I can't believe you accuse Socrates of WHINING:( He sacrificed HIS LIFE for a principle. Hardly a whiner I would say... Anyway...
"The beginning is the most important part of the work." Perhaps Plato was identifying the problems. The solutions are the next step and left to someone else;)
People will eventually end up supporting SOME position in life. Pretending that you do not belong in any classification is nothing more than a delusion. You may be uncomfortable being classified but you will end up in one--in the grand scheme of things.
For example, by voting for a political party you take certain positions in life. Unless you are truly apolitical and do not have an opinion in econopolitics, you are SOMETHING. What I classified you as may or may not be correct (after all, I don't know much about you). However, you will end up SOMEWHERE on the econopolitical spectrum--whether you think or not.
And on another note. Everything is politcs. Plato said so. Quite possibly the only view of his I agree with.
Plato had a lot of "good" ideas, as illustrated by the quotes below. I'm suprised you didn't like many of his ideas (I bolded the ones that I consider GREAT):
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
"If women are expected to do the same work as men, we must teach them the same things."
"Ignorance, the root and the stem of every evil."
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
"The life which is unexamined is not worth living."
"Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind."
"The beginning is the most important part of the work."
"The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness...This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector."
"There are three arts which are concerned with all things: one which uses, another which makes, and a third which imitates them."
"Wealth is the parent of luxury and indolence, and poverty of meanness and viciousness, and both of discontent."
Granted, I only picked the "good" quotes. However, I find it interesting that you disagree with Plato of all people. I always thought that very few would disagree with his view (on the whole). Any particular things you disaagree with?
Has anyone seen those IBM ads for linux? I'm surprised to see a company advertising on prime tv for linux... There was a discussion a while ago about whether anyone would advertise linux. It looks like IBM is doing it.
I think the original guy is right... he wasn't exactly talking about border towns. Instead he was saying that most of hte population lives close to the US border (and by close we are not talking right next to to). If you look at Canada's map, most people live close to the US border...
Just check out the link some dude posted above (although he/she was listing something else).
Both Canada and USA practice capitalism. Contrary to popular belief, Canada is not socialist (whoever that says so has no clue what socialism is). Having said that, Canada has more socialist IDEALS than USA.
You say that USA has just as many social programs. That is completely false. It may SEEM to have social ideals but it is anything but. Many things USA has are very minimalist so it is not even worth considering them. For example, USA has stricter welfare, unemployment, immigration, etc. Its schools (especially universities) are less subsidized (at least tuition--research is another story). The environmental laws are a joke (depends on state though--some parts of USA have good envrionmental laws). Worker protection is a joke (it probably has some of the worst laws (of the developed countries) to protect workers--on par with Italy). Even its library systems are highly questionable. And so forth.
The only socialist ideals and institutions that USA has that are on par or better than other socialist-like countries would be its free public roads (perhaps the best in the world--mostly because they were built by the military for WWII), human rights, and a few other things.
USA is one of THE most capitalist developed countries. Any socialist ideal is nothing more than an illusion--a facade if you will.
Life is not black or white, true or false, yes or no - it is seeming contradictions and shades of gray.
I agree.... but I still think people belong to certain classes. It is hard to pinpoint a person. Humans are quite diverse and unless you know the individual you can't form a correct opinion.
The reason I support the Marxist view of classes and class conflict is because I think people have different interests. That is the only way to describe it. For example, consider a socialist vs a capitalist. A socialist would consider it evil that a few select people hoard huge wealth and resources, while a capitalist would be fine with that. In contrast, a socialist would consider it ok to distribute money from the wealthy, while capitalists consider that evil. So yes, people place on a spectrum (that's why I consider myself to be around 60% socialist and 30% anarchist). But they always will end up supporting one principle over another.
I work for a company - I develop software applications (Worker); however I am not 'craft' or 'union', I am a manager (Coordinator) and have some responsibility for other workers. Additionally, I have stock options and own stock in my company as well as other companies (Capitalist). Additionally, I buy and sell items on Ebay for a profit (Merchant). Finally, I write music and stories and have made a few bucks on individual works - but am not tied by contract to any such endeavor, and am able to pursue it as I see fit (Artist - my classification). What box would you stick me in?
I think what matters is the position you take in life... the ideals you support. I think it depends more on what the person carries out, rather than what they are. For instance, just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are capitalists, or vice versa. Someone like Frederich Engels was communist even though his family owned factories (if I'm not mistaken). So, in my view, your class is basically where YOU place YOURSELF in the econopolitical spectrum. After all, just because you call yourself a democrat does not make you one--you have to support democracy to be one.
If you want to know where you place, take the Political Compass test. Some people don't like the test but I think it's somewhat accurate.
But if you want my opinion, well... it depends on the scope of your activities (information which I don't have). If you only engaged in something in a minor fashion then I wouldn't consider you belonging to that class--unless you strongly support it. For instance, you probably aren't an artist. You also likely aren't a merchant. Sure, you engage in selling and buying but so does everyone. What matters is the degree to which you are engaged in it. You probably also are not a capitalist (although I'm not 100% sure). Just because you own stock in a company doesn't make you a capitalist in my eyes. What matters is the degree of influence and your opinions. If you are sympathetic to capitalism, the corporations, and so forth, you would be a capitalist. But if you just own 0.001% of a company's stock and aren't supportive of it, I don't think you can be considered a capitalist. Technically if you deposit money in a bank (a key capitalist institution) you are a capitalist but almost 90% of the people use banks. Does that make them capitalists? Not really.
