How long until internet traffic to foreign websites becomes constantly monitored by the FBI, using this same justification?
And after that, how long until all internet traffic becomes constantly monitored?
Lovely.
Yes, and how much tax money is all the infrastructure to do that going to cost us? Processing that much information in any kind of useful way isn't cheap.
So, in short, the phone company has every right to voluntarily give out your information. They also have a right to voluntarily withhold that information.
What this ultimately comes down to (assuming the level of business ethic that exists among the leaders of AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and the rest) is whether it is cheaper to comply with such requests, or to deny them outright.
I agree. The president is simply the head of the Armed forces. I never expect him/her to do any sort of ( IP | legal | health care | human rights ) reform -- The president of the USA, much like President Zaphod Beeblebrox, is simply a distraction to keep us from concentrating our attention on where we can actually make such changes (i.e. every other position of government, EXCEPT the presidency).
Not to mention all the non-elected officials and bureaucrats who often remain in their jobs long after the elected officials who appointed them have retired or been voted out.
Also mentioned in the TFA is that the phone companies can voluntarily comply with the request, but it still takes a court order if they chose not to. That has always been the case.
True. Now, having said that, what do you think the likes of AT&T or Comcast will (given their history on the subject of compliance with law enforcement) do when such a request is made of them?
Well since you have no freedom to begin with (unless of course you are a billionaire), it actually costs very little. All that's happening is the veil is slowly falling. But never kid yourself that the government has not always had the power to break you. That's what government IS.
Not so. It didn't used to have anything like that kind of power: up 'til the Second World War the United States Federal Government was tiny compared to its current incarnation, and didn't control most of the nation's wealth. Only since World War II has the government been a threat to its citizens on the kind of scale we're seeing today. Even the FBI, which went way overboard during the Fifties, was reigned in by the Congress of the time. Many of the protections put in place then were removed by the Patriot Act, which has still not been allowed to sunset (Congress isn't what it used to be either.)
Sooner or later, I suspect that my more liberal-minded friends are going to see the Second Amendment as one of the Founders' better ideas. Right now, they still buy into the ideal that they're untouchable, and that the government is still worthy of the trust they place in it, that they really have nothing to worry about. A feeling of complacency, borne largely of willful ignorance.
I'm a ways from retirement now, but not that far, and I hope we can keep it together until I'm six feet under. but I don't hold out much hope of that. See, the problem with decadent empires (you have only to look at pretty much every empire that ever existed, whether it be economic or military) is that when the end comes, it comes faster than anyone believed possible. Some inflection point is reached, stability is lost, and said empire is rapidly overtaken by its enemies. We may have already past that point: to a certain degree we are now operating on inertia.
The only thing this is going to do is catch a few minor criminals that may call Mexico/Canada for their weed.
Any real terrorist is going to encrypt what they're doing.
Hell, thinking about it right now, if I was a terrorist and I wanted to start sending coded messages, I'd start with craigslist. Put some 'orders'/messages in an image with steganography (encrypted of course), and just let it go by word of mouth that orders for the attack should be looking for a 1974 Blue Camero. They decrypt the orders and carry on.
All our anti-terrorism efforts can do is stop the truly stupid terrorists (and you don't need multi-billion-dollar equipment for that) or the ones who are sent out solely to test our defenses, with the expectation that they will be caught. The well-equipped, well-prepared serious badass that wants to slip in here and blow something up will do so, just as the 9/11 attackers did. If the drug cartels can build submarines capable of delivering their product undetected, terrorists can certainly find a way to get here, whether we want them to or not. America is too big, and has just too much activity at its borders, to ever truly secure itself. Hell, forget air travel: what about our seaports? No way in hell to inspect all that cargo: anybody who really wants in will find a way.
America is, and always has been, a goldfish bowl. We're swimming around in a transparent aquarium filled with fast-fading freedoms, and anyone who wants can take a poke at us. Nothing is going to change that, except maybe a change in foreign policy, but that will take years to have an effect. And that points out a serious flaw in our form of government: we aren't capable of making sustained efforts in many areas. Our foreign policy is too capricious, too driven by the needs of the moment and our leaders' own greed.
I exaggerate, of course, but erudite writing is vital.
True. But how many of us are actually capable of such writing?
