NationStates Jolt Archive

So I spoke on the phone today with an Indian person who told me how to properly install the stereo that my roommate bought from Wal-Mart today. I called the product support line I found in the manual for the stereo and somehow I was connected to a call center in India. I had a question about the wiring schematic and the dude with the accent was able to help me.

So what do ya'll think about outsourcing. From what I understand, outsourcing is good. Not only does it create jobs in other countries, it lets the company doing the outsourcing grow and then they create better jobs in America. Like all free-trade, its pretty much a win-win for both sides, right? Or am I wrong? :confused:

Not only does it create jobs in other countries, it lets the company doing the outsourcing grow and then they create better jobs in America. Like all free-trade, its pretty much a win-win for both sides, right? Or am I wrong? :confused:

I'm not sure about that part.

Outsourcing is bad because I am a lazy, uneducated slob who cannot compete in a competitive market. I need the government to hold my hand and keep me employed. It should also go to job interviews as I am too likely to show up drunk.

Outsourcing is bad because I am a lazy, uneducated slob who cannot compete in a competitive market.

Correct me if I am wrong with the following points.
-People may be equally competitive in both the U.S.A and India.
-People in India can be paid less because it is cheaper to live in India.
-Individuals in the U.S could probably not live well on the salary workers are paid in India because it is more expensive in the U.S.
-Companies outsource to India because it is cheaper.

Outsourcing is bad for the U.S. labor force because, as earlier noted, labor is cheaper in foreign countries such as India. So the big companies leave the U.S. and concentrate their operations in, say, India, taking the hundreds and thousands of jobs with them, leaving those former employees in the U.S. with these pretty little pink slips. Generally speaking, middle class Americans are trained specifically to do one job, and if they lose it, they can be in trouble.

Ideally, these people would just retrain themselves, but that can be difficult after having just lost one's job, y'know? Plus, as earlier noted, many Americans are lazy slobs who would rather take gov't handouts than retrain themselves and become competitive. Or move to India.

From what I understand, outsourcing is good. Not only does it create jobs in other countries, it lets the company doing the outsourcing grow and then they create better jobs in America. Like all free-trade, its pretty much a win-win for both sides, right? Or am I wrong? :confused:

I agree with Bann-ed. Not too sure if it helps us in the States.

Much of our manufacturing has moved overseas, and now we get crappy tools with shoddy workmanship, we get toys with lead paint and other hazardous properties, and (in the case of China, at least) we are aiding a nation with an abysmal human rights record. The labor conditions and wages of many foreign countries are often what allow other nations to produce goods far cheaper than companies here.

I don't always like what trade unions do, but they do at least prevent the dangerous working conditions that others have faced in the past. Foreign workers lack these protections, so our purchase of their goods indirectly supports the mistreatment of these workers.

Furthermore, our tax structure makes it difficult for American goods to be profitably exported. This trade imbalance harms our economy.

I like the concept of free trade, don't get me wrong. As a libertarian, I want to see global trade within the framework of sovereign nations without interference by government. I just think that the current system is falsely advertising itself as such for the most part.

It's hit and miss. I have noticed my peoples time of the telephone for support calls has increased 30-45 minutes. My support contracts continue to increase in costs.

As to these newer better jobs? What exactly are they?

Nobody has seems to be able to answer that one.

Outsourcing is unfortunate, because in many instances you will have equally qualified people in other countries being paid less. Its a tactic to cut corperate costs and screws the workers.

So I spoke on the phone today with an Indian person who told me how to properly install the stereo that my roommate bought from Wal-Mart today. I called the product support line I found in the manual for the stereo and somehow I was connected to a call center in India. I had a question about the wiring schematic and the dude with the accent was able to help me.

So what do ya'll think about outsourcing. From what I understand, outsourcing is good. Not only does it create jobs in other countries, it lets the company doing the outsourcing grow and then they create better jobs in America. Like all free-trade, its pretty much a win-win for both sides, right? Or am I wrong? :confused:

Well, except that it initially steals a job from the American that could be answering the phone telling you how to hook up your stereo, it is win-win.

In reality, there is no way I feel secure judging outsourcing yet, let us build a little bit of history with it to see if starts working out for us.

Additionally... I'm saddened that a poll with many realistic, complex answers had only two serious poll options and eight joke options... I felt that he priorities were heavily misaligned, as neither of he serious options were what I felt.

As to these newer better jobs? What exactly are they?

Unemployment of course!

:p

It's hit and miss. I have noticed my peoples time of the telephone for support calls has increased 30-45 minutes. My support contracts continue to increase in costs.

As to these newer better jobs? What exactly are they?

Nobody has seems to be able to answer that one.

I would like to present my ace in the hole. ABC 20/20 reporter John Stossel. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2IRrfcvVCg)

and another link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXulLCkDf8Q&feature=related)

I would like to present my ace in the hole. ABC 20/20 reporter John Stossel. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2IRrfcvVCg)

and another link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXulLCkDf8Q&feature=related)

Meh.

That still doesn't explain the newer better jobs. Loosing your job and managing to find one as a secretary says outsourcing is good and caused an improvement? I guess Katrina was good because it caused all the new building right?

So how does a call center keep a company from expanding? Why did Dell return enterprise call centers to the US?

Clothing costs still doesn't explain why my people are on the telephones 30-45 minutes longer. Also that bit of maturity is bullshit. Much of the time is lost due to script reading people that try to make you jump through steps you have already done.

Best poll ever. Not just any old "option 9," but from space, no less! :eek:

I hate outsourcing to tell you the truth, especially when I have to talk to Indians with computer help. For fuck's sake they can't speak English worth a damn. I wind up not getting anywhere just talking real slow and repeating myself like I'm getting computer help from a retarded kid. I'm sorry, but when I need tech help I want someone speaks English.

I'm against outsourcing. But then again, I'm bias as hell. I currently work at a call center just north of the border in Wisconsin. I take calls from Georgia for Comcast and New York for Time Warner.
Without this job, I can only imagine myself working at a shittier job with less pay.


When we receive a call, we have to say "Hello, thank you for calling Comcast. My name is Jacob *insert my last name*". A while ago, a lady from Atlanta on the other end asked "is that your real name? Are you a American?"
The crazy thing is that she didn't believe me at first even though I my accent is rural Illinoisan, not Indian or whatever.



Outsourcing is bad because I am a lazy, uneducated slob who cannot compete in a competitive market. I need the government to hold my hand and keep me employed. It should also go to job interviews as I am too likely to show up drunk.
Congrads! You're an ignorant asshole. But then again, that doesn't surprise me coming from a poster who's signature line is from a really dumb George Carlin quote.... and it doesn't give reference towards him.

Congrads! You're an ignorant asshole. But then again, that doesn't surprise me coming from a poster who's signature line is from a really dumb George Carlin quote.... and it doesn't give reference towards him.


Nothing about Georg Carlin is ever dumb.

Outsourcing is fine, as long as it's not being used to circumvent legitimate environmental or labor protections. People who bitch about outsourcing should realize that in a capitalist society you aren't entitled to a job, and you certainly aren't more entitled to a job than somebody in a third world country who probably needs it a lot more than you do.

I'm not sure about that part.

Indeed, me too.

Outsourcing is fine, as long as it's not being used to circumvent legitimate environmental or labor protections. People who bitch about outsourcing should realize that in a capitalist society you aren't entitled to a job, and you certainly aren't more entitled to a job than somebody in a third world country who probably needs it a lot more than you do.

Capitalism isn't about "need". That would be communism. Capitalism is about money.

"In capitalism, you aren't entitled to a job, and certainly no more than someone everywhere else who's ready to take that job for a lesser wage".

Companies outsource for the same reason companies hire illegal immigrants. They are required, by law, to pay Americans minimum wage, but don't have to pay people in India or China or illegal immigrants $6/hr or whatever the minimum wage is nowadays. It's cheaper to live in China or India, so they probably won't barge in demanding raises and if the illegal immigrants don't like their wages, who are they going to complain to? The feds as the feds ship them back to where they illegally came from?

Americans can't compete with people who can live off of shitty wages straight from an early nineteenth-century American factory. It's that damn minimum wage. There are hard workers who have lost their jobs because company executives discovered that China doesn't have the same minimum wage or safety laws westerners enjoy. It's not because third world people work harder. It's because they work cheaper.

Eh, really doesn't bother me at all. Though I do find it kind of insulting to my intelligence when they say their name is Jim or something similar. If they're gonna try to pull that off they ought work on the accent a bit more.

JibJab has a nice video about this:

Big Box Mart (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKv6RcXa2UI)

The biggest downside of outsourcing is that jobs are sometimes given to what we would call "slaves" or even "childslaves".

Outsourcing stands to either bring third world countries to our level, or us to their level; in any case, give it fifty years, and it should be a fair competition again.

Unless civilization has gone to hell in the meantime.

So what do ya'll think about outsourcing. From what I understand, outsourcing is good. Not only does it create jobs in other countries, it lets the company doing the outsourcing grow and then they create better jobs in America. Like all free-trade, its pretty much a win-win for both sides, right? Or am I wrong? :confused:How so? Even if it creates jobs, there will be a net loss of jobs in America (in this hypothetical).

It's just a fad. It causes demand for workers in poor countries to go up and as a result salaries will go up and when that happens they'll have to outsource to another country that is still poor. When they run out of poor yet suitable countries the fad is over. The logical end result will be that the same job gives the same pay everywhere in the world so outsourcing doesn't save any money any more.