So it boils down to one of two IMO: working class or co-ordinator class. Whichever class you are sympathetic to, would dictate your class (not knowing anything else about your beliefs). If I had to guess, you would be belong to the co-ordinator class IMO. I would guess that you would support your corporations when there is a conflict between workes and the company (eg. strikes, lockouts, asking for higher wages, employment termination, class war (eg. Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia) etc).
How do you manage to live off $10k? Where do you live? Do you live with your parents? Who pays rent? If you ARE living off $10k, you will turn into a capitalist slave--if you aren't one already. You will barely meet anything your whole life. I don't consider $10k to be sufficient to live off of. That's just barely above the poverty line .
No, only low skilled jobs which are easily portable to other countries.
What's to stop literally all other jobs (except those that require physical presence) from being lost? In any case, what exactly is a low skilled job? As far as I'm concerned, there is little difference between jobs. Why would only low skilled jobs move? Why can't someone else perform other jobs? Do you think Indians, Chinese, etc can't carry out skilled jobs?
There is no reason why a teacher cannot be outsourced. It is kind of difficult to do now because teachers are required to be in classrooms. However, it wouldn't surprise me if many classes are done through long-distance in the future. Once schools are privatized, watch out. (BTW, this is not to discourage you from becoming a teacher--just using an example).
I agree with you that programmers get paid too much. It is a view I have held for many years. I don't see why people get paid $50,000+ for routine maintenance, simple programming, etc. But that doesn't change my point.
Require OSHA to be followed with foreign workers.
I don't see how you are going to carry that out given that all trade agreements place business interests above workers. You already have difficulty enforcing worker regulations within one country. Doing it internationally is more difficult..
I think a lot of investments in workers is profitable.
Don't get me wrong. What you are saying happens to some workers in some large corporations. However, I don't see it being expanded to many others.
It is difficult to prove that. I guess the book you referenced may shed some light on it but I don't know. If YOU were an executive can you justify to your superiors why the training budget needs to be increased instead of spending it on something more useful? Why workers must be provided education when they might just quit in the future and go to your competitors? The problem is not that you are wrong. Rather it is that you will have a hard time convincing your manager to carry it out without any proof.
You might as well ask why corporations don't independently provide for the national infrastructure (roads, etc.) or the national defense.
Actually it happens to some extent in many poor countries. Corporations are known to build their own power plants (at least subsidize them), their own roads, lay phonelines, etc. Some corporations even have private armed guards (and almost "paramilitaries") who enforce their view on the workers. It doesn't happen in rich countries that much because why should it? The government is already controlled by the corporations. I mean, whenever a corporation threatens, governments end up building roads and bridges in the name of the public. How many sports teams (who are all private) have managed to get the government to build free stadiums for them? Some governments (such as the US government) are also known to use military power to service the corporations. One just needs to look at US foreign policy regarding oil. The reason there are troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait is not because those countries are the bastions of democracy. Nope. Instead they are to protect the oil. And the oil is not owned by the US government. It is owned by US corporations (although the US govt gets some money by taxing these oil companies).
From a theoretical point of view, under pure capitalism, private entities will run everything (including the roads, energy, etc). It is likely that corporations will end up paying for everything themselves under (pure) capitalism. They don't do that now because right now most things are socialist and hence is "free".
Yeah, but what about the quality of life? How is the police service is New Delhi compared to NYC? How about the fire service? What about the public hospitals, etc. You're still comparing apples and oranges.
The standard of living is far lower in many of those countries. But the thing is that employers don't care. They just look at base costs. The higher standard of living in USA (for example) accrues to YOU--not the corporation.
I don't have a job.
oh:( I don't have a job either:( Good luck with your job hunting. I have pretty much been unemployed since I graduated from school 3 years ago (however, I started a company with one of my friends within those three years--it failed:( ). Good luck with your job search...
No, I'm not OK with that. Not at all. I'd say let the IT workers take a 25% pay cut. Hell, then maybe I could get a job.
I think that 25% is kind of low. Those figures may be misleading. I think it should be more like 50%.... ok... I did more research. Screw the cost of living I described earlier (that's too inconclusive). I found better indicators. I actually managed to find actual wages in India. This should prove my point without any doubt.
IT (computer,software)
India =10,464
China = 12,000
USA=75,000
Canada=50,000
C++
India=12,121
China=49,000*
USA=80,000
Canada=N/A
* Chinese numbers may not be precise since they have small samples (only 4 for the C++ case)
These are all senior positions and I am trusting the source. So if you look, you are paying around 20% of US wages in India and slightly more in China. So you need to take a 70% to 90% pay cut I would say. Can you do that? The answer is no. You would be far below the poverty line (I think the Canadian poverty line is somewhere around 20,000(?) and US should be similar). You can just barely manage to pay rent with a 12,000 salary!
