The U.S. software industry lost 16 percent of its jobs from March 2001 to March 2004, the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute found. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that information technology industries laid off more than 7,000 American workers in the first quarter of 2005.
First the US have the advantage of a mature 100+ years old continuous economy and legal system, and that is priceless in the coming years of global business. Sure China, India and other countries doing well in some areas and they have more and more powerful economies day by day, but us anything in this World have limits, and one day they will experience a slowdown or even a setback because they legal system, they way of doing business is far away from anything in the US. Of course they will improve this with time, but the advantage the US has they never can gain overnight, in fact the only way for the US lose something is to lose by self. Outsourcing is a wrong word for a natural process, it is nothing more than job relocation, the only difference is that now this relocation did not go from say Chicago to Phoenix or from Detroit to Los Angeles, but from US to India or China… it is wrong to try to stop this, the US must to accept that the World is changing, that the speed of possible communication and the size of the global market allow you to be a citizen of the World, give you opportunities to buy and sell whatever you want and need without borders. So you must accept that there are a global job market as well, try to observe the situation from a positive point of view, Americans are positive people, and Americans are competitors, they are not quitters, sometimes you are unable to win a game, that’s don’t mean that you are a loser, that doesn’t mean you will lose, that’s mean you need to change game… IT jobs are being replaced, not just by more competitive oversea workforce, but by better products, today software and hardware need less IT stuff to operate, today development tools generate half of the code so entry level programmers are replaced by code generation algorithm… there is a way to change this, and this way are called INVENTIONS, and CREATIVITY. This is a place where replacement does not work not with improved technology neither with oversea workforce. The problem is that today most people does not respect a job, does not respect a profession… they respect only the money they can earn by that job, and the problem is that IT jobs was overpaid by a margin of 2 in the recent years due a large demand, now the market is regulating themselves… an IT job is worth no more than an engineering job or a medical or any other comparable and that is a truth Americans need to accept. The IT sector is on the way to become a regular industry not much different than other industries with decades of tradition. On the other hand the problem with the small number of sci & tech students in the US will be solved when the overall industry find out that globalization is working in two way. Until then the only way to save the US superiority in sci & tech is to allow foreign experts to become Americans, to give more H1B visas and green cards, that is what most of the US based corporations (especially in the IT sector) want and trust me they want this because they know that this is the only way, if the US don’t allow them to act that way they will outsource more and more, and in that case they will build and improve the economy of some other country far more than of the economy of the US. Americans need to be open and need to push, because you can not preserve your advantage but even to improve it and drive it to new heights. (SORRY FOR SOME ERRORS, English is not my native language)
>… the only difference is that now this relocation did not go from say Chicago to Phoenix or from Detroit to Los Angeles, but from US to India or China…
You are obscuring a huge difference in the cost of living between those locations. How am I supposed to pay for a higher standard of living which include, underground sewers, city building codes, and environmental laws prohibiting my neighbor from creating a toxic waste dump in his backyard? And, at the same time compete on a fair field with those who don’t?
That’s not a free market. We as a society regularly moderate market forces to impede activities which are unsustainable. The whole point of global ecomonics is to raise the standard of living for the rest of the world. That’s great. But it also implies that what I’m competing against (a lack of social institutions and the cost thereof) is unsustainable.
>it is wrong to try to stop this, the US must to accept that the World is changing,
No one that I know says offshoring must “stop.” They only argue that it should be moderated as so many facets of commercial and financial markets are. Why should labor markets be subject to raw market (so-called “free market”) forces when we *routinely* intervene in commercial and financial markets to create a more stable and predictable market?
My rants outsourcing:
1) Our Govt. has already short circuited the next big thing bio-technology in the U.S. with all the hoopla about stem cell reasearch. So when IT industry is gone there is pretty much nothing left high tech to pursue here. It becomes a service industry economy.
2) Since we dont really have natural resources that we sell to other nations. Once the technology sector is crushed in this country we will no longer be a SuperPower. You simply cannot be a great power without strong technology and manufacturing, both are required in producing a strong military and economy. We have already lost manufacturing in the U.S. and its costing us. Look at the problem we had getting armor for our vehicles in Iraq last year because there isnt enough steel plants that produce that grade of armor anymore. Its only a matter of time before some fools in our govt start outsourcing certain components our military requires from another country because they think its more cost effective and they are our friends for “now”.