<snip>Congrads! You're an ignorant asshole. But then again, that doesn't surprise me coming from a poster who's signature line is from a really dumb George Carlin quote.... and it doesn't give reference towards him.

Weh Ist Mich, you may attack a poster's ideas, but not the poster himself. That's flaming, and against the rules, as a 2005 nation should know -- but, in view of your low post-count, perhaps you didn't. Now you do. Cut it out.

So I spoke on the phone today with an Indian person who told me how to properly install the stereo that my roommate bought from Wal-Mart today. I called the product support line I found in the manual for the stereo and somehow I was connected to a call center in India. I had a question about the wiring schematic and the dude with the accent was able to help me.

So what do ya'll think about outsourcing. From what I understand, outsourcing is good. Not only does it create jobs in other countries, it lets the company doing the outsourcing grow and then they create better jobs in America. Like all free-trade, its pretty much a win-win for both sides, right? Or am I wrong? :confused:

You seem to be incredibly naive. It just lets companies fire their employees here and then hire some in a foreign country who will work for less money.

And why the fuck did your roommate buy anything from wal-mart?

It's just a fad. It causes demand for workers in poor countries to go up and as a result salaries will go up and when that happens they'll have to outsource to another country that is still poor. When they run out of poor yet suitable countries the fad is over. The logical end result will be that the same job gives the same pay everywhere in the world so outsourcing doesn't save any money any more.Maybe, maybe not. Wages aren't the only reason companies outsource. The EU and the countries that outsourcing goes to often subsidise closing down a company and setting up shop somewhere else. So, you could well end up with a company closing down in one place and setting up shop in another where wages are equal for the sole purpose of getting relocation subsidies.

Outsourcing is fine, as long as it's not being used to circumvent legitimate environmental or labor protections. People who bitch about outsourcing should realize that in a capitalist society you aren't entitled to a job, and you certainly aren't more entitled to a job than somebody in a third world country who probably needs it a lot more than you do.

Isn't outsourcing in order to pay less for less qualified people doing the job a way of circumventing labour protection laws?

I like the concept of free trade, don't get me wrong. As a libertarian, I want to see global trade within the framework of sovereign nations without interference by government. I just think that the current system is falsely advertising itself as such for the most part.

Erm, you do realize that it is government interference that keeps it to only this level, right? If you removed all regulation you'd just make things like this even worse.

Outsourcing is usually bad for both country (like all "free trade", it's a win-win for those who have economical power, and a lose-lose for those who don't, that is, the majority of people).

For the source country, it destroys jobs, and it creates a very strong downward pressure on wages and social systems, which tend to lower the quality of life of most workers there.

For the target country, it destroys local industries and agriculture, luring people into rural exodus. Which then forces the country to import goods it usually produced, and drives the price of those goods (especially food) up, creating starvation. It also creates a very strong "virtual senate" effect, the foreign corporations gaining a virtual veto right on any decision the local government could take, preventing any raise of wages, taxes or creation of a social system - locking them forever in a third world state. It also means the profits will go to the mother country, preventing further investments in this country (if an Indian corporation products something and sell it abroad, the profits will go to India; if a USA corporation products something in India and sell it abroad, the profits will go to USA).

And for the world in general, in creates a huge amount of waste due to transport (and lots of greenhouse effect...) and an overall general downwards pressure on wages/social systems, while an overall general pressure to maximize profits, and a domino effects in all economies... leading, as we in the world since around 25 years, to lower wages, increased poverty, ridiculously high profit rates, and very unstable economies.

Outsourcing is fine, as long as it's not being used to circumvent legitimate environmental or labor protections. People who bitch about outsourcing should realize that in a capitalist society you aren't entitled to a job, and you certainly aren't more entitled to a job than somebody in a third world country who probably needs it a lot more than you do.

It is a Human Right.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

If capitalism is unable to provide it, then capitalism is not compatible to Human Rights, and should be transcended.

Maybe, maybe not. Wages aren't the only reason companies outsource.

No, every other kind of protection (worker protection, environmental protection, and even customer protection) are "valid" reasons for outsourcing. All them contributes in a general pressure to have always less protection for workers, environment and customers. Everyone loses, except the stock owner...

It is a Human Right.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

If capitalism is unable to provide it, then capitalism is not compatible to Human Rights, and should be transcended.

The right to work is not the same thing as the right to a job.

The right to work is not the same thing as the right to a job.

"Protection against unemployment" could well be interpreted that way, though...

The right to work is not the same thing as the right to a job.

It is. A right is not a purely theoretical thing, it has to be made real. And the part about "protection against unemployment" makes it very clear: if the society fails to provide someone with a job, which is a failure of the society, then it has to compensate.

No, every other kind of protection (worker protection, environmental protection, and even customer protection) are "valid" reasons for outsourcing. All them contributes in a general pressure to have always less protection for workers, environment and customers. Everyone loses, except the stock owner...

Ha ha, tell that to the women breaking boundaries in India because they are now gaining the economic freedom to do so, tell it to the small entrepreneur in China running a local factory, tell it to millions of people brought out of poverty and into literacy because of global trade.

It's not all good, there's certainly downsides but the advantages of outsourcing, of global trade, of freedom of information and access to opportunity more than balance disadvantages and sitting in your first-world country wanting to protect yourself from competition is quite the smack in the face to those you profess to care about.

It is. A right is not a purely theoretical thing, it has to be made real. And the part about "protection against unemployment" makes it very clear: if the society fails to provide someone with a job, which is a failure of the society, then it has to compensate.

I see. So the right to free speech forces me to listen to you, right?

Besides, just because they are called the human rights doesn't mean that you can't disagree with parts of them. I think you would probably have some issues with article 17 (No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property) and article 27 (Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author) and probably a lot more.

For the source country, it destroys jobs, and it creates a very strong downward pressure on wages and social systems, which tend to lower the quality of life of most workers there.This is socialistic nonsense. It drives down the cost of products and encourages international specialization.

For the target country, it destroys local industries and agriculture, luring people into rural exodus. Which then forces the country to import goods it usually produced, and drives the price of those goods (especially food) up, creating starvation.If it is better at producing shoes, it should be producing shoes, not food. When you have a tall athlete, you make him a basketball player, not a Sumo wrestler.

(if an Indian corporation products something and sell it abroad, the profits will go to India; if a USA corporation products something in India and sell it abroad, the profits will go to USA).No, it goes to the corporation, wherever it is.

And for the world in general, in creates a huge amount of waste due to transport (and lots of greenhouse effect...) and an overall general downwards pressure on wages/social systems, while an overall general pressure to maximize profits, and a domino effects in all economies... leading, as we in the world since around 25 years, to lower wages, increased poverty, ridiculously high profit rates, and very unstable economies.What you don't seem to understand is that purchasing power doesn't necessarily mean increasing wages. It could also mean decreasing costs. Your pay doubling would have the same effect as the cost of all things being cut in half. We have not seen increased poverty in countries we trade with. Indeed, outsourcing is what made South Korea and Japan what it is.

Ha ha, tell that to the women breaking boundaries in India because they are now gaining the economic freedom to do so, tell it to the small entrepreneur in China running a local factory, tell it to millions of people brought out of poverty and into literacy because of global trade.

And to millions of people brought to poverty, and to the literacy policies that were scrapped because of global trade ? To the Mexican who are now starving because, thanks to NAFTA, the price of corn (basic food for them) went up 3x ? Even in India, many people are poorer than before, thanks to free trade. As for literacy, the only third world countries which really managed to get rid of this scourge are not those doing "free trade". Quite the opposite. It's Cuba, it's Venezuela, it's Nicaragua at the time of the Sandinists.

It's not all good, there's certainly downsides but the advantages of outsourcing, of global trade, of freedom of information

There is no link between freedom of information and freedom of trade. Quite the opposite, freedom of trade usually lead to the control of most, if not all, media by transnational corporations who have their own interest and censorship (look at the media in South America).

and access to opportunity more than balance disadvantages and sitting in your first-world country wanting to protect yourself from competition is quite the smack in the face to those you profess to care about.

That's why those imposing the globalization in WTO and IMF are the first-world countries, while the third-world countries try to resist it ? That's why thanks to globalization the ratio between the richest and the poorest country went from 70 to 1 to 700 to 1 in 30 years ? All around the world, the poorest people, the working class, are protesting against the disastrous consequences of neoliberal globalization. Only the oligarchy profits from it. And for the short term only, because the disastrous consequences of it on both the environment and the instability of world economy will probably backfire and hurt them too, sooner or later.

I see. So the right to free speech forces me to listen to you, right?

Not at all. But if you proclaim "freedom of speech", and then refuse to cure someone from a throat or tongue disease that prevents him from speaking, then you're failing to make "freedom of speech" real. It's even more true for "freedom of the press". Freedom of the press when people are illiterate just doesn't exist. The same is true, to a point, when all the press is controlled by corporations which do their own censorship. There is no difference if it's the sate or the corporations which say "no, we don't want this to be published". When a dictator forbids a documentary against him, or when Monsato makes impossible to broadcast a documentary against them, the result is the same: no freedom of information.

Besides, just because they are called the human rights doesn't mean that you can't disagree with parts of them.

Well, you can, but that's a very hard to defend position.

I think you would probably have some issues with article 17 (No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property)

I totally with this - the "arbitrarily" being the important word.

and article 27 (Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author) and probably a lot more.