As far as I'm concerned, there is NO WAY you can take a pay cut. You would have to SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASE your standard of living*. I think the "solution" of pay cuts just doesn't work. I think ALL jobs in wealthy countries will be threatened under capitalism. There just isn't any way someone living in a rich country can compete. It's not just manufacturing or the tech sector. It's pretty much everything.
(* There is another option and that is to devalue the US dollar. And I'm talking HUGE devaluation. Doing so could potentially collapse capitalism so capitalists probably won't contemplate that for a while)
Yep. YOu are absolutely right. That's why I think the 25% figure is too low.
An example would be trying to own a car in a place where there aren't many cars. For example, typical mode of transportation in China is bicycle (it's changing though). Even professionals (like scientists, professors, businessmen, etc) bike to work. If a Western person tried to buy a car and maintain it, it would be more expensive relative to the rest of the population. In some other (even poorer) countries, cars are pretty much a luxury. Another example would be something like high-speed internet access. In some poor countries, high-speed internet is very expensive.
I think you are right about the 10% figure. I don't travel but tourists usually say that poorer countries are VERY CHEAP. It is not uncommon to find people spend just $250 for what it would cost $1000 for a trip back home.
That still doesn't prove anything. Yes, companies can benefit in some cases by investing in the workers. BUT it is only done to increase profits. That is, companies will only do it IF it is profitable. In the vast majority of cases, it is NOT profitable--therefore they don't care!
Think of the converse from a socialist point of view. Companies benefit from having workers that are educated (supposedly). If that is true, the companies should ALWAYS educate the workers. However that doesn't happen all the time. I mean, why aren't corporations paying for YOUR university education? It is not PROFITABLE for them (unless you are a manager or executive, in which case you'll get free university). For the vast majority of workers, companies do not profit from their education.
In fact, it can be argued that companies benefit by pushing everything on to the worker, and by forcing them to pick up their own tabs for education. For example, it is almost at the point where you need a university degree for practically ANY JOB. Even if you are a machine operator, or a low level administrative assistant, or whatever, you literally need a degree. I'm unemployed and looking into some factory jobs and I'm surprised that they say a university degree is recommended (not engineering but just some degree). It is getting to the point where you won't get many jobs without a degree. I CLAIM that future generations will have to get a university degree to do mundane jobs that didn't require degrees 20 years ago. Why? Think about it...
It all comes down to profits. Even when something is done to benefit the worker, it is simply because the interests coincide. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case.
In any case, I don't wnat to attack you. You certainly believe corporations should be helping the worker. I guess your book recommmendation should be directed at management and not me...
You are right about the cost changing depending on the location (California is clearly higher than say Washington State). You are also right in saying that rent is perhaps the #1 component of the cost.
I guess cost of living would be based on the consumer price index (CPI). CPI is basically the cost of a basket of goods. Let me see if I can find something... ok... looking for the cost of living is much harder than I thought...
Here is what I found online. It isn't perfect. It doesn't include the cities we need and the conditions vary. Most of these are indexes so they are relative to some base location (usualy USA).
This index is for UN employees and may not be reflective of true costs (since bureaucrats may have higher costs than native population eg. foreign language schools, extra security, etc).
Expat Forum
The index on this page seems weird. Cost seems way too high for most countries but anyway...
USA (New York)=101.88
USA (Washington)=101.63
India (New Delhi) = 82.08
(there are more US cities listed for the older date of Nov 2000)
Conclusion
I hate to say it but the conclusion is that everything is inconclusive right now. On average it seems New Delhi (which is NOT the IT capital) is around 7% to 27% cheaper than New York (not exactly known for IT). That 7% figure is unreliable IMO. So on average it seems to be around 20% cheaper. So someone in New Delhi will automatically have a 20% cost advantage. The figures are also a bit old so they are not necessarily reflective of the present (however the general trend should be valid).
If the figures are to be believed, I guess I was kind of wrong. I expected greater cost of living diffreences. Right now it is only 20% to 25%. I personally think the cost gap should be even greater. I think more research needs to be done to come up with a conclusive answer. It would also help if more recent figures with relevant cities are used. (Can someone else reading this and with free time do more research? Thanks:) )
Anyway, I guess the question is: would you be willing to take a 25% pay cut? OR are you ok with the US government subsidizing IT workers by 25%?
You have developed your own description of the world, which believe it or not, somewhat resembles what Karl Marx said 150 years ago (although you are talking about something a bit different). You are unique in that you refer to artists as a seperate category. I have not heard of anyone (on the left--I'm a leftist) differentiate artists from others. You don't talk about classes but that is exactly what you are referring to (from a leftist perspective).
Your View
Your view is that there are five classes:
"work for wages and go where the wind blows you"
"manage workers"
"be an owner"
"become a successful artist"
"live off your inheritance"
Let me describe the typical left wing view and how that differs from yours.
Typical Left Wing View
The Marxist view is that there are three classes: capitalist class, working class, and "merchant class". Some modern day leftists (like Micheal Albert) add an additional class called the co-ordinator class. Here is how they compare to your system:
Working class (not to be confused with the economic class of the same name): These are people who make money by working for others. Typically, anyone that works for OTHERS is considered working class. Believe it or not, professionals are considered working class according to many on the left. This would be the first category you mention.