3) When all high tech “Good paying jobs are gone” how do they think they are going to run the country on taxes produced from a “Wal-Mart” economy. Who is going to pay all those high taxes?
4) Seems like a real national security risk since a lot of finacial data, and personal data is setting outside the U.S. now. Its definately a lot easier to bring down a U.S. ecomony with terrorist actions when you can strike a technology district in Banglore and get a broad range of companies at once. Or do identity theft on a massive scale.
5) Everyone keeps saying how India and China is going to be SuperPowers in 15-20 years. Sure if you dont outsource everything over here and destroy our economy in 5-10 years. Because if we go broke they pretty much have no one to sell too. So it really really damages them if they are not up to super power status yet, and buying there own goods.
6) Also by these countries working so cheap they pretty much gauranteed themselves never to make the same wages we make over here. As soon as they get more expensive the U.S. companies pull out and go to the next cheap country and leave them hanging.
However a couple of things I think led to outsourcing of manufacturing and definately tech jobs in telecom for sure is the high cost of Unions. You got unskilled labor making more then skilled labor. Also IT sector is only engineering profession where there seems to be a lot of uncertified and unqualified people working, as opposed to other engineering professions. In the 90’s they were throwing anyone behind a keyboard.
Very nice reply, you hit the nail right on the head. The problem is not with the rest of the world getting better jobs, the problem is that the economic model built on excessive outsourcing is not sustainable for the american economy as whole (not just the very incomplete picture given by the GDP and other such “raw” indicators).
The idea is that wages in the rest of the world are supposed to reach American levels over time, not the other way around. And if that means that CEOs must vote themselves pay cuts instead of multi-million increases, then so be it!!
However a couple of things I think led to outsourcing of manufacturing and definately tech jobs in telecom for sure is the high cost of Unions.
Which is why we need to encourage the creation of trade unions in India (and China, unfortunately the pseudo-communist government would never allow competition to its own Orwellian unions).
I’m all for a global free market when wages abroad approach american standards. Before that, it’ll just mean that everyone will still be relatively poor, though it will hurt more in the US since the drop will be more dramatic.
Smartest posts I’ve seen anywhere–I completely agree with you (as does Noam Chomsky.)
“The wages paid to workers are just a small part of the cost to the employer. Workers need office space ($/sqft), office furniture/supplies, computers, benefits, government deductions, etc.”
Interesting that telecommuting never took off in a big way in the US.
“Yes. Absent some sort of higher power, moral relativism is the only logical conclusion. How can fundemental rules exist without some fundemental power to lay them down? ”
Hmmmm…scientific relativism.
“It’s not that we don’t need them, we don’t need Americans to be doing them. To see the dangers of protectionism, just look at the US farm industry. Every year, we give farmers billions of dollars of free money. We could get our food much more cheaply elsewhere (like Japan does), but we don’t. Now, farmers have no reason to switch to a legitimate job. We’ve provided them cushy position, and they aren’t giving it up.”
*blink*blink*
Have you ever worked on a farm in an extended capacity?
>Very nice reply, you hit the nail right on the head.
Thanks. In the US you have right wingers who tend to argue all labor issues in terms of “free markets.” Anything else is “socialism.” What they fail to address is how financial and commerical markets are *heavily* socialized via corporate laws (limiting personal liability), or banking regulations (ensuring the predictability of monetary deposits), or various other market *intrustions* including city building codes, to hair dresser licenses, to food quality requirements.
When it comes to offshoring of jobs, suddenly the argument turns into how it’s just a “free market.” I can’t opt out of society’s costs for our standard of living. I’m forced to compete with those who don’t have such costs. And this is a free market?
We routinely levy tarrifs against countries found to be “product dumping.” Why? Because it’s not a sustainable market activity. We know that in the end our industries will be bankrupted against what is a short-term market phenomenon. So why should “cost of living” dumping be any different? Why? Because the Right Wingers hold contempt for labor markets while they enjoy society’s moderations for financial and commercial markets. We have socialized capitalism. But, God Forbid we ever have socialized labor.
Obviously it is useless to continue the discussion, except to say that in view of some of the comments here, it is clear beyond doubt why “total moral relativism” is popular — because it allows you to evade any criticism from others and shoot down any constructive arguments.