Well, no. I agree with that. I want to implement it in a completely different way (socialisation instead of "property"), but in the end it would lead to even better protection of "moral and material interests", because if you look at the current situation, those who have most of the "material interests" are not the scientists, writers or artists but the corporation employing them, the publishing corporation or the production corporation.

Human Rights doesn't tell you if the "right to work" comes from the market, the state or a mix, as it doesn't tell you if the "protection of interests" comes from an "intellectual property" or from a socialised rewarding system (or from a mix of both). It states global objectives, with which I agree.

I'm on the phone to insurance companies quite a lot for my job, and one company I only call in the mornings, purely to avoid the Indian call centre. They just don't know the background in terms of tax and legislation, and they drive me crazy. They seem intelligent and try to be helpful, but...

Having said that, I've phoned my bank from time to time, and got through to their India call centre quite a lot. And my dad did a IT department where he did recommend that a lot of it be outsourced to India - not because they were were cheaper, more that the existing lot didn't have a bleeding clue...

On a more general level, I'm not totally sure, but am gravitating towards my attitude on "outsourcing" soccer* games abroad (the dreaded 39th game) - yeah soccer all over the world is brilliant, but I'd prefer foreign countries to develop their own players and leagues rather than us foisting our teams onto them once a year. And we'll meet them as equals and get beaten in due course...

If overseas companies decide to bid for, and get outsourcing work on broadly the same terms and conditions, and keep the profits from it, I'd be more for it. The current state of affairs is more based on increasing short-term company profits in the first world, at the expense of first and third world workers' welfare. So I'm tentatively against as it stands.

* I'm aware there's lots of Americans on this board. That's "football" to the rest of us. Meh.

*snip*OP*/snip*

With all the supposed opportunity America provides, and the fact you can supposedly get anywhere with hard work, I wonder why people get so fussed about outsourcing?

Not at all. But if you proclaim "freedom of speech", and then refuse to cure someone from a throat or tongue disease that prevents him from speaking, then you're failing to make "freedom of speech" real.
And if this person lives in a small hut in the middle of nowhere, his freedom of speech isn't real until we fly someone in to listen to him? Listen to yourself here. The only thing freedom of speech guarantees, or at least should guarantee, is that no one has the right to prevent you from speaking.

You, being a communist, has a different viewpoint on this and much else. The thing is, the countries that has signed the declaration of human rights do not agree with you. They do not agree that it means what you say it means.

Well, you can, but that's a very hard to defend position.
You had to get creative with the definitions in order to get it to fit. I don't think many people, whether on the left, on the right or in the middle can read all of the human rights and not find a single thing to disagree with.

There's another side to this. Education.

I'm a software developer and I've seen jobs sent overseas. Why? Because students form places like India come to the U.S., get educated in something like Software Development, and then go home to make use of their skills, typically working for an American based software company.

I don't blame the Indian students for that. I'd do the same in their position. I don't really blame the American companies either, since they're just doing what's best for the company.

I blame the American disadvantage in public education. A student who goes to a University is going to have a disadvantage if their educational background at high school is weaker than that of their Indian counterpart. Thus, the Indian student tends to perform better in school and becomes a more attractive employee.

We can't expect companies to stick with American labor unless American labor offers more of the money. This is the very definition of Capitalism. American workers need to be better than their foreign counterparts of they expect to keep the jobs in the country. This ought to be used as a motivator to improve things, not an excuse to whine about them.

For the target country, it destroys local industries and agriculture, luring people into rural exodus. Which then forces the country to import goods it usually produced, and drives the price of those goods (especially food) up, creating starvation.

Not true. Local industries thrive because of the increase in disposable income for the middle class (the ones who have the skills to get employed in outsourcing industries).

Inflation goes up due to the extra money floating around and would cause problems if unchecked (prices shooting up, those in lower income brackets unable to afford stuff because they still get paid less as before). But after a while, a democratic country has no choice but to allow the currency to float to its natural position. India did that and the Rupees strengthened a lot cutting down inflation.

Agriculture suffers but in a good way. The small scale farmers can no longer find people to work for wages they can afford to give. This forces them to sell out or cooperate with other farmers to form a bigger farm which can then use mechanised farming techniques that bring efficiency and cuts down costs. I have seen these in my own farm. We had to sell our little farm to a neighbour because we could not find people to work there anymore. Most of the able-bodied village people now work in cotton mills etc. These are cotton mills that were recently put up due to the demand from the city people in jobs having more disposable incomes...meaning...you guessed it...outsourcing industry !

How can this be 'bad' ? Yes, it is bad for the individuals who lose their jobs in the 'source country' and the individuals in traditional low income jobs in the 'target company'. I know many of the 'blue collar' workers in cities like Chennai had to move out to the suburbs because of rising costs. But to say that we have to stop the whole process which benefits a lot because a few suffer is...I dunno what to say..

if an Indian corporation products something and sell it abroad, the profits will go to India; if a USA corporation products something in India and sell it abroad, the profits will go to USA

No. Most of the BPOs are Indian owned and they contract their services out. Some bigger US corporations have their own subsidiaries or sometimes their own development centres too (like MS, Oracle, IBM etc).

Even in India, many people are poorer than before, thanks to free trade.

No. Poverty has reduced.

The Planning Commission has estimated that 27.5% of the population was living below the poverty line in 2004–2005, down from 51.3% in 1977–1978, and 36% in 1993-1994 (wiki).

Also

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8701
India: Poverty Retreats with Globalization’s Advance

It has its pros and cons. But mainly, I think it sucks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsourcing

..sitting in your first-world country wanting to protect yourself from competition is quite the smack in the face to those you profess to care about.

Quite true. Even in India, a 'third world country', you would find the communist leaders to be from the rich, elite and foreign educated class. They will then block every development in the name of protecting the poor (by keeping the poor as poor). These leaders themselves don't have to worry about the lack of development because they are not affected by it. They can still afford to hold rallies and attend conferences about the 'plight of the poor'. This has been the case with West Bengal and Kerala the two states which have been ruled by the communists the most. Kerala has become a 'remittance economy' with skilled Keralites emigrating to other states in India and the Arabian gulf for jobs. WB is a morass with stagnating economy with Bengalis emigrating to other states for jobs.

My theory is that the communists want to keep the poor the way they are because without the poor, the communists have no base. :p

*talking in Indian context...not sure if that applies everywhere.

That's only because most Indians (the fresh out of college kind) have no life to speak of and are willing spend all their time slaving in the office ;)

I know you're saying that with a wink but there's an element of truth to that too. American college students have a reputation for drunken frat parties and the like. Now, I know that this isn't the behavior of the majority of college kids but there's no doubt that college is taken much less seriously by the average American student than it is by a student who invests thousands of dollars and years of his/her life to fly over here, earn a degree, then go home. That alone says good things about the character of the student wheras an American student must prove himself/herself.

Thus, the Indian student tends to perform better in school and becomes a more attractive employee.

That's only because most Indians (the fresh out of college kind) have no life to speak of and are willing spend all their time slaving in the office ;)

No. Poverty has reduced.

The Planning Commission has estimated that 27.5% of the population was living below the poverty line in 2004–2005, down from 51.3% in 1977–1978, and 36% in 1993-1994 (wiki).


You forgot to quote the end of it:

A 2007 report by the state-run National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) found that 77% of Indians, or 836 million people, lived on less than 20 rupees per day[6] with most working in "informal labour sector with no job or social security, living in abject poverty."[7]

Income inequality in India (Gini coefficient: 32.5 in year 1999- 2000)[8] is increasing. In addition, India has a higher rate of malnutrition among children under the age of three (46% in year 2007) than any other country in the world.

Far from being as beautiful as the first figures seem to be... and all that at the cost of accepting a virtual senate (all those "outsourcing" companies now having a virtual veto right on any decision by Indian government) and at the cost of making India much more vulnerable to a collapse of western economy (which may happen very soon, thanks to the financial deregulation).

So what do ya'll think about outsourcing. From what I understand, outsourcing is good. Not only does it create jobs in other countries, it lets the company doing the outsourcing grow and then they create better jobs in America. Like all free-trade, its pretty much a win-win for both sides, right? Or am I wrong? :confused:
Your logic seems to be that when people in the US no longer need to take jobs like working the tills, sitting in call centres, working on an assembly line, churning out lines of assembly code and so on, they become free to do more interesting skilled work, like managing a franchise, spearheading PR campaigns, designing new gadgets and software, writing opinion pieces and literature and so on.

I agree entirely. But you're not guaranteed to succeed in ventures like that. Given the huge amount of competition and that the backlash from a failed venture is rather terminal, a system whereby all Americans do the fun jobs and leave the manual labour to oversees branches will actually result in a considerably diminished amount of production.

Except when the production is costless. Which leads me on to my more interesting point: Mechanisation is even better than outsourcing, because you don't need to pay anyone for the work. You just need maintenance costs (and if you can mechanise that process safely and effectively, you don't even need to manage that). Forget cheap labour in India and Taiwan; just use free automatons.

And if this person lives in a small hut in the middle of nowhere, his freedom of speech isn't real until we fly someone in to listen to him? Listen to yourself here. The only thing freedom of speech guarantees, or at least should guarantee, is that no one has the right to prevent you from speaking.

Freedom of speech is not freedom to be listened. Those are quite different.

You, being a communist, has a different viewpoint on this and much else. The thing is, the countries that has signed the declaration of human rights do not agree with you. They do not agree that it means what you say it means.