People don't realize how far our educational system has fallen. I remember reading letters sent from soldiers to their families during the Civil War and other internecine conflicts here in the U.S. These were just grunts, yet they were more capable writers than most college graduates today.
Well no, that's where the "hope" part comes in. You have to "hope" that there will be "change". Americans refuse to come to terms with the fact that their country was bought and sold years ago, in fact not long after it was founded.
Huh? That's rather an odd thing to say: frankly, I'm not really a fan of sweeping generalities. Trying to paint a whole culture with a single broad brush stroke just makes for misunderstandings and divisiveness. So you might want to rethink your attitude there: you wouldn't want us talking about you and your country in such a cavalier way, would you? Besides... how many Americans do you actually know? And of those... how many have you queried about these issues? A hundred? A thousand? Do you have any statistically relevant support for your claim that we're ignorant of what is going on? I sincerely hope you aren't getting your impressions of us from our primary news media. As an American who makes an effort to understand what is happening in such matters, I stopped paying much attention to them years ago. I get my news elsewhere.
I think you'll find that we are very much aware of the current state of affairs here (certainly you'll find that most American Slashdotters are, considering how often the topic arises.Why you would say it was bought and sold not long after it was founded is a mystery to me. You should stop with the inflammatory rhetoric and read some of what our Founders wrote about that subject. They were very much aware of the dangers of undue corporate influence upon government (especially Jefferson, who 'til his death maintained a deep mistrust of the corporate world and its leaders. I think we can all agree that he was entirely justified in his position.) My only complaint is that they didn't take enough steps to prevent future abuses, such as we're seeing now. Not that it would have mattered in the long run: the Constitution has been "interpreted" to death lately.
One of the worst decisions happened long after the founding of the United States, and that was the legal fiction that corporations have the same rights as ordinary citizens (without, apparently, many of the same responsibilities and liabilities) Much of our current headache with corporatism can be traced to that.
Wrong. You only need to look at the laws and government policies instituted by Japan, China and India (to name a few) regarding imports from the U.S. to understand that you are not solely in the realm of private business. Not at all... those governments understand very clearly the value of protectionism, and they are implementing such laws to our detriment. Why do you think the U.S. has been trying for so long (and so unsuccessfully) to get Japan to open its markets to more American exports? I'll tell you why: it's because THOSE GOVERNMENTS DON'T WANT US TO DO TO THEM WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO US! This is not rocket science, Hal. Japan, in particular, has a long history of the private corporations working very closely with (and being heavily subsidized by, when necessary) their government.
My point is that they're winning this business by fair competition. That's OK in my book. They're not walking up and shooting people.
My point is, they're not winning business by fair competition. And you know they're not. If they were, nobody would be that upset. Our European trading partners compete fairly with us, and you don't hear much complaining about them, do you. Nope, it's just certain specific countries that are abusing international trade in a obvious effort to hollow out Western industrial economies.
Furthermore, our government is allowing this atrocity to continue, which means they are not working in our best interests, and are committing acts of treason. Japan started this, with their highly successful attack on the American electronics industries. They committed numerous acts that are illegal under U.S. law... yet the government largely did nothing. As a result, we lost that entire sector of our economy... and for what? China is just finishing the job: they're hitting us on all fronts instead of just a few key sectors.
Get it through your head that "trade" and "free trade" are two entirely different things, and when you allow predatory practices by foreign "competition", you are just asking for trouble. Well, we got it, and what's odd about it is how many people simple rationalize it away. "Oh, it's nothing serious, we're just transitioning to a "service economy" Whatever the fuck a service economy is: in my book it's pretty much synonymous with "third world." And the ever-popular "Oh, don't worry, we'll just retrain all those manufacturing workers to do something else." MacDonalds for the win.
Listen, this is actually a serious matter, and if you can't see that then you're a. oblivious or b. not from the U.S., and see the destruction of our economy as a good thing.
I don't think you understand what I wrote. I bet if you gave me an example, I would be able to refute it by showing that those "good intentions" were nothing more than rationalizations.
The road to disaster and chaos may be sprinkled with good intentions, but I just can't see how any road to hell is paved with them. (Un-enacted good intentions? Perhaps. It's still a form of rationalization.)