But I’d wish good luck choosing the best politicians to rule the country, and reducing crime, and really solving any problem — when there is total moral relativism, there is NO JUSTICE, because how can there exist justice if there is no common moral ground on which to judge what is fair. Then good luck trying to correct any inefficient and incorrect system in which you yourself as a proponent of relativism are residing. You will only be told, by the people who govern you, “Why, it’s not inefficient or incorrect. You should see things from THAT relative angle we happen to entertain, and you’ll see the system is totally efficient, correct and just. Now just continue toiling and giving your money to us while we lead you in circles”.
Relativism is incompatible with justice, and justice depends on determining the superiority of one set of moral values over another. If you deny the existence of any such superiority, justice becomes UNDEFINABLE, the whole US constitution becomes MEANINGLESS. How can you ever be just if there’s no agreement on a common standard of conduct?
Do you realize that you (relativists) don’t even have any grounds to disagree with my points, because according to the definition of your relativism, you cannot meaningfully criticize someone else’s views, i.e. not only I cannot criticize you, but it is impossible for you to do that, either?
What you are doing, in effect, is paving your way to chaotic, meaningless, purposeless, suffering society.
No. What it means is that all situations are discrete and must be delt with accordingly. One cannot rely on heuristics (moral “Truths”) as a shortcut. It requires one to actually think and leaves no room for cognative misers.
In short: a conclusion that held true in one case will not always hold true in another case.
The cost of business in the US is out of control; look at all the taxes and charges business have to pay; employ a person, and they you’re expected to pay for the person health care + a social security payment + pay roll tax + numerous other taxes.
It is the US that can’t seem to be able reform their taxation system and labour market as to allow greater flexibility – little wonder the US sits number 12 on the economic freedom index.
“It’s not that we don’t need them, we don’t need Americans to be doing them. To see the dangers of protectionism, just look at the US farm industry. Every year, we give farmers billions of dollars of free money. We could get our food much more cheaply elsewhere (like Japan does), but we don’t. Now, farmers have no reason to switch to a legitimate job. We’ve provided them cushy position, and they aren’t giving it up.”
*blink*blink*
Have you ever worked on a farm in an extended capacity?
Try reading:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/bg1624.cfm
“Liberalizing Agriculture: Why the U.S. Should Look to New Zealand and Australia”
Competitive markets,good that you mention it,yes they got themselves 10 new poor Eastern European member countries.
Is funny how Dutch,French,German politicians explain only the drawbacks of getting those poor Eastern European contries into the union.
However,they do not explain at all what are the benefits.And I am not talking about the new members but for the old members,because the reality is pretty obvious, EU is not a charity institution.
You pay to be in there.Nothings comes for free. Everybody benefits from extending EU,that’s simply because they(EU) just gained a huge market.
You don’t see anymore on Poland,Czech Rep, Slovakia, even Romania or Bulgaria other cars but the ones produced in EU,or bought from there. In the stores,if you check , there’s mostly Made in ECC/EU products.
The fact is that Eastern European countries realized now that they were quite fooled. They had anything they had before and nothing more. They are in EU ,yet they are not treated like EU members.
Just look in Czech Rep to see the skepticism toward the Eu now. And why is that? That’s because they (EE countries) were before in such a system. If that one didn’t worked for them , why EU will work?
Simply ignoring the facts,isolate those people or showing them as being guilty for what happens in France or Germany when this is not the case at all,will make them to be more distant from what is called old EU.
And this cannot benefit any party involved.
“No. What it means is that all situations are discrete and must be delt with accordingly. One cannot rely on heuristics (moral “Truths”) as a shortcut. It requires one to actually think and leaves no room for cognative misers.”
If *all* situations were discrete, as you say, then there would exist *nothing* common and shared between *any two* situations. But the statement “No two situations share anything” is absurd and false.
“In short: a conclusion that held true in one case will not always hold true in another case.”
Yes, but moral values are not conclusions. They help make conclusions.
Oops, was going to edit that one — “Yes, but moral values are not conclusions. They help make conclusions.” Scratch that one.
“In short: a conclusion that held true in one case will not always hold true in another case.”
Yes, right. They are conclusions, but a particular conclusion (moral or not) true in one case and “not always true in another case”, does not preclude another particular conclusion true in one case from being true in another case.
It’s hilarious how people can justify almost anything as long as they’re the ones getting a check.
Just curious,is civilization absolute or relativ?
May I ask you, wasn’t Hitler absolutely wrong when killing millions?
