want him to say (not to mention different things for different crouds.) Obama is a corporatist without a doubt, but at least he thinks about the little guy 1% of the time.
I honestly do. Too bad politicians aren't in control though. Big money is.
Personally, were I "Commander-In-Chief" as the president is during wartime (which gives him a lot more control than that office normally has by itself), I would've said:
"Fine, don't do it then - keep outsourcing! We'll do "laissez-faire" for you since that's the "spirit of American Business" from your "point-of-view", & let you do what YOU want: However, then? Well... We'll be MORE THAN HAPPY to apply these GIGANTIC penalties for NOT complying and tax the hell out of your profits for it, since that's how you're increasing them, & we're merely acting as "good government" in response - Ball's in your court now, you can decide...".
They'd bring the jobs back then, guaranteed OR it'd fund other work programs from said taxes (@ least in part)...
That's about the ONLY form of control government has on big business in this aspect, unless others pipe in & tell us more or differently (I'd gladly listen - I am always up to learn more).
* See - All you have to do is affect the bottom-line on profits that way, business will respond.
Of course, they could just completely leave too, but then, that's when you cut them off completely from doing ANY business here, whatsoever.
(And don't even *try* tell me that isn't possible, because competition abounds - it's one of the great things about it, along w/ spurring innovations consumers gain from).
Of course, due to what happened to JFK?
Mr. Obama'd have to spend the rest of his term behind bulletproof glass & eating out of cans randomly selected from the supermarket most likely...
So, were I to "take a stab" as to WHY former President Kennedy was assasinated, it was because he was "stepping on big money's toes" & a lot (witness U.S. Steel vs. JFK) -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWNhWANkq0Q&feature=related
APK
P.S.=> On President Obama: At least HE is trying, or seemingly so...
What bothers me most is the stupid war(s) - nothing good comes out of those except dead loved ones & rich war profiteers getting richer... & the ones getting bigger slices of the profit-pie @ our taxpayer expense for it!
(Put it this way: Even a high-ranking field-grade officer who's been decorated for valor in combat that I know VERY WELL feels that way, & he's on the "inside" and works in the "military-industrial complex" as well - he told me, point-blank "There's certain parties that got HUGE slices of the pie, much bigger than they should ever have...")... apk
How about we make this into a law that actually keeps desirable jobs in the country? For example, why only call-center jobs? Those jobs suck and don't pay shit, anyway. How about we say "If more than 5% of your total workforce is outsourced outside the U.S., no government contracts."
If you want to save mega-bucks on salaries by hiring foreigners for 10center per hour? More power to you: But you won't be lining your pockets with tax-money anymore, either.
Who did what now?
If they are pouring big money into the government to get things going their way they don't share any of the fault?
That 'big money' wouldn't matter if the government was restricted to the few powers allowed to it in the Constitution.
So long as government has the power to take trillions of dollars from ordinary Joes and hand it over to the politicians' friends, everyone will want to be the politician's friend.
Imagine my distress when i hear Spanish, AS WELL as English! When will you white people go back to England, and leave our land?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The whole point of USAID since inception has been to very publicly give financial aid to allies and countries with whom we want to establish stronger ties, and to less publicly give American foreign service personnel an excuse to be in a foreign country with a bunch of cash. And that's not some Cold War stuff, either. Like, right now, American military advisors and CIA operatives act in places like Afghanistan under the auspices (and budget) of the USAID, which, ironically, stands for United States Agency for International Development. It's a major foreign policy arm of the US, and if you think the government, no matter which party is in power, is going to rush to put a leash on it just because outsourcing has some feathers ruffled, you're very much mistaken.
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
They can keep the bloody jobs. It was pretty terrible. I wouldn't work under call center conditions again. (I was downsized in 2006 because we had to move buildings and they eventually cut a good half of the workforce, including management staff.)
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
This sort of honesty is rare. For the reasons that you stated.
We're not talking about China or India or Thailand, but a former US colony, a place that enjoyed the US Army trying to "civilize 'em with a Krag" for half a century.
The Philippines' unique historical relationship with the United States more than justifies preferential treatment.