That may be true for my usage of the word "freedom", but not with my usage of the word "right". It's not written "anyone as the freedom to work", but "everyone has the right to work", which is quite different. People of liberal tendencies use the word "freedom" in a restrictive way, compared to the usage done by more leftist people, but the word "right" is understood quite the same for everyone.

You had to get creative with the definitions in order to get it to fit. I don't think many people, whether on the left, on the right or in the middle can read all of the human rights and not find a single thing to disagree with.

Well, the whole set of economical rights (right to work, right to protection against unemployment, right to education, to healthcare, ...) is not just "a single thing", it's a whole part of the Human Rights, as important as the rest.

You forgot to quote the end of it:

A 2007 report by the state-run National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) found that 77% of Indians, or 836 million people, lived on less than 20 rupees per day[6] with most working in "informal labour sector with no job or social security, living in abject poverty."[7]



You forgot to read this note

This figure has been variously reported as either "2 dollars per day" or "0.5 dollars per day". The former figure comes from the the PPP conversion rate, while the latter comes from the official exchange rate

Also found in the original article

Around 26 percent of India's population lives below the poverty line, which is defined as 12 rupees per day, said officials.

Defining poverty interms of dollars/day is very unreliable due to the fluctuating exchange rates and the fact that a rupee gets you a lot more in India than what its equivalent will get in US.


Income inequality in India (Gini coefficient: 32.5 in year 1999- 2000)[8] is increasing.

The solution :

Make everybody poor so there is no inequality. :D


In addition, India has a higher rate of malnutrition among children under the age of three (46% in year 2007) than any other country in the world.

This has always been the case. Why is this a factor against outsourcing/globalisation which is a new entrant.


Far from being as beautiful as the first figures seem to be... and all that at the cost of accepting a virtual senate (all those "outsourcing" companies now having a virtual veto right on any decision by Indian government) and at the cost of making India much more vulnerable to a collapse of western economy (which may happen very soon, thanks to the financial deregulation).

You have no idea how Indian govt works.

The Indian govt is a multi-party chaos. All this "virtual senate" may be true for smaller countries with lesser parties where it is easy to buy a few influential people and have your way. It just won't work in India with a dozen parties forming a coalition.

Actually, automation has resulted in more job loss than outsourcing. But people don't rail out against machines but it is easy to rail against 'furriners'. :p

Damn machines are taking over the world...People did rail out against machines. The Silesian Weavers' Uprising (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weberaufstand#Schlesischer_Weberaufstand_1844) of 1844, for one.

Except when the production is costless. Which leads me on to my more interesting point: Mechanisation is even better than outsourcing, because you don't need to pay anyone for the work. You just need maintenance costs (and if you can mechanise that process safely and effectively, you don't even need to manage that). Forget cheap labour in India and Taiwan; just use free automatons.

Actually, automation has resulted in more job loss than outsourcing. But people don't rail out against machines but it is easy to rail against 'furriners'. :p

Damn machines are taking over the world...

Freedom of speech is not freedom to be listened. Those are quite different.
You just said that in order for a freedom to be real, I have to make sure it's possible to use it. All right, so I'm not obligated to listen to him. But if I'm obligated to cure his tongue disease, I surely am also obligated to drive his friend all the way to his hut in the middle of nowhere. I think it would be easier if this guy just moved to a town, or maybe got himself a pen pal. But more importantly, it would be fairer since I wouldn't be forced to cure him and drive his buddies around for absolutely no compensation.

But we're getting off track. I think that if the declaration of human rights truly means that everyone has the right to a job (as opposed to the right to work), it would say that. It would say exactly that and nothing else. But it doesn't. And if you look at the countries that have signed this document, you'll see that they disagree with you as well.

Well, the whole set of economical rights (right to work, right to protection against unemployment, right to education, to healthcare, ...) is not just "a single thing", it's a whole part of the Human Rights, as important as the rest.

And that was not my point. My point was that hardly anyone can read the entire document and not find anything they find objectionable. I can't. The one I disagree with the most is copyright. You can't either; you have to play word games to make the words of non-communists seem supportive of communism.

This figure has been variously reported as either "2 dollars per day" or "0.5 dollars per day". The former figure comes from the the PPP conversion rate, while the latter comes from the official exchange rate

2 dollars per day PPP is still very low.



This has always been the case. Why is this a factor against outsourcing/globalisation which is a new entrant.

Well, no, it wasn't as bad. The middle class in India did grow, but the living conditions of those who staid poor became worse.



You have no idea how Indian govt works.

The Indian govt is a multi-party chaos. All this "virtual senate" may be true for smaller countries with lesser parties where it is easy to buy a few influential people and have your way. It just won't work in India with a dozen parties forming a coalition.

The "virtual senate" has nothing to do with the way the gov works. It's not about corruption (even if it can make it worse). It's about the ability to say "if you pass this law, I just move to another country and that'll break your economy". This works in a dictatorship, a parliamentary democracy, a presidential democracy, and would even work in a direct democracy. This works as soon as a significant amount of jobs in a country are controlled by foreign capitals or corporations.

But yes, India (and China), as big countries are more resilient to this kind of effects than smaller countries, so outsourcing/globalisation is less bad for them than it is for smaller countries.

Actually, automation has resulted in more job loss than outsourcing. But people don't rail out against machines but it is easy to rail against 'furriners'. :p

Damn machines are taking over the world...
Having a job is a means to an end: how one supports themself and puts their talents to use. The question is not which option results in the most jobs. The question is which option results in the greatest fulfilment of that end. And I think that automating to the extent that produce is almost free is well worth the cost of forcing people to change their line of employment, especially considering that giving people manual or unskilled labour to do is a huge waste of what they are potentially capable of.

You just said that in order for a freedom to be real, I have to make sure it's possible to use it.

That's the way we leftists look at freedom, yes. Cf my point on the difference between "right" and "freedom".

But "freedom of speech" doesn't say anything on the listener, nor of diffusion. It's quite a limited freedom, people usually speak of "freedom of information" or "freedom of the press" which are broader.

But more importantly, it would be fairer since I wouldn't be forced to cure him and drive his buddies around for absolutely no compensation.

You make two mistakes there. First, you extend "freedom of speech" to "freedom to be listened", that's not the same. Then, you reduce it to an individual level. No one says you, as an individual, should be forced to drive him for free. When there is free healthcare or free education in a country, the doctors/teachers don't work for free.

But we're getting off track. I think that if the declaration of human rights truly means that everyone has the right to a job (as opposed to the right to work), it would say that.

If it just said you should be "free to work" and not have a "right to work", they would say just that. But if leftists and liberal may have different meanings of "freedom", a "right" is binding. It's not said "to a job", because "to a job" is more restrictive, "a job" is only used when you're hired by someone, and that's not the only form of work.

And the part about "protection against unemployment" makes it clear about the intent of the phrase.

The one I disagree with the most is copyright. You can't either; you have to play word games to make the words of non-communists seem supportive of communism.

Not at all. Once again, the Declaration of Human Rights speak of goals, not of "copyright" or any way to implement them. I don't consider a socialised system to reward creators as any "word games", but just as a solution among others (the most efficient one, IMHO) to reach the goal.

Wait, wait, wait, so most of ya'll don't like outsourcing? Doesn't free trade between countries create wealth, create jobs and reduce costs? At least, thats what I learned in Economics 1101. Thats basically what outsourcing is right? Free trade?

Maybe America is losing jobs, but India is gaining a lot, and the net result is more goods and services, cheaper goods and services and more jobs overall to split between both countries. Am I wrong? Probably, but will one of you explain why?

And that argument about how having better jobs in India creates poverty by increasing the wage gap between people is stupid. Tell that to the millions of starving people in India who need jobs like I need a new girlfriend (turns his head away and sheds a silent tear.)

It would sound like this: "No, you can't work hard and have a nice job because other poor people will suffer more. So instead you all have to suffer equally." Thats ridiculous.

Wait, wait, wait, so most of ya'll don't like outsourcing? Doesn't free trade between countries create wealth, create jobs and reduce costs? At least, thats what I learned in Economics 1101. Thats basically what outsourcing is right? Free trade?

Well, saddly, Economics 1101 is more akin to theology than to science. Remember it's the same ideology that made "experts" speak of Argentina as a "miracle" two weeks before the collapse, or to predict that .com buble would never collapse in the 90s.

Maybe America is losing jobs, but India is gaining a lot, and the net result is more goods and services, cheaper goods and services and more jobs overall to split between both countries. Am I wrong? Probably, but will one of you explain why?

More goods and services, how so ? The net result of transferring jobs from USA to India is just increased raw inefficiency, add in transport (more oil burnt, more work done for the same product). Then comes all the economical and political consequences, of which I spoke.

And that argument about how having better jobs in India creates poverty by increasing the wage gap between people is stupid. Tell that to the millions of starving people in India who need jobs like I need a new girlfriend (turns his head away and sheds a silent tear.)

That's not what I said. It creates poverty in India because it destroys the local, traditional industries, by luring people to leave their country-side and go to cities. This drives the price of food up, the price of housing up, ...

The other effect is that, to attract those jobs (why go to India instead of China or Africa ?) countries are incitated to lower their wages, social protection, environemental protection, taxes, ... to be the one in which "outsourcing" will occur. That added to the "virtual senate" effect I told about.

That added to increased instability, inability to build your own industries (if look at Japan or South Korea, they protected their high-tech industry in its infancy, and that's how they managed to bootstrap it and become leaders in those fields... with free trade, they couldn't have done that), and many, many other drawbacks.