Trying to punish companies that outsource will be hard. Remember GM’s “buy American” propaganda from the 1980’s? But we have to try. Opening China in 1972 may have made military sense, but it has proved (predictibly) to be an unqualified disaster for our economy. We lose jobs to them, and they finance our debt, giving the politicians breathing room they don’t deserve.
Our ultimate solution is to make the US a better place to live. Sure, our kids don’r go into science and engineering. Why should they– B-school is MUCH easier, and business jobs are more secure and pay better. To get more tech types IN THE US, we need more R&D money and more support of our univeristies, among other things.
Yes.He shouldn’t have been borned in the first place.
I don’t know how prevelent it is. But I do know that some new IT jobs are the results of firing expensive employees, and hiring cheaper.
For example, a systems administrator that was hired in 1999 is probably making about $70K/year right now. So why not fire him, and hire a new guy for $40K/year. If the old systems administrator is approaching 40 years of age; this is an esspecially good idea, because it saves on health insurance, and sometimes there are laws protecting those over 40.
Again, I don’t know how common this practise is, but I do know for a fact that it does happen.
Maybe it’s possible that this is where those new jobs are coming from?
You are an awful person. I hope you get to experience exactly what you’ve prescribed for other people.
“Yes.He shouldn’t have been borned in the first place.”
Thanks for answering. Well, I think that if people admit of such absolute wrongs as those perpetrated by Hitler, it is likely that people in other civilizations, being human like us, were/have been/will be doing the same with respect to people perpetrating comparable wrong acts to Hitler’s. In other words, I think civilization is not relative.
So what you’re really saying is that since I asked you for your falsifiable system of morals and you don’t have one, you’ve fallen into spouting logical fallacies? That’s really quite impressive.
Amusingly you act as if you aren’t existing in a morally relativistic environment already. Hint: there has never been a period in which there has been any objective morality. Chaos! Pure chaos!
Question 1
If a company intends to sell the finished goods in the USA – should the (majority of) goods also not be made in America?
Answer is yes. Most clothing is made in China, India or other 3rd world country but imported in America & sold in America. So, who makes the money? The corporation benefits because it has lower labour & operating costs in China – which generates more profits (& CEO, top level managers, shareholders get more money in return for following this course of action). Who loses out, the US workers that should have been employed in making those clothes & competitors that manufacture clothes in America, because they have to deal with greater competition forcing them to also outsource to other countries or close down.
Go check out where dishes, cups, cutlery, clothing is made. You’ll see China or other country. Lots of goods are being made offshore, but end up selling in America. Do you like it when many goods & services come from outside USA & sold to Americans? Basically, American consumers, buying foreign made goods, help corporations to get richer & also are improving the economies of other countries, like China.
Question 2
Is outsourcing to other countries a problem?
Of course it is. Manufacturing of goods started using China, India (& other) and now many products are produced outside of America (from cars, to clothes, to computer parts,etc). Manufacturing has been relocated abroad. Tech jobs (programming and tech support) are leaving for India. Some accounting jobs are sure to follow eventually. Why stop there? Seems greed is getting out of control with corporations. By Making the company richer the CEO gets rewarded by receiving bigger bonus pay and more company shares (= better pay). Eventually you’ll see less & less good paying jobs.
Question 3
What happens when more & more jobs start leaving for China, India, etc.?
The # of potential jobs that would have been available to Americans will be less & less. Less jobs = more competition for jobs (higher education required). Less jobs = lower salaries offered in USA.
Myth 1
American corporations are creating jobs domestically so the economy won’t suffer.
False, while there are new jobs created the economy will be effected. What industries are the new jobs in? Are they low, mid or high level jobs? What are the salaries (low, mid, high)?
Example – losing 10,000 mid-high paying jobs in America to India & creating 28,000 low-mid paying jobs in America is not ideal (may not effect economic output much but will impact standard of living).
Myth 2
Corporations have trouble finding educated individuals domestically and thus it is better to outsource the jobs to knowledgeable workers in other countries.
Simple & right solution is to raise the salaries locally. Higher pay will get more people interested in this field. Ie: if doctors were paid only $30K per year then how many doctors would you have in America? Higher salaries will generate more interest and people will become educated in that field and apply for those job positions. (but less expensive method is to outsource the jobs).