This is what happens when you don't fully test your legislation before rolling it out to production. At least run it in a virtual world first. And put in a sunset clause so it can easily be shut down if it doesn't have the desired effect in the real world.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Witness -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2795637&cid=39728333
On this part of your statement too, & I'll put out a little tale of something I said to my economics professor (iirc, it was Macro-Economics) also in regards to it:
"Remember, not everyone is suited to work in white collar environments. I would much rather have a smart blue collar guy than an unskilled white collar guy any day. College is also another problem. Politicians seem to think unskilled labor should always go overseas, which forces people to pursue degrees that they may not want just to be safe. How is upwards of 30k in debt going to benefit someone that has a mindset for a completely different type of work? America needs blue collar work, because many Americans are blue collar. Phone support is entry level white collar, and we could use that too." - by Kr1ll1n (579971) on Wednesday April 18, @05:58PM (#39728587)
In class, back circa 1984, he was telling us basically this:
"The trend in business in the future is going to be white collar done in the USA, mostly mgt. roles, and manufacturing sent overseas" Professor K. S.
I told him in response (since my Father was a former UAW president of the union):
"Look, that won't work for the majority of guys out there. They weren't concentrating on getting 'top-marks' grades in highschool + were pursuing tradesmen jobs, & let's face it: MOST folks don't ever get to collegiate academia for monetary reasons or because they never wanted it in the first place. They want a steady job, preferably with unionized stability, that they can master shortly enough and make enough money to come home, eat dinner, spend time with the kids, watch TV/drink a beer, & make love to the wife, get sleep & get up and do it again. People, the majority of people, want that life - what you're proposing will crumple the United States economically. Did you read that in Forbes and just 'spit it back to us'? Aren't you thinking 'long-term'" - APK
He threatened me in front of my class that I might not pass, to which I told him:
"Fine. The entire class heard that and I am sure I will have witnesses when it comes time to talk to your department head and if necessary, whoever controls them as well'" - APK
* I passed with a decent grade in the end.
My point?
Well... It just AMAZED me he was 'preaching' what the business leaders of today ARE DOING (which is mostly my age group or a LITTLE older)...
APK
P.S.=> This has been "planned/engineered" way, Way, WAY in the distance from the past, in other words, & we're NOT "reaping any benefits" from it, it's hurting the USA just as I stated it would back then & I was just a GREEN kid that could see it...
... apk
You have drunk the propaganda juice. It isn't another country's fault that poor fiscal policy blew up in the US's face. All Americans could have been very successful off the of the Chinese work engine, but instead an elite group of individuals have positioned themselves to benefit the most from the relationship.
All US territories should be given a choice: become states or become independent. There should not be an in-between.
Adjust tax policy to where the cost of an outsourced employee, as well as the cost of importing goods and materials for manufacturing (only if already locally available), are taxed at a rate so as to equal the cost +5% which in turn encourages usage of local resources, goods, and materials.
There are several drawbacks:
* If we increase the cost of producing American goods, then sales of those goods will decrease. Also, the costs for other American companies will go up too, because they use those goods as inputs (e.g., if the price of steel goes up, then GM and Ford must pay more to make cars).
* If we inhibit American companies from employing foreign workers, then foreign countries will inhibit their companies from employing Americans. Many Americans are employed by foreign companies, including in manufacturing. For example, the South has experienced a manufacturing boom due to foreign automakers building plants there, and Chrysler is now an Italian company.
This would also create an uptick in the demand for American manufacturing.
Maybe domestically, but not internationally, where people will lose jobs and trade will be discouraged. For many American companies, most of their sales are in other countries.
College is also another problem. Politicians seem to think unskilled labor should always go overseas, which forces people to pursue degrees that they may not want just to be safe. How is upwards of 30k in debt going to benefit someone that has a mindset for a completely different type of work? America needs blue collar work, because many Americans are blue collar. Phone support is entry level white collar, and we could use that too.
I think it's condescending and arrogant to tell people they are, a priori, not suitable for college and high paying jobs. What happened to the American Dream and the Land of Opportunity? Plus, ask anyone who does physical labor whether they'd rather sit at a desk, and how their back feels after 20 years of doing it every day, or their feet when their still on them all day at 60 years old.
Politicians think that American want to make more money, which I think is a safe assumption; to make more money, you need more valuable skills, which requires more education -- especially in a world where the most valuable skills are cognitive and not physical. Do Americans want to work for 10 cents an hour stitching shirts? I'm glad those jobs are gone.
Where did all the Anonymous Cowards come from for this story? Obviously most of these people are not regular Slashdotters.
Was the story linked to from some right-wing blog?
I was just curious. A lot of people posting to this story are not regulars here. That's fine, but I was wondering how they happened to find this story.