It would sound like this: "No, you can't work hard and have a nice job because other poor people will suffer more. So instead you all have to suffer equally." Thats ridiculous.

Well, if it means than 10% of the poor will live a bit better, while the 90% remaining will live in even worse conditions, then yes it's bad.

Outsourcing:

A way for poor countries to screw over rich countries.

You make two mistakes there. First, you extend "freedom of speech" to "freedom to be listened", that's not the same. Then, you reduce it to an individual level. No one says you, as an individual, should be forced to drive him for free. When there is free health care or free education in a country, the doctors/teachers don't work for free.
No, they work for tax money, my tax money. How more individual level can you get? If it is an absolute right and has to be done, if the state fails to do it the responsibility would pass along to regular people, and in the end it would be my personal responsibility.

If it just said you should be "free to work" and not have a "right to work", they would say just that. But if leftists and liberal may have different meanings of "freedom", a "right" is binding. It's not said "to a job", because "to a job" is more restrictive, "a job" is only used when you're hired by someone, and that's not the only form of work.

And the part about "protection against unemployment" makes it clear about the intent of the phrase.
Hey, maybe it is the intent of the document, but it's not the intent of any country that signed it. Governments pay for a lot of things, compensate for a lot of things, and rules change all the time.

Also, the very reason I replied to your post back 2 pages ago or so, was that just because it says something on a paper doesn't mean that it's necessarily correct. You basically point to a document full of opinions in order to strengthen your position, and I don't even think these opinions are quite what you think they are. The signatories of the human rights convention aren't all going to abandon capitalism. That was not their intent.

Not at all. Once again, the Declaration of Human Rights speak of goals, not of "copyright" or any way to implement them. I don't consider a socialized system to reward creators as any "word games", but just as a solution among others (the most efficient one, IMHO) to reach the goal.
It was just an example of something I disagreed with, and I actually disagree even more with your solution. But this is way off topic.

Actually, all of this is. Maybe we should stop.

Doesn't free trade between countries create wealth

yes, sell your farms and move to the city! have coca cola drain your natural water reserves (http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2004/1020.html) (what are those silly farmers and wildlife going to do?)! and if anyone complains about silly things like enviromental/workplace standards just move next door!

create jobs and reduce costs?

yes nothing makes more sense than moving the assembly of goods as far away from the consumer as possible

I mean its not like transporting goods around the world will have any enviromental/ethical consequences that we are not factoring in or anything

At least, thats what I learned in Economics 1101. Thats basically what outsourcing is right? Free trade?

no outsourcing is sending jobs overseas where people are willing to work for less cost

interesting thought I just had: why don't we just compete with them in a race to see who will live in the most abject poverty?

Maybe America is losing jobs, but India is gaining a lot, and the net result is more goods and services, cheaper goods and services and more jobs overall to split between both countries. Am I wrong? Probably, but will one of you explain why?

1) I'm sorry there seems to have been some kind of massive brain crash over the past few years and now its become acceptable to pay people from one nation less than a worker from another, its now ethical to set up corporate slave states where the law works for the corporation and any sign of complaint will result in a good firing (living in the early 20th century FTW!)

2) woo we can now buy Fiji's precious water supplies a nation where one third of the population don't have access to clean drinking water (maybe all that money Fiji Water© makes doesn't go to the population who actually own that water?)

3) western goods do not suddenly become magically cheaper if the actual cost isn't factored in (then again putting a price tag on precious natural resources and ecosystems is a bit hard)

And that argument about how having better jobs in India creates poverty by increasing the wage gap between people is stupid. Tell that to the millions of starving people in India who need jobs like I need a new girlfriend (turns his head away and sheds a silent tear.)

1) in the same sense that its acceptable to have a homeless man dance for my enjoyment

2) its too bad especially in India where the people who actually need to money do not have access to the jobs we refuse to do for a pittance then (I'm talking of the Dalits who by some fluke don't seem to be keeping up with India's high class I wonder why?)

3) you will notice that industrialized nations and the WTO wonder girl Brazil started by building strong local economy's instead of this crazy plan to move factories to areas where they can exploit to their hearts desires (which somehow will make them richer even though the factories can move next door should workers start to complain)

It would sound like this: "No, you can't work hard and have a nice job because other poor people will suffer more. So instead you all have to suffer equally." Thats ridiculous.

odd it sounds like you also support feudalism

People in third world countries have as much right to jobs as people in wealthy countries. Most countries that are outsourced to arw still in a very poor economic state, but the idea that they would somehow be better off without more jobs available makes very little sense.

If walmart were paying Americans to do the call centre jobs then it would cost more. If it cost more then Walmart would have to either pass on the extra cost to the customers, or pay their in-store employees less. (And many of the in-store employees make above min. wage)

heaven forbid the customers will have to pay a fair price for the labor!

If the customers had to pay more then the poor people in USA would not be able to afford.

heaven forbid the customers will have to pay a fair price for the labor!

Heaven forbid indeed. After all, we have lots of needs ! We need that thrd car, that fourth tv and that lovely pet rock we saw on Ebay. How can we be expected to pay for all those essentials if we have to pay a fair price ?
Lunacy !

but the idea that they would somehow be better off without more jobs available makes very little sense.

easy really considering the environmental destruction caused by the companies forces farmers to work in the cities in the first place

I wonder if those living in the slums of Bangladesh wish that their farms where not submerged under water? do you think the population of Linfen celebrate the fact that they can't breath the air?

Heaven forbid indeed. After all, we have lots of needs ! We need that thrd car, that fourth tv and that lovely pet rock we saw on Ebay. How can we be expected to pay for all those essentials if we have to pay a fair price ?
Lunacy !

Is everyone in USA so rich? If so then I guess you don't need those call centre jobs at all.

Is everyone in USA so rich? If so then I guess you don't need those call centre jobs at all.

Compared to the third world the USA is filthy rich, yes. Even the families without multiple tvs.

If walmart were paying Americans to do the call centre jobs then it would cost more. If it cost more then Walmart would have to either pass on the extra cost to the customers, or pay their in-store employees less. (And many of the in-store employees make above min. wage)

heaven forbid the customers will have to pay a fair price for the labor!

The rose tinted view of rural third world life espoused by some posters in this thread is hilarious.

easy really considering the environmental destruction caused by the companies forces farmers to work in the cities in the first place

I wonder if those living in the slums of Bangladesh wish that their farms where not submerged under water? do you think the population of Linfen celebrate the fact that they can't breath the air?

Do you think they'd rather go back to a living of subsistence farming rather than earn far higher wages in the cities? Your claim that the ebil corporations destroyed everyone's farms is baseless - many of the young people who have emigrated to the cities of India and China still have their families living on these apparently destroyed farms, hence the mass exodus of over 100 million people in China during the lunar New Year from the cities back to the farms. If the farms still exist, and rural life was so wonderful compared to the cities, why don't they just move back? Of course, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the difference in wages, access to education and healthcare, availability of electricity. The fact that the cities are so overcrowded and polluted is testament to the fact that people in the third world prefer urban life - they will endure such hardships just to avoid returning to even worse poverty in the countryside.

Compared to the third world the USA is filthy rich, yes. Even the families without multiple tvs.
So then we should create jobs in India which gives some of the US money to the people there.

The main problem with outsourcing in Britain is that there are still no jobs for the coal miners. (thankyou Mrs Thatcher)

More goods and services, how so ? The net result of transferring jobs from USA to India is just increased raw inefficiency, add in transport (more oil burnt, more work done for the same product). Then comes all the economical and political consequences, of which I spoke.

You can't put goods and services in the same bracket. Goods (like the manufacturing outsourcing to China) required transportation that would arguable cause more pollution.

Services outsourcing (call centres, BPOs etc...stuff that goes to India) don't fall into that category.

That's not what I said. It creates poverty in India because it destroys the local, traditional industries, by luring people to leave their country-side and go to cities. This drives the price of food up, the price of housing up, ...

You are painting a rather broad brush.

I would say that people most affected are those already in the cities and are in low-income brackets. They are the ones who can't afford the rising cost of living in the cities.

In the villages, prices are still down. There is an exodus to the cities, but not to only cities. Towns are becoming cities and so on. Many tier-II and tier-III cities are growing fast due to both the trickle-down effect (people moving out of tier-I cities) and the trickle-up effect (people from nearby villages moving to nearby towns). I see these as a very stable growth. Overall the people I met in my last trip (both city folks in cities like Chennai, Bangalore, Coimbatore etc and people from my own village) - they are all seemingly better off and optimistic about the future.

Of course, this is not denying the abject poverty some are still trapped in. But to argue that others cannot progress because some are left behind is just...:headbang:

I myself am a product of the 90s. We were a lower income family. Currently I am supporting the education of 4 members of my extended family, I am building a house for my family there. Yes, the income gap between me and those who are not in the same position as me is growing. Why is that my fault? Should I give up my job and move with them to share their misery? How will that help them?:confused:

my heart bleeds for those without iPod's it really does
:mad: why are you so convinced that there are no poor people in 1st world countries?


there is a funny thing about farming you see unless there is a natural disaster you don't suffer from malnutrition and your kids can breath the air without a gas mask

those crazy farmers!
usually they specialize in one type of crop. Like all vegtables, or all fruit. Sometimes its something like wheat that has to be processed before consumed.