Final Statement
Corporations mainly care about greater profits, because shareholders want to see returns and top ranking officials get rewarded for making it happen (with bonuses, pay increases, stock options, etc).
There are 2 ways to increase the return per item sold. Either [1] increase the price or [2] lower the cost to manufacture (or in the case of services, cost to provide it). Most companies will do #2 because with #1 they will lose customers to competitors.
The more companies that outsource goods and/or services offshore, the more evident the problem will become later on. Some people have noticed the effects more than others because they have been affected by it. Outsourcing outside of America will impact local economy and standard of living. It does no good domestically because final goods cost about same price (or slightly less) to consumers whether made in America or offshore. Corporations reap most of the benefit (money from lower cost to produce) not the consumers. Jobs are lost locally. It forces pay to decrease or new jobs with lower salaries. It improves foreign economies (& their purchasing power). Previously corporations were making moderate profits, with outsourcing abroad they can make super profits [@ the cost of losing jobs in America], etc.
You decide if it is good or bad, but when you or someone you know loses their job to outsourcing maybe then you will understand it is purely for the benefit of the corporation in making greater returns and profits.
Why do you ask for a falsifiable system of morals in the first place? The fact that something does not explicitly state that it is falsifiable does not mean that it is not falsifiable. If you could find a glitch in the Ten Commandments, for example, you could write a rational explanation about the glitch and start explaining it to people in hopes to overturn those morals. Bigots will not agree with you, but in the world there are enough rational people (at least I think) to understand what you write; other people will try to overturn you, criticise you, etc. and if nobody manages, then you may have certain confidence that you are right…
It is also important to note that the fact that something states it is not falsifiable does not mean it is false / wrong / subjective, etc.
As for who’s fallen doing what, in view of your last (most likely to be moderated by the forum administrator) comment to the other person, I think it’s clear.
The 10 commandments are so 1000 BCE. Time to move on, guys.
> Why do you ask for a falsifiable system of morals in the
> first place? The fact that something does not explicitly
> state that it is falsifiable does not mean that it is not
> falsifiable.
>> Why is it not comparable to moral relativism? It is you who
>> says that morality does not make testable predictions that
>> can be falsified by observation. I disagree.
Since you’ve proported to know of the existence of a moral framework capable of testable predictions, I want you to provide it.
> If you could find a glitch in the Ten Commandments, for
> example, you could write a rational explanation about the
> glitch and start explaining it to people in hopes to
> overturn those morals.
You don’t even have a child’s understanding of empiricism. The “Ten Commandments” are neither falsifiable nor subject to logical proof.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exercise 1. Prove or disprove the objective truth of this commandment.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Exercise 2. Prove or disprove the objective truth of this commandment.
> for example, you could write a rational explanation about
> the glitch and start explaining it to people in hopes to
> overturn those morals. Bigots will not agree with you, but
> in the world there are enough rational people (at least I
> think) to understand what you write; other people will try
> to overturn you, criticise you, etc. and if nobody
> manages, then you may have certain confidence that you are
> right…
Morality by mob rule is not objectively true.
> It is also important to note that the fact that something
> states it is not falsifiable does not mean it is false /
> wrong / subjective, etc.
If it isn’t testable then it cannot be approached scientifically. What it states about itself is irrelevant. Now provide for us a falsifiable system of morality or pound sand.
> As for who’s fallen doing what, in view of your last (most
> likely to be moderated by the forum administrator) comment
> to the other person, I think it’s clear.
Yes, it’s perfectly clear that you’ve used logical fallacies. Argumentum ad consequentiam, just for starters.
I say since Moral Relativists are so certain about there being no right or wrong, let us hang them by their testicles, peal of their skin, salt them alive, rape their wives and children, and sieze their property (after all, it’s all relative). We would be neither right or wrong doing this and society will have no authority to tell us otherwise.
Moral Relativists are morons. When we talk about “freedom” and “free” society, we are talking about the freedom of choosing good. Everyone is free to do what they want, as long as what they want to do is good. Good is absolute. Don’t believe me? Go rape someone, steal property, start a fight, kill someone, and you will see that you don’t have the freedom to do whatever you want.
@ Anonymous
I wrote the whole post myself (myths, statements & questions), from articles I’ve read, my university knowledge & studies, research, experience, etc.
You don’t even tell us what is false about my post. You just state it to be wrong because it doesn’t match up with what you believe is right and yet give no insight into what the truth is.