I think that the phrase has more to do with people who doing what feels right (to them), rather than what truly is right (for others.) Contrary to popular belief, the two are not only different, but often in diametric opposition. To really help someone, you have to understand the true nature of their problem domain, not just your own surface perception of it, and make your decisions on that basis. Otherwise, if operating from a position of ignorance, odds are you'll only make matters worse.
"The overwhelming sense that such outsourcing is unethical on this thread boils down to one very simple assumption: American lives are more important than others."
BULLSHIT.
If my life is worth exactly the same as yours, I am still not ethically required to sacrifice mine in order to better yours. Especially if you are in a country that has caused its own problems due to things like ridiculous population density.
Precisely, couldn't have put it better myself. I might have used a bigger font for the BULLSHIT though.
Interestingly enough, I was reading that a lot of U.S. produced foodstuff is shipped overseas because it can be sold for greater profit than if sold here. Consequently, a lot of food sold in the U.S. is coming directly from China, because they grow it cheaper. Kinda scary: China's track record has not been good when it comes to exported foods.
I find it amusing that people are in favor of giving poor people in foreign countries food and money, but are horrified at the prospect of giving them jobs.
How did this tripe get modded +5? And furthermore, who says we're all in favor of giving away food and money? I pay a good chunk of my income to the Federal Government. A lot of it goes to welfare of one kind or another, and frankly I'm kinda tired of that, and the truth is we really can't afford it. Any country that is dependent upon our largess better wake up and start figuring out how to become independent. Otherwise they're going to be in for a rude shock one of these days.
And why wouldn't we be more afraid of giving away our jobs? Jesus H. Christ, what kind of an imbecile are you? I have people that depend upon me (probably you have no-one who depends upon you, I know I wouldn't want to, not with your attitude.) The fact that some of my hard-earned money goes to help poor people in other countries I can accept, but giving up my job I absolutely do not, because people that I care about would be hurt. Is that wrong? Is it unethical to want to not see your job eliminated in favor of someone who works for pennies on the dollar? Is it wrong to not want to lose your home, your savings, your family? I'm glad that China is going after India now: maybe they'll start to feel some of the pain.
Grow up. And to anyone that modded this guy up... why, you grow up too.
Then your neighbor is asking too much money. Is it a crime for Joe to pay you to mow his lawn because you charge $10 and I demand $100? No, it's common sense. Americans need to stop expecting fortunes for low-skill jobs. I work at an American call center and I can tell you, $15 an hour is all that it's actually worth, because it's a pretty low skill job (I'm in grad school right now, so this isn't a career for me, just a job).
That's a nice-sounding sentiment, but it's not really correct. Comparing the wage, price and taxation levels of a nation like the United States or Canada with India or China is ridiculous.
Suppose we carry this a step further. Forget outsourcing. Let's just ship all that Indian talent here, on boats, next week. Let them take over all the jobs currently held by American workers. Sure, they'll work for peanuts... until they realize that they can't even afford to eat for that salary here, much less have a decent place to live, or be able to send money home to the families back in India.
There were some classes of American workers that managed to weasel ridiculous levels of compensation from their companies (Big Three, I'm looking at you) but you cannot make such an outrageous claim about the entire workforce. That's naive, if not disingenuous, and is a terrible justification for throwing people out on the street, or forcing highly trained people to take menial jobs just to survive. Compensation levels that would sustain an Indian or Chinese worker are below poverty levels here in the United States, so trying to make any kind of a direct comparison is ridiculous.
Trade barriers and other such protectionist devices exist for a reason: they prevent foreign competition from wreaking destruction upon your domestic industries and associated workforces. You only have to look at the history of Japan and the American electronics manufacturers that were destroyed by Japan's business practices (and I use "Japan", not "Japanese companies" because their government and their private sector are far more intertwined than they are in the U.S.) Also, you should examine the economic polices and trade barriers put in place by nations like China, India, Japan and Brazil: they don't allow foreign companies to fuck over their people to any significant degree, and you know what? They aren't suffering the same kinds of problems we are in that regard. You globalists should look at some facts: the people who are benefiting most from the "global economy" are those very nations who refuse to truly take part in it, who take steps. They want to take... they don't want to give, and you know what else? They're taking care of their own far more effectively than we are!