Good point, it would be easier to train Indonesians to program in Java - saves teaching them a new spoken language and getting them a ticket to Jakarta :)
The entire argument is fairly pointless anyway because once you spend money overseas it goes to giving employment or other benefit to people that are not in the USA anyway - that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
Then again I'm biased because the USA under Reagan helped pay for my engineering degree in Australia.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
(if you don't understand the joke, you're in the wrong thread)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Even crazier, we make students coming to the US promise they will go home after they receive an education. In a global economy, I want the brightest and best trained on my side. I simply do not care what they look like or where they came from.
Those 'menial' jobs are GONE. Get it through your uneducated head. Think like a globalized citizen. With your education you could emigrate tot he Philippians and be a manager at one of these call centres, or even set one up there yourself! It's a free world after all. Or how about this, use your better education to invent a computer program that is better than a Filipina call centre girl. That could be difficult.
If the government gets that bad, they'll have the army to deal with YOU. You resist and you'll get shot. There is no young Patrick Swayze look-a-like hiding in the woods who is going to save your ass.
Move to Asia. Grass is greener, much greener.
occasionally... that is mostly right. USAID is a goodwill program to help out American 'allies', there is nothing wrong with this. In fact the implementing partners and organizations are also predominantly American. USAID employs a lot of...Americans! Highly skilled ones at that. Of course, with the economy in the sorry state it is in, even Obama is busy cutting back USAID programs to the bone.
But it does seem suspicious.
However, when jobs become easy to come by, people can actually afford to pay more and not worry about it.
The Philippines haven't been a U.S. territory for quite a while now. The Republic of the Philippines is a sovereign nation.
America needs blue collar work, because many Americans are blue collar. Phone support is entry level white collar, and we could use that too.
Wrong. America needs "blue collar" work because that is how the stuff gets made. We can't all manage each other's investment portfolios or shuffle the papers in accounts receivable. At some point, some actual wealth needs to be created - tangible things whose existence enhances our lives in some way.
This is not because some people are not suited to a nice office job with air conditioning and a good view.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Reducing trade will reduce jobs. I just read an article in which Apple said they sell iPhones in 110 countries. I think China just passed the U.S. in iPhone activations. By 2020 China and India will be two of the top three car markets. Only 5% of the world's population is in the U.S.; we want to sell to the other 95%.
One common misconception in economics is that there are only a certain number of jobs to go around, and if someone else is working then fewer jobs are available for me. But think about it: Where are you more likely to get a job and earn more -- in a town where everyone else is employed and doing business with each other, or in a town with high unemployment and where nobody will deal with each other?
The same goes for international trade. We want a world of employed, prospering people; they'll buy from us and we can buy from them (and through specialization and comparative advantage, we'll all get better deals).
But that's not what's happening. The people making iPhones in China can't afford iPhones. They can afford knock-offs made in China.
We DO need to equalize the economies, but doing it too fast and letting the corporations pocket the difference from the 'impedance mismatch' isn't a good way to get there. Antibiotics can knock an infection out in a week, but downing the bottle in one dose is a terrible idea.
I keep hearing all about how globalization creates jobs, but I keep seeing those jobs NOT appearing in the U.S. We need a little friction (not a total halt) in the process to make it work well.
I can certainly add my 2 cents. I'm an American who is now looking for a job. I currently "work" in a call center. The company I work for opened a new branch in the Philippines and now 95% of what I used to do has been outsourced.
We had 70+ people in my department. Now there might be 15. The company won't say anything officially but it's obvious our department will soon be closed. When your supervisors are looking for jobs, it's time to run!
The political bullshit is getting pretty deep in here; I'll reply at the top level and maybe someone will learn something (I have hope).
There's a "situation" in the southern part of the Philippines; there's a large number of Muslims living there and they'd like to break free and form their own country. Of course, there's some terrorist action, too - the US has sent their best to oppose the terrorists and conduct a "hearts and minds" campaign. Show them that the US treats the people much better and they won't follow the Muslims, right?
This "JEEP" program is part of that; give those Mindano youths a good job and they won't be tempted to strap on some dynamite and call Allah's name as they detonate in a public place. Or that's the plan, anyway. You folks in the US are blissfully unaware of troops being deployed in the Philippines - but they're here.
I live here; in the northern part of the country where this sort of stuff doesn't happen. We don't really need help training call center workers; we're the biggest provider of call center services in the world.
Got that? It's to oppose the terrorists, but most of us in the Philippines don't care and don't want the US to interfere.
Yeah, but that's just one specific instance (it sucks, btw, sorry). The previous post stated something ominous about the way the western world is developing. I was really hoping for some clarification, but now I see that it was just blowing smoke.