I’ve seen it happen where people lost their jobs. Ie: friend of mine was working for a very big, multinational corporation in tech support role. He lost his job and relocated to another, bigger city with more IT jobs & found work right away. Later on, he found out his whole tech support dept was moved to India from his previous job. And he won’t come back to this city because very tough to find IT work here (just over 1 Million people).
I’ve seen IT University graduates have a tough time to get a job & ended up working in another field, etc.
Go check out clothing stores & you’ll see stuff made in other countries (China, India, whatever) – look @ the labels.
Companies outsource customer service (or tech) support jobs out of USA. I’ve been involved in it & know this to be true.
There are many articles out there telling us jobs are going to India & China. Don’t you read? Or maybe you believe all the government tells you is true?
I’ve lived in a city where it was mostly clothing manufacturing back in the 70s & 80s and now you find very few manufacturers around. (Where manufacturing was the predominant industry in the past, it now barely exists here).
Why do companies in the USA outsource to other countries? 1. Lower salaries, 2. Lower or no taxes, 3. less labour laws to protect workers (overtime pay, # of hours worked per week), 4. Don’t pay deductions (like unemployment insurance, pension plan, health benefits, etc.), 5. Lower operating costs (cheaper to build & operate offices,)
Corporations are outsourcing jobs out of the country – TRUE.
Corporations are realizing greater profits (because of outsourcing abroad) – TRUE
Shareholders care about returns (on investments) & not the effect it will have on domestic economy – TRUE
Foreign Economies are being improved from outsourcing of jobs from America to those countries – TRUE.
More & more larger corporations will outsource jobs (overseas) – TRUE.
Corporations care about profits (& selling) more than where the product is produced – TRUE
Consumers care about getting a good product @ a good price -ie: getting value (doesn’t matter where it is made) – TRUE
Keeping employment positions domestically improves the standard of living in the USA by putting upward pressure on salaries to increase and gives more citizens better jobs. – TRUE
Yes, I obviously did not understand what falsifiability really means. In all honesty I realized that shortly after I made the post because I searched for it, but it was too late and I decided to wait for your response. Thanks for the discussion and food for thought.
> I say since Moral Relativists are so certain about there
> being no right or wrong, let us hang them by their
> testicles, peal of their skin, salt them alive, rape their
> wives and children, and sieze their property (after all,
> it’s all relative). We would be neither right or wrong doing
> this and society will have no authority to tell us
> otherwise.
Society has no inherent authority to tell you otherwise. What it does have is the ability to manifest force. You can find pealing off skin wrong, or not. It’s only “right” or “wrong” insofar as you think it is. You could even go so far as to create a core set of axioms from which you can determine the “rightness” or “wrongness” of other behaviors, but there’s nothing absolute about your system of axioms. Within your system things are “right” or “wrong” as they follow from these axioms, and your “society” can accept or reject this system as the members that comprise it see fit. Of course no one bothers to attempt to construct any coherent morality, and just argue with each other endlessly about whether it’s wrong to eat meat, have abortions, marry people of the same sex, execute people that kill other people, kill other people if they threaten you, whether women should show their skin to males other than their “husbands,” whether you can be polyamorous, … without bothering to create an axiomatic system before arguing.
> When we talk about “freedom” and “free” society, we are
> talking about the freedom of choosing good.
Define ‘good.’
> Good is absolute. Don’t believe me? Go rape someone, steal
> property, start a fight, kill someone, and you will see
> that you don’t have the freedom to do whatever you want.
Good is absolute. Don’t believe me? Have consensual sex with someone else’s wife in Afghanistan.
> You don’t even tell us what is false about my post. You just
> state it to be wrong because it doesn’t match up with what
> you believe is right and yet give no insight into what the
> truth is.
I didn’t say your post is “wrong” or “right;” I asked you if it was copied from somewhere else, because it read like it was. It wasn’t conversational it was spammy.
Since it reminded me of the typical newsletter that SIGs spam people with–you know, claims about “facts” without sources, incredibly simplified arguments, an obvious bias–I followed with my own because it was funny.
I’m afraid I’m not going to read the rest of your post because by a glance it appears to just be you restating how horrible it is that people lose their jobs. Maybe I’ll look at it later.
@ Anonymous
“It wasn’t conversational it was spammy.”