If you're not willing to make adjustments when dealing with foreign imports (whether they be human resources or finished goods) then you should expect to be take advantage of very quickly. Never depend upon another man's (or company's, or nation's) better nature. Because it or they probably don't have one.
That's because the US makes money off of all that foreign 'aid'. You really didn't think they give it away for free do you?
Absolutely. You ought to see the billions we're making from Haiti, and so far as the food and fuel oil we give North Korea... hoo boy, we're just raking in the dough there.
A lot of that aid money goes to influence other countries, sure, but a lot of it goes to try and provide some stability in certain areas. Raw profit, as such, isn't always the motive.
In the end, it all comes down to one thing: some people have stuff that other people want, and they'll try and take it any way they can.
Exactly.
Panama had a canal. Iraq has oil.
HAL.
What's your point? They proved incapable of defending what was theirs. We're proving incapable of defending what is ours. From the perspective of those are getting shafted, it sucks. Yes, it does, but then again, expecting anything resembling fairness from the sociopaths that run most governments and virtually all multinational corporations is naive. Oddly, people from other countries seem to want to hold the U.S. to an entirely different standard than that to which they hold themselves. Which is interesting to me, because the history of the United States is anything but sweetness and light. When push comes to shove, we can toss our ethics, our morals, our concern for our fellow man in the trunk just as quickly and efficiently as anyone else on this planet.
China hasn't dealt with the U.S (or really, Western civilization in general) on anything resembling an "ethical" basis, at least by our lights. And the big problem we've had in dealing with them is that they keep telling us that they will, and we keep believing them. How did the instructor in Heinlein's Starship Trooper's put it? "societies abide by the morals they can afford." So far as our Asian friends are concerned, we need to realize that we can't afford to continue the way we have been.
If my neighbor next door has 14 children while I have decided to have only 2, and he can't feed them because he has the same job at the same pay as I do, am I morally or ethically responsible for feeding his children?
I don't think so either, but we have a substantial number of lawmakers who have a vested interest in, and regularly buy re-election by making you responsible for those children, from the standpoint of taxation and the welfare state.
Ok, but if they didn't offshore, they'd be uncompetitive and they'd fold. So not only would the call centre staff lose their jobs, the whole workforce would be in the firing line. And there wouldn't be any redundancy pay.
HAL.
Huh? In other words, the company cannot survive without shipping jobs overseas, but is consuming resources and services provided by the American taxpayer. And yes, that local company may pay corporate taxes, but they'll be substantially less, and furthermore all that income has left the U.S., and will not return in the form of income, sales taxes, rent, mortgage payments or anything. Outsourcing, in that sense, is really just another government handout. Let that company move itself to India, or China, and see if it can survive there.
From slavery and massacres in the third world, to the handing over of entire Eastern European countries to Stalin, history has one message: us white dudes are bastards.
So what? The world has been full of bastards since we came out of the primordial muck. It's the way of things. And, if you think for one single microsecond that the Asian world is any less dangerous, you're fooling yourself. They're history is just as bloody as the West's, and goes back quite a bit further.
But that's still not an answer to my implied question: do the past sins of our leaders justify the dismantling of our economy and whatever way of life we've carved out for ourselves? Does it?
The less culturally developed you are, the more constrictive your definition. Family is so 10,000 BC, most of us are starting to turn the corner from countries --> continents/world.
Who is "we", white man? There are a couple of billion Indians, Chinese, Africans and others (including a hundred or so million working Americans) who aren't so "culturally developed" so in the end, you have to deal with what is. Matter of fact, it's the culturally developed types that usually end up at a distinct disadvantage in business and in war.
and that firm and the arrests have created even more activists to take the others' place, not to mention probably bringing the matter into the interest range of more serious and rebel segments of the internet. i would like to see those people deal with the latter type that they are slowly irritating.
Martyring your enemies can be a very dangerous move.
He was ultimately caught because doing all the thing it took to avoid being caught ground him down and he made a mistake.
"When a place gets crowded enough to require ID's, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere. The best thing about space travel is that it made it possible to go elsewhere." -- Lazarus Long
Slashdot Mirror
How long until internet traffic to foreign websites becomes constantly monitored by the FBI, using this same justification? And after that, how long until all internet traffic becomes constantly monitored? Lovely.