If the customers had to pay more then the poor people in USA would not be able to afford.

my heart bleeds for those without iPod's it really does

Do you think they'd rather go back to a living of subsistence farming rather than earn far higher wages in the cities?

there is a funny thing about farming you see unless there is a natural disaster you don't suffer from malnutrition and your kids can breath the air without a gas mask

those crazy farmers!

Your claim that the ebil corporations destroyed everyone's farms is baseless

so you have somehow missed the fact that Bangladesh is vanishing at an alarming rate? hell even if your one of the crazies who are not convinced by climate change just look at the water supply (http://wscsd.org/ejournal/local/cache-vignettes/L357xH544/Arsenic--Bangladesh--Map-27713.jpg)

spraying arsenic on your fields has never been a good idea

many of the young people who have emigrated to the cities of India and China still have their families living on these apparently destroyed farms, hence the mass exodus of over 100 million people in China during the lunar New Year from the cities back to the farms.

wait...so this proves that enviromental destruction is not taking place?

If the farms still exist, and rural life was so wonderful compared to the cities, why don't they just move back?

because they sold their farms (more to the point many just went bankrupt as the ecology breaks down) to move to the glorious better life they have in the city

and to buy back a farm is rather difficult especially when your living on a pittance (but then what would be the point if you happen to live in Bangladesh and the land will soon by underwater anyway?) and having no assets with which to use to gain a loan from the bank

Of course, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the difference in wages, access to education and healthcare, availability of electricity.

yeah having your kids die from the pollution is a right laugh! (also slums don't have electricity)

The fact that the cities are so overcrowded and polluted is testament to the fact that people in the third world prefer urban life - they will endure such hardships just to avoid returning to even worse poverty in the countryside.

yeah thats why people live in slums its a better life recycling waste than having an income and property

are you suggesting paying workers a fair wage?!

talk like that will bring the global market to a standstill, whats the point in moving overseas if you can't have slaves?
But someone said all Americans are rich beyond imagination, so I'm concluding that they can afford to overpay for EVERYTHING.

So then we should create jobs in India which gives some of the US money to the people there.

are you suggesting paying workers a fair wage?!

talk like that will bring the global market to a standstill, whats the point in moving overseas if you can't have slaves?

It's difficult to stop companies from outsourcing. The problems are universally coming from bad labour laws in certain countries, rather than outsourcing itself. If the labour laws were the same in these countries as they are in the west, then outsourcing would cease to exist. The act of outsourcing itself does not create problems, it merely exploits them, and perhaps alleviate the symptoms of the problems so that at least people will be less impoverished. Some argue that for some countries it would be very damaging sadly to implement labour laws like this, since much of their economy depends on the jobs outsourced to them.

It's annoying when people equate outsourcing with not paying workers a fair wage, outsourcing to your country is the result of not paying workers a fair wage, not the other way round.

But someone said all Americans are rich beyond imagination, so I'm concluding that they can afford to overpay for EVERYTHING.

Oh no - not everything. Quite a few Americans will have to learn that they in fact have been living far above what they should be able to afford.

But that is their problem. Earning too much, paying too little and still whining... well, boohoo.

are you suggesting paying workers a fair wage?!
What constitutes a fair wage? I mean in a universal sense, here, rather than just in the context of a particular nation.

It's annoying when people equate outsourcing with not paying workers a fair wage, outsourcing to your country is the result of not paying workers a fair wage, not the other way round.

Hmm?

Isn't the fact they are rushing to get the cheaper labor not wanting to pay local workers what they are worth in their country?

It's interesting but local workers are always overpaid and yet the management is always underpaid.....

there is a funny thing about farming you see unless there is a natural disaster you don't suffer from malnutrition and your kids can breath the air without a gas mask

those crazy farmers!

Indeed, natural disasters such as drought and flooding are one of the greatest 'push' factors causing people to leave rural life. So all we need now is a way to prevent drought and flooding from taking place - perhaps we should move India to a place with a more stable climate. What's that? We can't transport a country around the world? I guess that more people are just going to end up moving to the cities then - unless you'd prefer it if we forced them to die in a drought?

so you have somehow missed the fact that Bangladesh is vanishing at an alarming rate? hell even if your one of the crazies who are not convinced by climate change just look at the water supply (http://wscsd.org/ejournal/local/cache-vignettes/L357xH544/Arsenic--Bangladesh--Map-27713.jpg)

spraying arsenic on your fields has never been a good idea

I believe very strongly in the effects of global warming. I fail to see what this has to do with 'people moving to cities is bad'.

wait...so this proves that enviromental destruction is not taking place?

No, it proves that people weren't forced to move to cities because the corporations stole their farms or they were wiped off the face of the earth. Most of the people moving to cities are doing so because they don't want to end up working the same land like their parents.

because they sold their farms (more to the point many just went bankrupt as the ecology breaks down) to move to the glorious better life they have in the city

and to buy back a farm is rather difficult especially when your living on a pittance (but then what would be the point if you happen to live in Bangladesh and the land will soon by underwater anyway?) and having no assets with which to use to gain a loan from the bank

Actually, the farms are still there. Thats what over a hundred million Chinese people briefly moved back to over lunar New Year - farms. That's why they send so much money in remittances back to their families - who live on farms. The farms have not been sold off en-masse - just the old are reluctant to move, so the young head for the cities seeking employment, as happened in now devloped countries 200 years ago.

yeah having your kids die from the pollution is a right laugh! (also slums don't have electricity)

More slums have electricity than farms. They are also more likely to have clean water and be within walking distance of a school and hospital. It seems that people will risk their health to allow their kids to get education and access to a doctor.

yeah thats why people live in slums its a better life recycling waste than having an income and property

Ragpickers in Delhi earn over 100 rupees a day - twice what they would earn in rural areas. So yeah, they do move to cities to have an income. I'm sure they're chuffed that you want to halve their wages though. I'm sure they also miss the caste system that prevales in rural India, given that most people migrating to cities are Dalits.

Oh no - not everything. Quite a few Americans will have to learn that they in fact have been living far above what they should be able to afford.

But that is their problem. Earning too much, paying too little and still whining... well, boohoo.

So instead of a single mother eating one 30cent bag of ramen from walmart every day the week before payday she should only eat half a bag/day.
I mean if you can afford it go ahead and buy fair trade. But many cannot.

So instead of a single mother eating one 30cent bag of ramen from walmart every day the week before payday she should only eat half a bag/day.
I mean if you can afford it go ahead and buy fair trade. But many cannot.

You think ramen is heathy eating?

You think ramen is heathy eating?

:S

So instead of a single mother eating one 30cent bag of ramen from walmart every day the week before payday she should only eat half a bag/day.

While at the same time 10 extra people in Asia get fed. Seems like a bargain.

While at the same time 10 extra people in Asia get fed. Seems like a bargain.

But if all it takes is 30 cents to feed ten Asian people then we obviously don't need to pay them as much as the American workers. Ta Da

But if all it takes is 30 cents to feed ten Asian people then we obviously don't need to pay them as much as the American workers. Ta Da

Touche.

:mad: why are you so convinced that there are no poor people in 1st world countries?

oh there are, however the fact is that if paying a few more of X currency is a such huge problem then maybe outsourcing isn't the issue

of course you also seem to be running on the logic that it somehow makes it okay

usually they specialize in one type of crop. Like all vegtables, or all fruit. Sometimes its something like wheat that has to be processed before consumed.

which is then traded for said goods with the local community, odd how farmers have been doing this for thousands of years

But someone said all Americans are rich beyond imagination, so I'm concluding that they can afford to overpay for EVERYTHING.

oh right your American...

maybe you could try taxing the rich who can afford that third car and giving the poor more welfare (maybe even establishing a living wage!) instead of bitching that the only way to afford food is to exploit workers thousands of miles away

It's difficult to stop companies from outsourcing.

how about penalizing imports from countries that do have poor labor and enviromental standards

What constitutes a fair wage? I mean in a universal sense, here, rather than just in the context of a particular nation.

having a wage that not only provides for food and shelter (in which I do not include living in a slum) would be a start

but then again all that needs to be done is to make fairtrade certification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairtrade_certification) extend to all goods

Indeed, natural disasters such as drought and flooding are one of the greatest 'push' factors causing people to leave rural life.

yes and isn't it weird how natural disasters seem to increase as factories spring up, perhaps there is some correlation going on

So all we need now is a way to prevent drought and flooding from taking place - perhaps we should move India to a place with a more stable climate.

too bad India had a stable climate (by enviromental standards) once

What's that? We can't transport a country around the world? I guess that more people are just going to end up moving to the cities then - unless you'd prefer it if we forced them to die in a drought?

hang on a second....where do the cities get food from again?

I believe very strongly in the effects of global warming. I fail to see what this has to do with 'people moving to cities is bad'.

it shows that farmers move to cities against their will instead of this sunshine dream you seem to have of all farmers wishing they lived in slums on the outskirts of a city (you' know the enviromental refugee (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1) thing)

No, it proves that people weren't forced to move to cities because the corporations stole their farms or they were wiped off the face of the earth.

the fact that I was citing Bangladesh numerous times was a clue for you to do some homework but still because I'm so kind:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/bangladesh-life-on-the-edge-402127.html

as for your claim that farmers are not being forced off land by companies:

http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/policybs/pb4.html#conclusion

Most of the people moving to cities are doing so because they don't want to end up working the same land like their parents.

yes they would much rather have no land at all

Actually, the farms are still there. Thats what over a hundred million Chinese people briefly moved back to over lunar New Year - farms. That's why they send so much money in remittances back to their families - who live on farms.

odd how farmers who have existed perfectly (well almost) fine for thousands of years suddenly need money from the city

could it be that flooding China with large corporate farm goods has damaged the market forcing farmers into debt?!