I usually just write in paragraphs – sometimes with headings, but my post would have been too long to read. I wanted to try a different presentation style that would make it easier & more interesting to look through.
True that I have a strong bias against outsourcing to other countries, because there are many negatives vs positives regarding this issue.
“..typical newsletter that SIGs spam people with–you know, claims about “facts” without sources, incredibly simplified arguments, an obvious bias”
You are correct, I don’t provide links or references to substantiate my claims. I could have, but it takes time to search for the information & even then you may argue the data corrupt or biased or misleading or false or misinterpreted or ? So I would waste time for nothing finding it & then you dismissing it. You have access to the internet & can search for it yourself. There are magazine & online articles on the topic and other sources of information. I provide mainly arguments which I believe to hold true, based on reasoning, but using data analysis would either prove or disprove them (also depends how the data is collected, analysed, etc. – and if it has been manipulated to “fit” the conclusion).
We all have an opinion on a subject. Not everyone will agree with me (though I expect most will) & I understand that you are entitled to your opinion just as I & others are to ours. I strongly feel & know I’m right about this issue because I’ve seen some of the current effects from it and by using deductive reasoning can determine future consequences.
Also, I find very few pros and many cons on the issue, so my opinion will of course be biased against outsourcing work outside of America. I’ve presented my arguments and people can either believe them, research the topic further and decide, dismiss them or disagree with my statements/viewpoint (& believe the opposite instead).
Here is an example of “perfect capitalism” for you: robots delivering stuff made by robots and other robots putting that stuff in their garages. Some robots making more garages to keep demand for stuff high.
If/when we only get those robots to feed themselves, we have entered perfect (truly free and effective by all measures) capitalism, right?
I liked your postings. It seems to me it’s better to refer to the problem as “offshoring,” not “outsourcing.” I don’t have any problem with domestic outsourcing. Nothing wrong with the notion that someone can aggregate a service and perform it better, cheaper, faster. But, at least I’m competing on a level playing field. They people who bid for my work are subject to the same costs (associated with our standard of living) as I am.
Offshoring is entirely different. It is justified as just a “free market” reality. How is it a free market when I can’t opt out of all our social costs? I have to pay for water treatment, sewage systems, building code enforcement, animal shelters, etc. The list goes on and on. Ironically, some of our greatest social institutions are those that moderate and enhance what would otherwise be poorly functioning “free” financial and commercial markets. Those markets are highly socialized (with SEC regulations, banking regulations, etc.)
The guys and gals at the top levels of corporations would not have been able to achieve what they did in any of the countries they are offshoring to. The fact that our financial and commercial markets (nay, the “corporation” itself) is a social modification of otherwise free markets was fine enough for them. But, suddenly “it’s just free markets” when it comes to everyone else.
To me it’s amazing that we can impose something like Sarbanes-Oxley upon corporations because their behaviors have lead to destablized markets. We can call *this* a “free market.” But we can’t do anything to slow down unrestrained offshoring because that would violate “free markets.”
I think it seems that people all over the world have ability to empathy. Empathy seems to lead to rules like “Don’t do others anything that you do not want them to do to you”, that are present in almost all religions, at least big ones. And while people break that rule all too often, if they are mentally healthy (had loving parents, no bad traumas, not living in middle of violence/war etc.), they will regret their behavior if someone can point out that they did not have to do what they did and someone quite like them suffered. It is this “like them” part that often is tricky; all kinds of tricks are used to argue that “they are not like us, they are monsters”, many times by those who need biorobots (not posing empathy) to further their agenda.
So, I would argue that empathy is a ground for not-so-relative moral. Without empathy no real morality exists, only deals and agreements.
Is in the Grip of Economic Rationalists. These bean counters see nothing else than pure numbers and everything else purporting to economic systems is in substancial. There is a great human costs to this methodology, a cost our 2 countries can not burdon for the long term as both Government and our economies will implode. The costs on a societal nature will be quite huge as well.
In my country (Australia)we are already seeing long-term damage in the form of failing infrastructure, steadily growing foreign debt and a skills shortage that can not be filled even with immigration. The head in the sand free trade will not work until the world can work on a level playing field with the same aims and goals for its citizens.
For me and my partner, we are looking to migrate to Finland. Sure taxation is high (not much higher than Australia when hidden taxes, excises and duties are taken into account) but we also see a country with a fair social system and a strong economic base with long term prospects.