Yes, and how much tax money is all the infrastructure to do that going to cost us? Processing that much information in any kind of useful way isn't cheap.
So, in short, the phone company has every right to voluntarily give out your information. They also have a right to voluntarily withhold that information.
What this ultimately comes down to (assuming the level of business ethic that exists among the leaders of AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and the rest) is whether it is cheaper to comply with such requests, or to deny them outright.
I agree. The president is simply the head of the Armed forces. I never expect him/her to do any sort of ( IP | legal | health care | human rights ) reform -- The president of the USA, much like President Zaphod Beeblebrox, is simply a distraction to keep us from concentrating our attention on where we can actually make such changes (i.e. every other position of government, EXCEPT the presidency).
Not to mention all the non-elected officials and bureaucrats who often remain in their jobs long after the elected officials who appointed them have retired or been voted out.
Also mentioned in the TFA is that the phone companies can voluntarily comply with the request, but it still takes a court order if they chose not to. That has always been the case.
True. Now, having said that, what do you think the likes of AT&T or Comcast will (given their history on the subject of compliance with law enforcement) do when such a request is made of them?
Well since you have no freedom to begin with (unless of course you are a billionaire), it actually costs very little. All that's happening is the veil is slowly falling. But never kid yourself that the government has not always had the power to break you. That's what government IS.
Not so. It didn't used to have anything like that kind of power: up 'til the Second World War the United States Federal Government was tiny compared to its current incarnation, and didn't control most of the nation's wealth. Only since World War II has the government been a threat to its citizens on the kind of scale we're seeing today. Even the FBI, which went way overboard during the Fifties, was reigned in by the Congress of the time. Many of the protections put in place then were removed by the Patriot Act, which has still not been allowed to sunset (Congress isn't what it used to be either.)
Sooner or later, I suspect that my more liberal-minded friends are going to see the Second Amendment as one of the Founders' better ideas. Right now, they still buy into the ideal that they're untouchable, and that the government is still worthy of the trust they place in it, that they really have nothing to worry about. A feeling of complacency, borne largely of willful ignorance.
I'm a ways from retirement now, but not that far, and I hope we can keep it together until I'm six feet under. but I don't hold out much hope of that. See, the problem with decadent empires (you have only to look at pretty much every empire that ever existed, whether it be economic or military) is that when the end comes, it comes faster than anyone believed possible. Some inflection point is reached, stability is lost, and said empire is rapidly overtaken by its enemies. We may have already past that point: to a certain degree we are now operating on inertia.
PGP Phone.
The only thing this is going to do is catch a few minor criminals that may call Mexico/Canada for their weed.
Any real terrorist is going to encrypt what they're doing.
Hell, thinking about it right now, if I was a terrorist and I wanted to start sending coded messages, I'd start with craigslist. Put some 'orders'/messages in an image with steganography (encrypted of course), and just let it go by word of mouth that orders for the attack should be looking for a 1974 Blue Camero. They decrypt the orders and carry on.
All our anti-terrorism efforts can do is stop the truly stupid terrorists (and you don't need multi-billion-dollar equipment for that) or the ones who are sent out solely to test our defenses, with the expectation that they will be caught. The well-equipped, well-prepared serious badass that wants to slip in here and blow something up will do so, just as the 9/11 attackers did. If the drug cartels can build submarines capable of delivering their product undetected, terrorists can certainly find a way to get here, whether we want them to or not. America is too big, and has just too much activity at its borders, to ever truly secure itself. Hell, forget air travel: what about our seaports? No way in hell to inspect all that cargo: anybody who really wants in will find a way.
America is, and always has been, a goldfish bowl. We're swimming around in a transparent aquarium filled with fast-fading freedoms, and anyone who wants can take a poke at us. Nothing is going to change that, except maybe a change in foreign policy, but that will take years to have an effect. And that points out a serious flaw in our form of government: we aren't capable of making sustained efforts in many areas. Our foreign policy is too capricious, too driven by the needs of the moment and our leaders' own greed.
I exaggerate, of course, but erudite writing is vital.
True. But how many of us are actually capable of such writing?
People don't realize how far our educational system has fallen. I remember reading letters sent from soldiers to their families during the Civil War and other internecine conflicts here in the U.S. These were just grunts, yet they were more capable writers than most college graduates today.