As life advice - never overlook full-time retail work as a temporary position. Okay benefits, okay wages (unless you work for Wal-Mart), easy exercise (you're walking all day), the work isn't hard, and it'll get you by in a tough spot - I worked retail for a bit when I was between real gigs. It keeps food on the table, and pays the bills.
It's all about power. The ability to control or influence the around you. It's often derived from money. In our brave new democracy, we can now get it from votes. All the name calling doesn't matter. Liberal or Conservative doesn't matter. Democratically elected positions of the 20th and 21st centuries look for voting blocks. Appear to impress your voting blocks to keep them voting for you. Take a little from the moderates. After you're elected or re-elected, the world is your chess board. You win by controlling or influencing the most areas (or the correct areas). I see all this happening here.
I think you have some good points, but to address them individually:
The people making iPhones in China can't afford iPhones. They can afford knock-offs made in China.
There are many people in China who can't afford iPhones, but there are also many people who can (there are many, many people!) In aggregate China is one of the biggest markets in the world for consumer goods (not to mention manufacturing inputs). I think it's the biggest car market in the world and one of the largest phone markets (but don't cite me), for example. There's a reason western corporations are investing so much in selling there.
We DO need to equalize the economies, but doing it too fast and letting the corporations pocket the difference from the 'impedance mismatch' isn't a good way to get there. Antibiotics can knock an infection out in a week, but downing the bottle in one dose is a terrible idea.
I keep hearing all about how globalization creates jobs, but I keep seeing those jobs NOT appearing in the U.S. We need a little friction (not a total halt) in the process to make it work well.
I think you have an excellent point, but in fairness there are many Americans working for foreign companies. For example, IIRC Alabama is the second largest car manufacturing state in the country, due almost entirely to foreign car companies. Also, American businesses profit from globalization, which means they buy more, pay more, and return more to their investors.
Generally, I think the problem is that capital can move much faster than people. The factory can move much faster than the employees can find new jobs. Perhaps the solution is indeed a little more friction, as you say, or some insurance for the people.
I read about one Black Sea European country, maybe the Netherlands, which reached this political and economic solution: In return for allowing businesses a free hand in moving jobs, businesses fund high unemployment insurance (something like 80% of income for many years). As a result, people don't mind losing jobs so much and businesses are politically and economically unencumbered. It's a way to share the wealth of globalization.
(Also, it made me realize that we see employment in a binary sense: You either have a job and can take care of your needs, including housing, food, medical, etc., or you have (almost) nothing at all.)
It's sad that people actively promote hatred and discrimination, and attack those who object to it.
What do they hope to achieve? Where will it lead for them and for our society?
There are many people in China who can't afford iPhones, but there are also many people who can (there are many, many people!)
Agreed, China is a huge market and I don't blame U.S. corporations one bit for wanting to sell there. The offshoring isn't doing much to develop that market though.
The auto manufacturing in Alabama is related, but the car makers aren't here for cheap labor, they pay about as much here as they do at home. They are here somewhat for cheap land (especially the Japanese companies), but mostly because the cars are going to be sold in the North America and it's much cheaper to ship from Alabama.
I agree that a really good unemployment benefit would go a long way to addressing the issue, but it would need adjustments to account for lost entry opportunity, otherwise we end up with recent graduates who never had a job and can't get one who would be left out of luck. Some form of basic income might address that better (but it still wouldn't be perfect) with the strong unemployment acting as a supplement.
The binary nature of employment is a serious and often ignored issue. Economists too easily dismiss the true misery of unemployment. Even in a good economy where unemployment is 'only' 5%, if you're part of the 5 in 100, you are 100% broke (or course, that 5% doesn't count the people who gave up looking or took a low paying McJob out of desperation). They are also fairly bad about ignoring that retraining for a new job often means you lose income even when you do get a job because you're inexperienced again. It's all well and good that retraining and volatility in the job market is good for the economy, especially when you're not the one that has to change jobs. Since they're taking one for the team, the 'team' needs to back them up.
I can tell you this:
Language is a huge part of what makes humans human. That we can encode our thoughts and share them and store them and accumulate them so that thousands of years of learned information can be issued to a child in elementary school like it was nothing. Language is the key enabler which gives rise to all things humans accomplish... ALL THINGS.
Most of us already know this. We say things like "language is the encoding of the mind." And we know that the quality of the language a person exhibits is quite often a reflection of the quality of thought of the person using their language. This understanding is both instinctive and well established.
As a society and as a species, if we hope to improve and to continue to evolve, we cannot easily tolerate a decrease in the quality of language.
it would need adjustments to account for lost entry opportunity,
Very good point; I hadn't thought of that. I wish I could find the original article and see how it was addressed, if at all. (If you are really motivated, it was in Political Science Quarterly, I think in 2011 or 2010).