Capitalist class: Anyone who owns the means of production would belong here. So what you call the owner and those living off inheritance would go here. This class basically makes money by utilizing others (working class) to make something and sell it for higher than he pays the worker.
"merchant class": A special class that is not often mentioned. These are supposed to be people who make money by engaging in two markets. An example would be a shopkeeper or an importer. You buy goods in one market and then sell it in another for a higher price. This class is not present in your classificaiton system.
Co-ordinator class: This would be people who make money by managing or monitoring others (working class). This would include managers, CEOs, etc. These people work for others but are hostile to the working class (in some sense, they are the cops of the capitalists). I guess your "manage others" category would be this.
I have never heard anyone on the left talk about artists seperately. Artists would be considered working class. Your classifcation of artists seperately is pretty interesting. I guess you seperate them because they have more freedom than the working class. That may be true on the surface but I wonder if it is really true. Many artists complain about the lack of freedom they have. Whether it is a movie director, or a musician, or an architect, my impression is that they really don't have much freedom at all. Some may, but most don't. The studios force them to create things.
Having said all this, it should be noted that capitalists deny the existence of classes. To them, class is some bogus concept cooked up by the left.
Thinking more about your idea, I guess one thing I can say is "Humans will never be free until they are their own artists":)
However it is important that we are able to compete in a fair way, i.e.. get rid of worker exploitation and unfair government subsidation (sp?) in the countries we are competing with. That's one reason our participation in trade organizations like the WTO is imperative.
lol That's too funny heh:)
I hope you realize that bodies like the WTO, IMF, etc are actually LOWERING worker standards. They do this because trade (i.e. business) is valued above everything else, including national sovereignty, environmental regulations, safety regulations, etc. After signing some free trade agreements, some countries actually had to scrap their existing environmental regulations because they were deemed illegal by the WTO (I can't remember but it happened to some Latin American countries; Another example is how Europe apparently cannot label genetically modified food differently from natural foods because the WTO says so).
It's about time the UN dumbed the WTO, IMF, and the World Bank. These three institutions do more harm than good. Let the capitalists run their systems themselves...
A job is a partnership between an employer and a company.
Not under capitalism! When was the last time a company cared about a worker? Very few times in the last 100 years!!! You are nothing more than a worker-consumer ant. That's all you are under capitalism. If a company seems to care, you have been brainwashed or it is most likely a PR campaign (kind of like how Shell, ExonnMobil, etc advertise how they care about the environment while the reality is anything but)...
If the middle class dissapears, I expect to see a class war in USA. My theory is that the middle class moderates and prevents the class war between left vs right/poor vs rich. If the middle class dissapears, I predict a class war and the collapse of capitalism.
The Cost of living in USA is NOT less than India. India's cost of living if far less. I'm not Indian and have never lived there but I am pretty sure my opinion is correct. Rent may seem high but how about everything else? Food, for example, is FAR cheaper over there. A bread costs $1 here and it probably costs 10cents over there. Public transportation costs $2 here while it might cost 50 cents there.
I agree with you that Americans are used to better lifestyle. However, that doesn't change the cost of living.
Thanks for visiting my site:) I didn't even write the article yet so I can see how you find it funny--although I think you would find it funny anyway...
We'll see who gets the last laugh in 30 years... how about if we make a bet? If I'm wrong, I'll let you call me a fool; but if I'm right, you come and apologize to me for laughing at me...
Unions are NOT the solution here. I support unions (on principle alone) but they won't do anything here. The reason is because unions are limited to certain regions (at best, just one country). So if you unionize, the company will have an EVEN GREATER incentive to move to another country. It will further accelerate the process.
What is required, in my view, is a WORLD WIDE union. This will ensure that standards are fixed everywhere and that workers are not adversely affected (because let's get this straight: outsourcing is nothing more than an attempt to subver worker rights). Unfortunately that is almost next to impossible (assuming you can get past the red-baiting by capitalists). Many poorer countries are kleptocracies, dictatorships, or somewhat totalitarian. Attempting to get worker rights in these countries requires you to stand in front of a fast approaching police on horseback (or at worst, a tank). Needless to say, very few humans will do something like that...
hmm... what you are asking requires a REVOLUTION! Corporations are powerful precisely because USA (and 70% of the world) is capitalist. Revoking a corporation (which is possible--I heard of some left wing groups who tried it) will not be permitted by the capitalists who rule the earth...
There is no such thing as 'Made in XXX' anymore. A product could have hundreads of components made in different countries. How do you label it then? Where is your PC made (if the video card comes from Taiwan, hard drive from USA, operating system from USA, floppy drive from Malaysia, etc)?
Actually it's not so much profit but rather... valuing profits OVER everything else. Clearly, money is valuable under ANY system. It is even valuable to a theocrat (just ask a priest). However, the systems I mentioned value other things ABOVE profit. Capitalism, on the other hand, values profit over everything else...
The cost of living is significantly different between countries. Rent in Toronto costs $1000/month whereas it probably costs $1000 per year in those countries. You can't enforce the same minimum wage. The only thing you can do is to enforce the same worker CONDITIIONS (eg. # of hours one can work; severance pay; health care; payroll taxes; etc) in all countries. Doing what I'm saying is VERY difficult. Because all the countries (including USA) are controlled by elites, it is next to impossible...