The farms have not been sold off en-masse - just the old are reluctant to move, so the young head for the cities seeking employment, as happened in now devloped countries 200 years ago.

1)no (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0506-09.htm)
2) you seem to be using the industrial revolution as some sort of good thing, do you have any proof that it actually improved the wealth of the common man? maybe you should ponder why in a period running up to the early 20th century the poor stayed poor

More slums have electricity than farms. They are also more likely to have clean water

go ahead give me a source for this :p

maybe you should find out what a slum is first? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slum)

Ragpickers in Delhi earn over 100 rupees a day - twice what they would earn in rural areas.

farms don't grow money, they generally grow food ;)

I'm sure they also miss the caste system that prevales in rural India, given that most people migrating to cities are Dalits.

learn (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yc7iiFPDbDc&feature=related) unlike India's high class they don't receive schooling in English

<3 Ramita Navai

You think ramen is heathy eating?

Whatchu talkin' 'bout?
http://f3.img.v4.skyrock.com/f36/bluuup/pics/1042899466.gif
Ask Naruto. Ramen is awsome!:D

Well, saddly, Economics 1101 is more akin to theology than to science. Remember it's the same ideology that made "experts" speak of Argentina as a "miracle" two weeks before the collapse, or to predict that .com buble would never collapse in the 90s.

I would disagree, economics is a viable science.

More goods and services, how so ? The net result of transferring jobs from USA to India is just increased raw inefficiency, add in transport (more oil burnt, more work done for the same product). Then comes all the economical and political consequences, of which I spoke.

Alright, well, if you look a the concept of production possibility frontiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_possibility_frontier) which is part of the, ahem, science of economics, then you will see that when countries trade with one another, they are able to produce the maximum amount of goods for the lowest possible cost. This, in turn, creates wealth, and creates jobs. Business is maximized, therefore, so are job possibilities. Now maybe one country gets more jobs than the other, but the benefits of creating wealth and more jobs overall make the world a better place. Not to mention the jobs created in the transportation of goods. And, because more business is taking place, their are more sales rep. and vendor jobs available in both countries. Pollution is a downside but the major pollution comes from the manufacturing process and that cannot be avoided unless you choose to make nothing.

That's not what I said. It creates poverty in India because it destroys the local, traditional industries, by luring people to leave their country-side and go to cities. This drives the price of food up, the price of housing up, ...

It sounds like India is being modernized. If there is demand for traditional business, and, people can afford the traditional business, then those businesses will still thrive. But not letting India change would just be condemning it to economic stagnation.

The other effect is that, to attract those jobs (why go to India instead of China or Africa ?) countries are incitated to lower their wages, social protection, environemental protection, taxes, ... to be the one in which "outsourcing" will occur. That added to the "virtual senate" effect I told about.

Your forgetting something. These people who work in sweatshops and call centers want to work in sweatshops and call centers. Most of them would starve or be impoverished otherwise. So with or without proper wages and OSHA regulations, these people are still willing to work for their ridiculously low wages. Should we deny them those jobs? Sure they are unsafe, but so is starving or living on the street. And if you think thats a terribly inhumane thing, them boycott companies who do it. Its your choice.

But the whole virtual senate effect is bad. India needs a better government.

That added to increased instability, inability to build your own industries (if look at Japan or South Korea, they protected their high-tech industry in its infancy, and that's how they managed to bootstrap it and become leaders in those fields... with free trade, they couldn't have done that), and many, many other drawbacks.

Hogwash. The free market doesn't need protection from the government. That defeats the whole concept of trade and creating wealth. Look at Hong Kong, their government barely does shit, they let their market run wild and their GDP per capita is higher than France, UK, and Japan. Plus they have amazing schools and the 2nd longest life expectancy in the world. Low taxes and low government interference has practically made them into a utopia.

Well, if it means than 10% of the poor will live a bit better, while the 90% remaining will live in even worse conditions, then yes it's bad.

That is true. We have to weigh the good and bad of every option. But in this case, I think India needs jobs and in the long run, prices will get better.

oh right your American...

maybe you could try taxing the rich who can afford that third car and giving the poor more welfare (maybe even establishing a living wage!) instead of bitching that the only way to afford food is to exploit workers thousands of miles away


Maybe I could try taxing the rich?? I am not against taxing people or against welfare.

Establishing a living wage? Do you mean increasing min wage?
1. That encourages the outsourcing of jobs.
2. It passes extra cost onto the consumer.
3. It causes some buisnesses to go bankrupt.

And exploiting workers thousands of miles away?? Who's being exploited? they are being payed at a rate that is competitive for that area. A lot of the people in the third world would be jobless or engaging in illegal activity if not for these jobs.

Over a long period of time, if everyone goes along with it, it should be a good thing.

If it works correctly everywhere, all of our wages should level out worldwide.

At least, that's the theoretical expectation.

PhDs who tell politicians what to do are wrong sometimes, though.

Yeah, thats basically where I'm coming from too.

So I spoke on the phone today with an Indian person who told me how to properly install the stereo that my roommate bought from Wal-Mart today. I called the product support line I found in the manual for the stereo and somehow I was connected to a call center in India. I had a question about the wiring schematic and the dude with the accent was able to help me.

So what do ya'll think about outsourcing. From what I understand, outsourcing is good. Not only does it create jobs in other countries, it lets the company doing the outsourcing grow and then they create better jobs in America. Like all free-trade, its pretty much a win-win for both sides, right? Or am I wrong? :confused:

Over a long period of time, if everyone goes along with it, it should be a good thing.

If it works correctly everywhere, all of our wages should level out worldwide.

At least, that's the theoretical expectation.

PhDs who tell politicians what to do are wrong sometimes, though.

Not sure if its been mentioned but...

Outsourcing is basically using another organisation as a surrogate for your function.

Offshoring is the same thing...but offshore...yes yes...its obvious...but still.

Funnily enough I am working on an outsourcing project and am more than happy to do so as it suits the current business model.

Maybe I could try taxing the rich?? I am not against taxing people or against welfare.

good, however no amount of bitching that what the poor need are cheap goods will help you

Establishing a living wage? Do you mean increasing min wage?
1. That encourages the outsourcing of jobs.
2. It passes extra cost onto the consumer.
3. It causes some buisnesses to go bankrupt.

1) yes, that is exactly what has happened when minimum wage has been increased before! (hell just look at the UK we have roughly $11.04 minimum wage and one of the lowest unemployment rates of the E.U)

2) again my heart does not bleed for the consumer who must pay extra for pointless crap (and you have excluded the poor this time seeing as how they will be the ones benefiting from this)

3) no poor management does that

And exploiting workers thousands of miles away?? Who's being exploited? they are being payed at a rate that is competitive for that area. A lot of the people in the third world would be jobless or engaging in illegal activity if not for these jobs.

hmmm...so they pay substandard wages because the workers need the money

or rather they take whatever crap the job gives and don't give a peep otherwise they are screwed

2) again my heart does not bleed for the consumer who must pay extra for pointless crap (and you have excluded the poor this time seeing as how they will be the ones benefiting from this)

I am specifically talking about the poor. Their wages increase but so does the cost of living. Nothing is gained.
3) no poor management does that and a good example of poor management is paying more than you need to for materials/labour.
hmmm...so they pay substandard wages because the workers need the money

or rather they take whatever crap the job gives and don't give a peep otherwise they are screwed I find this to be a better option than just being straight up screwed

I am specifically talking about the poor. Their wages increase but so does the cost of living. Nothing is gained.

if the environment only had one level of income maybe, however we live in a wondrous world where the you can make an obscene amount of money and buy things not noticing its gone up a few cents

to put it simply the richer folk cover part of the cost poorer folk rejoice :)

and a good example of poor management is paying more than you need to for materials/labour.

no, paying workers a decent wage improves work ethic and professionalism in the workplace

unless your local McDonald's works better than a high class restaurant that is

I find this to be a better option than just being straight up screwed

how about we have at least one group of workers not being screwed at all? it could be fun

yes and isn't it weird how natural disasters seem to increase as factories spring up, perhaps there is some correlation going on

Care to provide me with some direct evidence that India's industrialisation has caused droughts, floods and cyclones rather than a vague correlation?

too bad India had a stable climate (by enviromental standards) once

You mean when it was joined to Antarctica? Because for as long as India has been where India is, it has suffered from floods - due to the geography of the country - and droughts due to periodic drops in rainfall. Like every country in the world has suffered for a long time.

hang on a second....where do the cities get food from again?