The offshoring isn't doing much to develop that market though.
Not directly, but it provides jobs and income. Most of China's booming wealth is from exports, and much of that from off-shored manufacturing (though I don't know how much). The factory workers can't all buy iPhones, but they can buy many things that were impossible when they were impoverished subsistence farmers (as hundreds of millions of people still are in China).
Even in a good economy where unemployment is 'only' 5%, if you're part of the 5 in 100, you are 100% broke (or course, that 5% doesn't count the people who gave up looking or took a low paying McJob out of desperation). They are also fairly bad about ignoring that retraining for a new job often means you lose income even when you do get a job because you're inexperienced again. It's all well and good that retraining and volatility in the job market is good for the economy, especially when you're not the one that has to change jobs. Since they're taking one for the team, the 'team' needs to back them up.
I agree completely, and very well said. Policy-makers set themselves too low a bar, and shortchange their constituents, when they measure their performance by aggregate statistics.
Your thoughtful response deserves one in return.
I agree generally with what you said: Language is essential in the ways you describe, and the quality of someone's language is one indicator of the quality of their thinking. Still, I don't agree with how those principles are applied in this discussion:
1) I don't think the form of language indicates quality. Someone can express themselves well (or poorly) in standard English, in a Southern vernacular, in African American Vernacular (AAV -- the other term has become too politically loaded) or in Chinese. One could argue that AAV is exceptionally innovative.
2) The fact that people complain about AAV but not all the other creoles and vernaculars (from New Yawker to Boston Southie to Alabaman slang to Louisiana patois) suggests to me that those people aren't really concerned about everyone speaking 'standard' English, that their motivation is about race. Certainly that doesn't apply to everyone, but let's be frank -- that's what really motivates many of them and everyone knows it.
3) That people put such great emphasis on the issue also suggests another motive. I can hardly remember a time when someone's vernacular, whether AAV or anything else, really impacted my day. As long as they are native English speakers we can understand each other fine (and many who are not native do fine also). People don't like it, and so they are trying to provide a objective justification for their completely subjective problem.
People naturally don't like things that challenge their worldview -- I don't either -- but that's life and the best response is to work hard at learning to overcome that response and respect others, and, if we really want to better ourselves and our society, to learn from them. (English already incorporates terms from many other languages and vernaculars; don't be a schmuck! :) )
"people complain about AAV but not all the other creoles and vernaculars (from New Yawker to Boston Southie to Alabaman slang to Louisiana patois"
No, those all mark one as a hick or lower class. Anybody who doesn't speak like a newscaster in the US will get mocked on occasion, and quietly considered a lower form of life on a frequent basis. More and more all those accents and dialects are disappearing, and the extreme forms are almost only found in the older generation.
As for subjective - so what? So is all aesthetics. It's subjective that Beethoven is better than Schoenberg, but nearly everyone will agree it's true. The NYC and Southie accents are just as ugly and grating as atonal music. I'm glad to see then go. Black English or Ebonics or African-American Vernacular or Negro dialect - or whatever the PC term is this week - is subjectively (though almost universally) seen as ignorant and ungrammatical and its use helps perpetuate those stereotypes being seen as being true of blacks in general. The same is true of the southern dialects and southerners. They can all choose to talk however they like, but you can't tell the rest of us that have to like the way it sounds, nor that we have to listen to what we find ugly.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
No, better value call centers benefit most people - that is not at all the same as cheaper, and better value is directly opposed to using offshore call centers, which are even lower quality service than the difference in price. Second, support is usually rolled into the price of goods. The customer does not see a drop in price of goods when service is sent overseas, rather just a drop in quality of service. The savings in price goes into corporate profits.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
We're addressing two different issues ...
people complain about AAV but not all the other creoles and vernaculars (from New Yawker to Boston Southie to Alabaman slang to Louisiana patois
No, those all mark one as a hick or lower class. Anybody who doesn't speak like a newscaster in the US will get mocked on occasion, and quietly considered a lower form of life on a frequent basis.
Well I have not research, but I don't think you are being straightforward. Read this Slashdot discussion and a million like it -- the complaints about AAV are far more frequent.
They can all choose to talk however they like, but you can't tell the rest of us that have to like the way it sounds, nor that we have to listen to what we find ugly.
I agree. If you can't appreciate something, nobody can make you and it's mostly your problem. The problem isn't liking or disliking, but racial discrimination.