Slashdot Mirror
I can't believe you accuse Socrates of WHINING :( He sacrificed HIS LIFE for a principle. Hardly a whiner I would say... Anyway...
;)
"The beginning is the most important part of the work." Perhaps Plato was identifying the problems. The solutions are the next step and left to someone else
Sivaram Velauthapillai
People will eventually end up supporting SOME position in life. Pretending that you do not belong in any classification is nothing more than a delusion. You may be uncomfortable being classified but you will end up in one--in the grand scheme of things.
For example, by voting for a political party you take certain positions in life. Unless you are truly apolitical and do not have an opinion in econopolitics, you are SOMETHING. What I classified you as may or may not be correct (after all, I don't know much about you). However, you will end up SOMEWHERE on the econopolitical spectrum--whether you think or not.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
--OFF TOPIC--
And on another note. Everything is politcs. Plato said so. Quite possibly the only view of his I agree with.
Plato had a lot of "good" ideas, as illustrated by the quotes below. I'm suprised you didn't like many of his ideas (I bolded the ones that I consider GREAT):
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
"If women are expected to do the same work as men, we must teach them the same things."
"Ignorance, the root and the stem of every evil."
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
"The life which is unexamined is not worth living."
"Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind."
"The beginning is the most important part of the work."
"The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness...This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector."
"There are three arts which are concerned with all things: one which uses, another which makes, and a third which imitates them."
"Wealth is the parent of luxury and indolence, and poverty of meanness and viciousness, and both of discontent."
Source: The Quotations Page
Granted, I only picked the "good" quotes. However, I find it interesting that you disagree with Plato of all people. I always thought that very few would disagree with his view (on the whole). Any particular things you disaagree with?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Has anyone seen those IBM ads for linux? I'm surprised to see a company advertising on prime tv for linux... There was a discussion a while ago about whether anyone would advertise linux. It looks like IBM is doing it.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think the original guy is right... he wasn't exactly talking about border towns. Instead he was saying that most of hte population lives close to the US border (and by close we are not talking right next to to). If you look at Canada's map, most people live close to the US border...
Just check out the link some dude posted above (although he/she was listing something else).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Both Canada and USA practice capitalism. Contrary to popular belief, Canada is not socialist (whoever that says so has no clue what socialism is). Having said that, Canada has more socialist IDEALS than USA.
You say that USA has just as many social programs. That is completely false. It may SEEM to have social ideals but it is anything but. Many things USA has are very minimalist so it is not even worth considering them. For example, USA has stricter welfare, unemployment, immigration, etc. Its schools (especially universities) are less subsidized (at least tuition--research is another story). The environmental laws are a joke (depends on state though--some parts of USA have good envrionmental laws). Worker protection is a joke (it probably has some of the worst laws (of the developed countries) to protect workers--on par with Italy). Even its library systems are highly questionable. And so forth.
The only socialist ideals and institutions that USA has that are on par or better than other socialist-like countries would be its free public roads (perhaps the best in the world--mostly because they were built by the military for WWII), human rights, and a few other things.
USA is one of THE most capitalist developed countries. Any socialist ideal is nothing more than an illusion--a facade if you will.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Life is not black or white, true or false, yes or no - it is seeming contradictions and shades of gray.
I agree.... but I still think people belong to certain classes. It is hard to pinpoint a person. Humans are quite diverse and unless you know the individual you can't form a correct opinion.
The reason I support the Marxist view of classes and class conflict is because I think people have different interests. That is the only way to describe it. For example, consider a socialist vs a capitalist. A socialist would consider it evil that a few select people hoard huge wealth and resources, while a capitalist would be fine with that. In contrast, a socialist would consider it ok to distribute money from the wealthy, while capitalists consider that evil. So yes, people place on a spectrum (that's why I consider myself to be around 60% socialist and 30% anarchist). But they always will end up supporting one principle over another.
I work for a company - I develop software applications (Worker); however I am not 'craft' or 'union', I am a manager (Coordinator) and have some responsibility for other workers. Additionally, I have stock options and own stock in my company as well as other companies (Capitalist). Additionally, I buy and sell items on Ebay for a profit (Merchant). Finally, I write music and stories and have made a few bucks on individual works - but am not tied by contract to any such endeavor, and am able to pursue it as I see fit (Artist - my classification). What box would you stick me in?
I think what matters is the position you take in life... the ideals you support. I think it depends more on what the person carries out, rather than what they are. For instance, just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are capitalists, or vice versa. Someone like Frederich Engels was communist even though his family owned factories (if I'm not mistaken). So, in my view, your class is basically where YOU place YOURSELF in the econopolitical spectrum. After all, just because you call yourself a democrat does not make you one--you have to support democracy to be one.
If you want to know where you place, take the Political Compass test. Some people don't like the test but I think it's somewhat accurate.