Well no, that's where the "hope" part comes in. You have to "hope" that there will be "change". Americans refuse to come to terms with the fact that their country was bought and sold years ago, in fact not long after it was founded.
Huh? That's rather an odd thing to say: frankly, I'm not really a fan of sweeping generalities. Trying to paint a whole culture with a single broad brush stroke just makes for misunderstandings and divisiveness. So you might want to rethink your attitude there: you wouldn't want us talking about you and your country in such a cavalier way, would you? Besides ... how many Americans do you actually know? And of those ... how many have you queried about these issues? A hundred? A thousand? Do you have any statistically relevant support for your claim that we're ignorant of what is going on? I sincerely hope you aren't getting your impressions of us from our primary news media. As an American who makes an effort to understand what is happening in such matters, I stopped paying much attention to them years ago. I get my news elsewhere.
I think you'll find that we are very much aware of the current state of affairs here (certainly you'll find that most American Slashdotters are, considering how often the topic arises.Why you would say it was bought and sold not long after it was founded is a mystery to me. You should stop with the inflammatory rhetoric and read some of what our Founders wrote about that subject. They were very much aware of the dangers of undue corporate influence upon government (especially Jefferson, who 'til his death maintained a deep mistrust of the corporate world and its leaders. I think we can all agree that he was entirely justified in his position.) My only complaint is that they didn't take enough steps to prevent future abuses, such as we're seeing now. Not that it would have mattered in the long run: the Constitution has been "interpreted" to death lately.
One of the worst decisions happened long after the founding of the United States, and that was the legal fiction that corporations have the same rights as ordinary citizens (without, apparently, many of the same responsibilities and liabilities) Much of our current headache with corporatism can be traced to that.
Nope, you have companies.
Wrong. You only need to look at the laws and government policies instituted by Japan, China and India (to name a few) regarding imports from the U.S. to understand that you are not solely in the realm of private business. Not at all ... those governments understand very clearly the value of protectionism, and they are implementing such laws to our detriment. Why do you think the U.S. has been trying for so long (and so unsuccessfully) to get Japan to open its markets to more American exports? I'll tell you why: it's because THOSE GOVERNMENTS DON'T WANT US TO DO TO THEM WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO US! This is not rocket science, Hal. Japan, in particular, has a long history of the private corporations working very closely with (and being heavily subsidized by, when necessary) their government.
My point is that they're winning this business by fair competition. That's OK in my book. They're not walking up and shooting people.
My point is, they're not winning business by fair competition. And you know they're not. If they were, nobody would be that upset. Our European trading partners compete fairly with us, and you don't hear much complaining about them, do you. Nope, it's just certain specific countries that are abusing international trade in a obvious effort to hollow out Western industrial economies.
... yet the government largely did nothing. As a result, we lost that entire sector of our economy ... and for what? China is just finishing the job: they're hitting us on all fronts instead of just a few key sectors.
Furthermore, our government is allowing this atrocity to continue, which means they are not working in our best interests, and are committing acts of treason. Japan started this, with their highly successful attack on the American electronics industries. They committed numerous acts that are illegal under U.S. law
Get it through your head that "trade" and "free trade" are two entirely different things, and when you allow predatory practices by foreign "competition", you are just asking for trouble. Well, we got it, and what's odd about it is how many people simple rationalize it away. "Oh, it's nothing serious, we're just transitioning to a "service economy" Whatever the fuck a service economy is: in my book it's pretty much synonymous with "third world." And the ever-popular "Oh, don't worry, we'll just retrain all those manufacturing workers to do something else." MacDonalds for the win.
Listen, this is actually a serious matter, and if you can't see that then you're a. oblivious or b. not from the U.S., and see the destruction of our economy as a good thing.
I don't think you understand what I wrote. I bet if you gave me an example, I would be able to refute it by showing that those "good intentions" were nothing more than rationalizations.
The road to disaster and chaos may be sprinkled with good intentions, but I just can't see how any road to hell is paved with them. (Un-enacted good intentions? Perhaps. It's still a form of rationalization.)