But if you want my opinion, well... it depends on the scope of your activities (information which I don't have). If you only engaged in something in a minor fashion then I wouldn't consider you belonging to that class--unless you strongly support it. For instance, you probably aren't an artist. You also likely aren't a merchant. Sure, you engage in selling and buying but so does everyone. What matters is the degree to which you are engaged in it. You probably also are not a capitalist (although I'm not 100% sure). Just because you own stock in a company doesn't make you a capitalist in my eyes. What matters is the degree of influence and your opinions. If you are sympathetic to capitalism, the corporations, and so forth, you would be a capitalist. But if you just own 0.001% of a company's stock and aren't supportive of it, I don't think you can be considered a capitalist. Technically if you deposit money in a bank (a key capitalist institution) you are a capitalist but almost 90% of the people use banks. Does that make them capitalists? Not really.
So it boils down to one of two IMO: working class or co-ordinator class. Whichever class you are sympathetic to, would dictate your class (not knowing anything else about your beliefs). If I had to guess, you would be belong to the co-ordinator class IMO. I would guess that you would support your corporations when there is a conflict between workes and the company (eg. strikes, lockouts, asking for higher wages, employment termination, class war (eg. Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia) etc).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
How do you manage to live off $10k? Where do you live? Do you live with your parents? Who pays rent? If you ARE living off $10k, you will turn into a capitalist slave--if you aren't one already. You will barely meet anything your whole life. I don't consider $10k to be sufficient to live off of. That's just barely above the poverty line .
No, only low skilled jobs which are easily portable to other countries.
What's to stop literally all other jobs (except those that require physical presence) from being lost? In any case, what exactly is a low skilled job? As far as I'm concerned, there is little difference between jobs. Why would only low skilled jobs move? Why can't someone else perform other jobs? Do you think Indians, Chinese, etc can't carry out skilled jobs?
There is no reason why a teacher cannot be outsourced. It is kind of difficult to do now because teachers are required to be in classrooms. However, it wouldn't surprise me if many classes are done through long-distance in the future. Once schools are privatized, watch out. (BTW, this is not to discourage you from becoming a teacher--just using an example).
I agree with you that programmers get paid too much. It is a view I have held for many years. I don't see why people get paid $50,000+ for routine maintenance, simple programming, etc. But that doesn't change my point.
Require OSHA to be followed with foreign workers.
I don't see how you are going to carry that out given that all trade agreements place business interests above workers. You already have difficulty enforcing worker regulations within one country. Doing it internationally is more difficult..
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think a lot of investments in workers is profitable.
Don't get me wrong. What you are saying happens to some workers in some large corporations. However, I don't see it being expanded to many others.
It is difficult to prove that. I guess the book you referenced may shed some light on it but I don't know. If YOU were an executive can you justify to your superiors why the training budget needs to be increased instead of spending it on something more useful? Why workers must be provided education when they might just quit in the future and go to your competitors? The problem is not that you are wrong. Rather it is that you will have a hard time convincing your manager to carry it out without any proof.
You might as well ask why corporations don't independently provide for the national infrastructure (roads, etc.) or the national defense.
Actually it happens to some extent in many poor countries. Corporations are known to build their own power plants (at least subsidize them), their own roads, lay phonelines, etc. Some corporations even have private armed guards (and almost "paramilitaries") who enforce their view on the workers. It doesn't happen in rich countries that much because why should it? The government is already controlled by the corporations. I mean, whenever a corporation threatens, governments end up building roads and bridges in the name of the public. How many sports teams (who are all private) have managed to get the government to build free stadiums for them? Some governments (such as the US government) are also known to use military power to service the corporations. One just needs to look at US foreign policy regarding oil. The reason there are troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait is not because those countries are the bastions of democracy. Nope. Instead they are to protect the oil. And the oil is not owned by the US government. It is owned by US corporations (although the US govt gets some money by taxing these oil companies).
From a theoretical point of view, under pure capitalism, private entities will run everything (including the roads, energy, etc). It is likely that corporations will end up paying for everything themselves under (pure) capitalism. They don't do that now because right now most things are socialist and hence is "free".
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Yeah, but what about the quality of life? How is the police service is New Delhi compared to NYC? How about the fire service? What about the public hospitals, etc. You're still comparing apples and oranges.
:( I don't have a job either :( Good luck with your job hunting. I have pretty much been unemployed since I graduated from school 3 years ago (however, I started a company with one of my friends within those three years--it failed :( ). Good luck with your job search...
The standard of living is far lower in many of those countries. But the thing is that employers don't care. They just look at base costs. The higher standard of living in USA (for example) accrues to YOU--not the corporation.
I don't have a job.
oh
No, I'm not OK with that. Not at all. I'd say let the IT workers take a 25% pay cut. Hell, then maybe I could get a job.
I think that 25% is kind of low. Those figures may be misleading. I think it should be more like 50%.... ok... I did more research. Screw the cost of living I described earlier (that's too inconclusive). I found better indicators. I actually managed to find actual wages in India. This should prove my point without any doubt.
Check out the following links:
Sr. Software Engineer / Developer / Programmer (India)
Sr. Software Engineer / Developer / Programmer (USA)
Sr. Software Engineer / Developer / Programmer (Canada)
Just to give an idea, let's compare:
(all US$; date unknown)
IT (computer,software)
India =10,464
China = 12,000
USA=75,000
Canada=50,000
C++
India=12,121
China=49,000*
USA=80,000
Canada=N/A
* Chinese numbers may not be precise since they have small samples (only 4 for the C++ case)
These are all senior positions and I am trusting the source. So if you look, you are paying around 20% of US wages in India and slightly more in China. So you need to take a 70% to 90% pay cut I would say. Can you do that? The answer is no. You would be far below the poverty line (I think the Canadian poverty line is somewhere around 20,000(?) and US should be similar). You can just barely manage to pay rent with a 12,000 salary!
As far as I'm concerned, there is NO WAY you can take a pay cut. You would have to SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASE your standard of living*. I think the "solution" of pay cuts just doesn't work. I think ALL jobs in wealthy countries will be threatened under capitalism. There just isn't any way someone living in a rich country can compete. It's not just manufacturing or the tech sector. It's pretty much everything.
(* There is another option and that is to devalue the US dollar. And I'm talking HUGE devaluation. Doing so could potentially collapse capitalism so capitalists probably won't contemplate that for a while)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Yep. YOu are absolutely right. That's why I think the 25% figure is too low.
An example would be trying to own a car in a place where there aren't many cars. For example, typical mode of transportation in China is bicycle (it's changing though). Even professionals (like scientists, professors, businessmen, etc) bike to work. If a Western person tried to buy a car and maintain it, it would be more expensive relative to the rest of the population. In some other (even poorer) countries, cars are pretty much a luxury. Another example would be something like high-speed internet access. In some poor countries, high-speed internet is very expensive.
I think you are right about the 10% figure. I don't travel but tourists usually say that poorer countries are VERY CHEAP. It is not uncommon to find people spend just $250 for what it would cost $1000 for a trip back home.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That still doesn't prove anything. Yes, companies can benefit in some cases by investing in the workers. BUT it is only done to increase profits. That is, companies will only do it IF it is profitable. In the vast majority of cases, it is NOT profitable--therefore they don't care!
Think of the converse from a socialist point of view. Companies benefit from having workers that are educated (supposedly). If that is true, the companies should ALWAYS educate the workers. However that doesn't happen all the time. I mean, why aren't corporations paying for YOUR university education? It is not PROFITABLE for them (unless you are a manager or executive, in which case you'll get free university). For the vast majority of workers, companies do not profit from their education.
In fact, it can be argued that companies benefit by pushing everything on to the worker, and by forcing them to pick up their own tabs for education. For example, it is almost at the point where you need a university degree for practically ANY JOB. Even if you are a machine operator, or a low level administrative assistant, or whatever, you literally need a degree. I'm unemployed and looking into some factory jobs and I'm surprised that they say a university degree is recommended (not engineering but just some degree). It is getting to the point where you won't get many jobs without a degree. I CLAIM that future generations will have to get a university degree to do mundane jobs that didn't require degrees 20 years ago. Why? Think about it...
It all comes down to profits. Even when something is done to benefit the worker, it is simply because the interests coincide. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case.
In any case, I don't wnat to attack you. You certainly believe corporations should be helping the worker. I guess your book recommmendation should be directed at management and not me...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You are right about the cost changing depending on the location (California is clearly higher than say Washington State). You are also right in saying that rent is perhaps the #1 component of the cost.
... ok... looking for the cost of living is much harder than I thought...
:) )
I guess cost of living would be based on the consumer price index (CPI). CPI is basically the cost of a basket of goods. Let me see if I can find something
Here is what I found online. It isn't perfect. It doesn't include the cities we need and the conditions vary. Most of these are indexes so they are relative to some base location (usualy USA).
UN Retail Price Index for their employees
UN Retail Price Index (click on retail price index link on that page):
(as of June 2003)
USA (New York) = 100
USA (Washington, DC) = 91 (96 without housing)
India (New Delhi) = 73 (85 without housing)
This index is for UN employees and may not be reflective of true costs (since bureaucrats may have higher costs than native population eg. foreign language schools, extra security, etc).
Expat Forum The index on this page seems weird. Cost seems way too high for most countries but anyway...
USA=100
India = 93
FT Worldwide Cost of Living
Check it out.
(as of Sept 2001)
USA (New York)=101.88
USA (Washington)=101.63
India (New Delhi) = 82.08
(there are more US cities listed for the older date of Nov 2000)
Conclusion
I hate to say it but the conclusion is that everything is inconclusive right now. On average it seems New Delhi (which is NOT the IT capital) is around 7% to 27% cheaper than New York (not exactly known for IT). That 7% figure is unreliable IMO. So on average it seems to be around 20% cheaper. So someone in New Delhi will automatically have a 20% cost advantage. The figures are also a bit old so they are not necessarily reflective of the present (however the general trend should be valid).
If the figures are to be believed, I guess I was kind of wrong. I expected greater cost of living diffreences. Right now it is only 20% to 25%. I personally think the cost gap should be even greater. I think more research needs to be done to come up with a conclusive answer. It would also help if more recent figures with relevant cities are used. (Can someone else reading this and with free time do more research? Thanks
Anyway, I guess the question is: would you be willing to take a 25% pay cut? OR are you ok with the US government subsidizing IT workers by 25%?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Your View
Your view is that there are five classes:
Let me describe the typical left wing view and how that differs from yours.