I think that the phrase has more to do with people who doing what feels right (to them), rather than what truly is right (for others.) Contrary to popular belief, the two are not only different, but often in diametric opposition. To really help someone, you have to understand the true nature of their problem domain, not just your own surface perception of it, and make your decisions on that basis. Otherwise, if operating from a position of ignorance, odds are you'll only make matters worse.
"The overwhelming sense that such outsourcing is unethical on this thread boils down to one very simple assumption: American lives are more important than others."
BULLSHIT. If my life is worth exactly the same as yours, I am still not ethically required to sacrifice mine in order to better yours. Especially if you are in a country that has caused its own problems due to things like ridiculous population density.
Precisely, couldn't have put it better myself. I might have used a bigger font for the BULLSHIT though.
Borrowed from China mostly, currently.
Interestingly enough, I was reading that a lot of U.S. produced foodstuff is shipped overseas because it can be sold for greater profit than if sold here. Consequently, a lot of food sold in the U.S. is coming directly from China, because they grow it cheaper. Kinda scary: China's track record has not been good when it comes to exported foods.
I find it amusing that people are in favor of giving poor people in foreign countries food and money, but are horrified at the prospect of giving them jobs.
How did this tripe get modded +5? And furthermore, who says we're all in favor of giving away food and money? I pay a good chunk of my income to the Federal Government. A lot of it goes to welfare of one kind or another, and frankly I'm kinda tired of that, and the truth is we really can't afford it. Any country that is dependent upon our largess better wake up and start figuring out how to become independent. Otherwise they're going to be in for a rude shock one of these days.
... why, you grow up too.
And why wouldn't we be more afraid of giving away our jobs? Jesus H. Christ, what kind of an imbecile are you? I have people that depend upon me (probably you have no-one who depends upon you, I know I wouldn't want to, not with your attitude.) The fact that some of my hard-earned money goes to help poor people in other countries I can accept, but giving up my job I absolutely do not, because people that I care about would be hurt. Is that wrong? Is it unethical to want to not see your job eliminated in favor of someone who works for pennies on the dollar? Is it wrong to not want to lose your home, your savings, your family? I'm glad that China is going after India now: maybe they'll start to feel some of the pain.
Grow up. And to anyone that modded this guy up
Then your neighbor is asking too much money. Is it a crime for Joe to pay you to mow his lawn because you charge $10 and I demand $100? No, it's common sense. Americans need to stop expecting fortunes for low-skill jobs. I work at an American call center and I can tell you, $15 an hour is all that it's actually worth, because it's a pretty low skill job (I'm in grad school right now, so this isn't a career for me, just a job).
That's a nice-sounding sentiment, but it's not really correct. Comparing the wage, price and taxation levels of a nation like the United States or Canada with India or China is ridiculous.
... until they realize that they can't even afford to eat for that salary here, much less have a decent place to live, or be able to send money home to the families back in India.
... they don't want to give, and you know what else? They're taking care of their own far more effectively than we are!
Suppose we carry this a step further. Forget outsourcing. Let's just ship all that Indian talent here, on boats, next week. Let them take over all the jobs currently held by American workers. Sure, they'll work for peanuts
There were some classes of American workers that managed to weasel ridiculous levels of compensation from their companies (Big Three, I'm looking at you) but you cannot make such an outrageous claim about the entire workforce. That's naive, if not disingenuous, and is a terrible justification for throwing people out on the street, or forcing highly trained people to take menial jobs just to survive. Compensation levels that would sustain an Indian or Chinese worker are below poverty levels here in the United States, so trying to make any kind of a direct comparison is ridiculous.
Trade barriers and other such protectionist devices exist for a reason: they prevent foreign competition from wreaking destruction upon your domestic industries and associated workforces. You only have to look at the history of Japan and the American electronics manufacturers that were destroyed by Japan's business practices (and I use "Japan", not "Japanese companies" because their government and their private sector are far more intertwined than they are in the U.S.) Also, you should examine the economic polices and trade barriers put in place by nations like China, India, Japan and Brazil: they don't allow foreign companies to fuck over their people to any significant degree, and you know what? They aren't suffering the same kinds of problems we are in that regard. You globalists should look at some facts: the people who are benefiting most from the "global economy" are those very nations who refuse to truly take part in it, who take steps. They want to take
If you're not willing to make adjustments when dealing with foreign imports (whether they be human resources or finished goods) then you should expect to be take advantage of very quickly. Never depend upon another man's (or company's, or nation's) better nature. Because it or they probably don't have one.