Typical Left Wing View
The Marxist view is that there are three classes: capitalist class, working class, and "merchant class". Some modern day leftists (like Micheal Albert) add an additional class called the co-ordinator class. Here is how they compare to your system:
I have never heard anyone on the left talk about artists seperately. Artists would be considered working class. Your classifcation of artists seperately is pretty interesting. I guess you seperate them because they have more freedom than the working class. That may be true on the surface but I wonder if it is really true. Many artists complain about the lack of freedom they have. Whether it is a movie director, or a musician, or an architect, my impression is that they really don't have much freedom at all. Some may, but most don't. The studios force them to create things.
Having said all this, it should be noted that capitalists deny the existence of classes. To them, class is some bogus concept cooked up by the left.
Thinking more about your idea, I guess one thing I can say is "Humans will never be free until they are their own artists"
Sivaram Velauthapillai
However it is important that we are able to compete in a fair way, i.e.. get rid of worker exploitation and unfair government subsidation (sp?) in the countries we are competing with. That's one reason our participation in trade organizations like the WTO is imperative.
:)
lol That's too funny heh
I hope you realize that bodies like the WTO, IMF, etc are actually LOWERING worker standards. They do this because trade (i.e. business) is valued above everything else, including national sovereignty, environmental regulations, safety regulations, etc. After signing some free trade agreements, some countries actually had to scrap their existing environmental regulations because they were deemed illegal by the WTO (I can't remember but it happened to some Latin American countries; Another example is how Europe apparently cannot label genetically modified food differently from natural foods because the WTO says so).
It's about time the UN dumbed the WTO, IMF, and the World Bank. These three institutions do more harm than good. Let the capitalists run their systems themselves...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
A job is a partnership between an employer and a company.
Not under capitalism! When was the last time a company cared about a worker? Very few times in the last 100 years!!! You are nothing more than a worker-consumer ant. That's all you are under capitalism. If a company seems to care, you have been brainwashed or it is most likely a PR campaign (kind of like how Shell, ExonnMobil, etc advertise how they care about the environment while the reality is anything but)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The middle class will disappear...
If the middle class dissapears, I expect to see a class war in USA. My theory is that the middle class moderates and prevents the class war between left vs right/poor vs rich. If the middle class dissapears, I predict a class war and the collapse of capitalism.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The Cost of living in USA is NOT less than India. India's cost of living if far less. I'm not Indian and have never lived there but I am pretty sure my opinion is correct. Rent may seem high but how about everything else? Food, for example, is FAR cheaper over there. A bread costs $1 here and it probably costs 10cents over there. Public transportation costs $2 here while it might cost 50 cents there.
I agree with you that Americans are used to better lifestyle. However, that doesn't change the cost of living.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Thanks for visiting my site :) I didn't even write the article yet so I can see how you find it funny--although I think you would find it funny anyway...
We'll see who gets the last laugh in 30 years... how about if we make a bet? If I'm wrong, I'll let you call me a fool; but if I'm right, you come and apologize to me for laughing at me...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Speaking as a leftist...
Unions are NOT the solution here. I support unions (on principle alone) but they won't do anything here. The reason is because unions are limited to certain regions (at best, just one country). So if you unionize, the company will have an EVEN GREATER incentive to move to another country. It will further accelerate the process.
What is required, in my view, is a WORLD WIDE union. This will ensure that standards are fixed everywhere and that workers are not adversely affected (because let's get this straight: outsourcing is nothing more than an attempt to subver worker rights). Unfortunately that is almost next to impossible (assuming you can get past the red-baiting by capitalists). Many poorer countries are kleptocracies, dictatorships, or somewhat totalitarian. Attempting to get worker rights in these countries requires you to stand in front of a fast approaching police on horseback (or at worst, a tank). Needless to say, very few humans will do something like that...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
hmm... what you are asking requires a REVOLUTION! Corporations are powerful precisely because USA (and 70% of the world) is capitalist. Revoking a corporation (which is possible--I heard of some left wing groups who tried it) will not be permitted by the capitalists who rule the earth...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
There is no such thing as 'Made in XXX' anymore. A product could have hundreads of components made in different countries. How do you label it then? Where is your PC made (if the video card comes from Taiwan, hard drive from USA, operating system from USA, floppy drive from Malaysia, etc)?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Actually it's not so much profit but rather... valuing profits OVER everything else. Clearly, money is valuable under ANY system. It is even valuable to a theocrat (just ask a priest). However, the systems I mentioned value other things ABOVE profit. Capitalism, on the other hand, values profit over everything else...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I just love how capitalists always love to bring (social) Darwinism into it :(
Get real man... there is no such thing as natural selection...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The cost of living is significantly different between countries. Rent in Toronto costs $1000/month whereas it probably costs $1000 per year in those countries. You can't enforce the same minimum wage. The only thing you can do is to enforce the same worker CONDITIIONS (eg. # of hours one can work; severance pay; health care; payroll taxes; etc) in all countries. Doing what I'm saying is VERY difficult. Because all the countries (including USA) are controlled by elites, it is next to impossible...
Sivaram Velauthapillai