That's because the US makes money off of all that foreign 'aid'. You really didn't think they give it away for free do you?
Absolutely. You ought to see the billions we're making from Haiti, and so far as the food and fuel oil we give North Korea ... hoo boy, we're just raking in the dough there.
A lot of that aid money goes to influence other countries, sure, but a lot of it goes to try and provide some stability in certain areas. Raw profit, as such, isn't always the motive.
In the end, it all comes down to one thing: some people have stuff that other people want, and they'll try and take it any way they can.
Exactly.
Panama had a canal. Iraq has oil.
HAL.
What's your point? They proved incapable of defending what was theirs. We're proving incapable of defending what is ours. From the perspective of those are getting shafted, it sucks. Yes, it does, but then again, expecting anything resembling fairness from the sociopaths that run most governments and virtually all multinational corporations is naive. Oddly, people from other countries seem to want to hold the U.S. to an entirely different standard than that to which they hold themselves. Which is interesting to me, because the history of the United States is anything but sweetness and light. When push comes to shove, we can toss our ethics, our morals, our concern for our fellow man in the trunk just as quickly and efficiently as anyone else on this planet.
China hasn't dealt with the U.S (or really, Western civilization in general) on anything resembling an "ethical" basis, at least by our lights. And the big problem we've had in dealing with them is that they keep telling us that they will, and we keep believing them. How did the instructor in Heinlein's Starship Trooper's put it? "societies abide by the morals they can afford." So far as our Asian friends are concerned, we need to realize that we can't afford to continue the way we have been.
Not sure what you mean by `old imperial countries` - the US is not a very old country at all, but the same applies to them.
No kidding. From Europe's perspective, we're the new kids on the block.
If my neighbor next door has 14 children while I have decided to have only 2, and he can't feed them because he has the same job at the same pay as I do, am I morally or ethically responsible for feeding his children?
I don't think so either, but we have a substantial number of lawmakers who have a vested interest in, and regularly buy re-election by making you responsible for those children, from the standpoint of taxation and the welfare state.
Ok, but if they didn't offshore, they'd be uncompetitive and they'd fold. So not only would the call centre staff lose their jobs, the whole workforce would be in the firing line. And there wouldn't be any redundancy pay.
HAL.
Huh? In other words, the company cannot survive without shipping jobs overseas, but is consuming resources and services provided by the American taxpayer. And yes, that local company may pay corporate taxes, but they'll be substantially less, and furthermore all that income has left the U.S., and will not return in the form of income, sales taxes, rent, mortgage payments or anything. Outsourcing, in that sense, is really just another government handout. Let that company move itself to India, or China, and see if it can survive there.
They're history
Dammit, "their" history. Must remember to read before pressing Submit.
From slavery and massacres in the third world, to the handing over of entire Eastern European countries to Stalin, history has one message: us white dudes are bastards.
So what? The world has been full of bastards since we came out of the primordial muck. It's the way of things. And, if you think for one single microsecond that the Asian world is any less dangerous, you're fooling yourself. They're history is just as bloody as the West's, and goes back quite a bit further.
But that's still not an answer to my implied question: do the past sins of our leaders justify the dismantling of our economy and whatever way of life we've carved out for ourselves? Does it?
The less culturally developed you are, the more constrictive your definition. Family is so 10,000 BC, most of us are starting to turn the corner from countries --> continents/world.
Who is "we", white man? There are a couple of billion Indians, Chinese, Africans and others (including a hundred or so million working Americans) who aren't so "culturally developed" so in the end, you have to deal with what is. Matter of fact, it's the culturally developed types that usually end up at a distinct disadvantage in business and in war.
and that firm and the arrests have created even more activists to take the others' place, not to mention probably bringing the matter into the interest range of more serious and rebel segments of the internet. i would like to see those people deal with the latter type that they are slowly irritating.
Martyring your enemies can be a very dangerous move.
He was ultimately caught because doing all the thing it took to avoid being caught ground him down and he made a mistake.
"When a place gets crowded enough to require ID's, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere. The best thing about space travel is that it made it possible to go elsewhere." -- Lazarus Long