From commercial farms, not subsistence farms.

it shows that farmers move to cities against their will instead of this sunshine dream you seem to have of all farmers wishing they lived in slums on the outskirts of a city (you' know the enviromental refugee (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1) thing)

I never denied there was push factors, but thanks for pointing out that unpredictable climates are a good reason for India's poor to head to the cities.

the fact that I was citing Bangladesh numerous times was a clue for you to do some homework but still because I'm so kind:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/bangladesh-life-on-the-edge-402127.html

See above.

as for your claim that farmers are not being forced off land by companies:

http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/policybs/pb4.html#conclusion

That sounds like bad government policy that's forcing farmers off the land. I agree that small commercial farms are the best way to provide a sustainable food source and I abhor rich world crop subsidies. Shame that its commercial thrid world farmers who are struggling here - the people heading to cities are not commercial farmers but subsistence farmers who make up 80% of India's farmers. In case you need a definition, subsistence farmers grow mostly food for themselves, plus a very small extra to trade on occasion for good and services. These are not the people feeding India's cities - they are simply caught in a cycle of growing enough to feed themselves with no way to actually improve their economic situation. Hence the flight of young people to the cities - they can earn a wage, buy food and still send money back home to let their families save a little to improve their economic status.

yes they would much rather have no land at all

They aren't losing the land - the lands is still owned by their fathers and brothers - the people too old or not willing to take the risk to go to the cities.

odd how farmers who have existed perfectly (well almost) fine for thousands of years suddenly need money from the city

They don't 'need' money from the city. They could continue to live a basic existence for the rest of eternity. Would you want to live the rest of your life making no economic advancement, just growing food for your family and knowing that your kids will have to do the same with no hope of reaching a comfortable existence where they can afford education and healthcare?

could it be that flooding China with large corporate farm goods has damaged the market forcing farmers into debt?!

This has damaged commercial farms across the third world. End farm subsidies now.

1)no (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0506-09.htm)
2) you seem to be using the industrial revolution as some sort of good thing, do you have any proof that it actually improved the wealth of the common man? maybe you should ponder why in a period running up to the early 20th century the poor stayed poor

As above. As for your second point, in Scotland we went through a cimilar change - crofters were pushed and pulled out of a subsistence living to head for the cities. But to say their was no economic improvement over the whole of the 19th century for these people is rubbish - they had access to schools and hospitals in the cities and the middle classes grew as people escaped poverty - something which sin't possible if you spend all day working and have nothing to show for it but a full belly.

go ahead give me a source for this :p

maybe you should find out what a slum is first? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slum)

Sorry, fuck up there. Slums have more access to electricity than rural areas, but the actual number using them is similar - about 30%. What really needs to be done is demolish the slums and replace them with permanent buildings like tower blocks, so they can all be wired up to electricity and alleviate the overcrowding. Unfortunately, most slum dwellers are afraid that if their slum gets demolished the government won't honour their claim to the land.

farms don't grow money, they generally grow food ;)

So how do you ever expect subsistence farmers to escape poverty if all they do is grow enough food to live another day?

learn (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yc7iiFPDbDc&feature=related) unlike India's high class they don't receive schooling in English

<3 Ramita Navai

What exactly is this meant to show, other than the woeful state of classism that exists in rural India which I already states was a reason many dalits head to the cities?

Hey, the same thing (outsourcing) is going to happen to India in the long run too. When the Indian people start demanding for more wage rights, more worker rights, and start holding these foreign companies responsible for the degradation of the environment, these companies will move to poorer countries. These multi-corporations aren't nationalistic, they're just like pests going from one host to another.

Care to provide me with some direct evidence that India's industrialisation has caused droughts, floods and cyclones rather than a vague correlation?

I could be lazy and just cite climate change but I won't because I'm a nice guy

coke are a bunch of arsehats (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/jul/25/water.india)

You mean when it was joined to Antarctica? Because for as long as India has been where India is, it has suffered from floods - due to the geography of the country - and droughts due to periodic drops in rainfall. Like every country in the world has suffered for a long time.

which is why I mentioned enviromental standards however you are welcome to show me how India is unstable compared to the rest of the planet

now the point is this has sped up in recent years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6319921.stm)

From commercial farms, not subsistence farms.

not really no:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FarmStructure/Images/smallfarmsshare.gif
http://www.foodfirst.org/node/246

I never denied there was push factors, but thanks for pointing out that unpredictable climates are a good reason for India's poor to head to the cities.

which then leads to more pollution, course unpredictable weather doesn't somehow see a city and say "oh they are city folk i should leave them alone"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Maharashtra_floods

That sounds like bad government policy that's forcing farmers off the land. I agree that small commercial farms are the best way to provide a sustainable food source and I abhor rich world crop subsidies.

however the big problem is that these subsidies are supposed to help small scale western farmers who are themselves struggling to compete with large scale operations

Shame that its commercial thrid world farmers who are struggling here - the people heading to cities are not commercial farmers but subsistence farmers who make up 80% of India's farmers.

who now have no property of which to speak of

These are not the people feeding India's cities - they are simply caught in a cycle of growing enough to feed themselves with no way to actually improve their economic situation.

posh, the local villages are stuck in poverty because they do not receive enough investment from government, what is needed is large amounts of micro-loans too not only provide improved farming equipment but also the building of libraries and schools for all that jazzy education

selling your farm and living in a slum is not how you escape poverty, in fact its one of the few ways you can get stuck in it as you do not have any assets with which to put loans on (unlike say if you owned a farm)

Hence the flight of young people to the cities - they can earn a wage, buy food and still send money back home to let their families save a little to improve their economic status.

pfft so Timmy sending a pittance home every month is going to save the farm? no, what is needed is local banks regulating the development and providing low cost loans when they are needed (because you can't exactly sit there and save up for hens when all yours die of disease) this provides professional assistance and a government interest in the area

once you get small farms spewing out profit its plain sailing :)

the people too old or not willing to take the risk to go to the cities.

which are the smart ones considering the success rate of moving to the city

They don't 'need' money from the city. They could continue to live a basic existence for the rest of eternity. Would you want to live the rest of your life making no economic advancement, just growing food for your family and knowing that your kids will have to do the same with no hope of reaching a comfortable existence where they can afford education and healthcare?

actually farmers can and have saved up to buy machinery when it becomes available, not to mention had local government assistance when the need arises

its a rather slow process however

This has damaged commercial farms across the third world. End farm subsidies now.

yes, I'm sure the farms will do fine competing with large commercial farms that have access to the latest technology...

But to say their was no economic improvement over the whole of the 19th century for these people is rubbish - they had access to schools and hospitals in the cities and the middle classes grew as people escaped poverty

1) schools finally found themselves being made public because big business had a need for workers with reading, writing and arithmetic and though it provided an access to books your average Joe would stay in poverty barring some amazing good luck

2) hospitals where still mostly private affairs (not that it really stopped tuberculosis) so null affect there

3) the growth in the middle class took hold during the 15th century and remained fairly static up until the parliament act of 1911 and the social upheaval caused by the Great war

had social upheaval not taken place during the early 20th century odds are the poverty line would of still continued and we would still have spiffy things like an upper class of person

Unfortunately, most slum dwellers are afraid that if their slum gets demolished the government won't honour their claim to the land.

if they could afford to pay rent on tower blocks the slums wouldn't exist in the first place

So how do you ever expect subsistence farmers to escape poverty if all they do is grow enough food to live another day?

micro-loans and steady development that employs sustainable technology along with government protection of its local agricultural industry

What exactly is this meant to show, other than the woeful state of classism that exists in rural India which I already states was a reason many dalits head to the cities?

you missed the part where they get onto what happens to dalits in schools

your kind of useless if you can't speak English in a call center

Hey, the same thing (outsourcing) is going to happen to India in the long run too. When the Indian people start demanding for more wage rights, more worker rights, and start holding these foreign companies responsible for the degradation of the environment, these companies will move to poorer countries. These multi-corporations aren't nationalistic, they're just like pests going from one host to another.

and then India will suddenly find its economy goes kaput and we end up with an endless cycle of neighbours racing to see who can be poorest

I'm not supportive of it, but I'm not against it. It's natural and we're in a global economy now as much as some wish to be denial of.

I could be lazy and just cite climate change but I won't because I'm a nice guy

coke are a bunch of arsehats (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/jul/25/water.india)

What you have here is one localised example of how awful sustainability practices have damaged the water supply in one area. As for golbal warming, blaming India's industrialisation is unfair. Much of it has been very recent - wealthy countries have been contributing to climate change for far longer. We could prevent India from industrialising but that's pretty unfair on the millions of Indians who now depend on industry - and not just foreign owned industry, look at Mittal and Tata - for their livelihoods. To combat climate change we need to focus on rich countries who can afford to slow economic growth for sustainability, not the developing world.

which is why I mentioned enviromental standards however you are welcome to show me how India is unstable compared to the rest of the planet

now the point is this has sped up in recent years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6319921.stm)

I didn't say that India is unstable compared to the rest of the planet.

not really no:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FarmStructure/Images/smallfarmsshare.gif
http://www.foodfirst.org/node/246

The first chart refers to American farms. There are virtually no subsistence farmers in America - they are almost exclusively commercial farms which make food to sell for profit rather than subsistence farms which do not make food to sell, which is what 80% of India's farms are. And I'm in complete agreement with the second article, small commercial farms are the way forward. But small commercial farms are not the same as small subsistence farms, which is what the rural poor in India live on.

which then leads to more pollution, course unpredictable weather doesn't somehow see a city and say "oh they are city folk i should leave them alone"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Maharashtra_floods

Of course not, but climate change has a much smaller economic impact on manufacturing and services than on agriculture which is dependent on the climate.

however the big problem is that these subsidies are supposed to help small scale western farmers who are themselves struggling to compete with large scale operations

Neither large scale nor small scale farmers should receive subsidies. Period.

who now have no property of which to speak of

Again, you persist with this fallacies that the farms are being abandoned. And yet you fail to provide one iota of evidence that farms are being left completely - most families who have had a member emigrate to urban areas have seen only one person leave, and more often than not its on a temporary rather than permanent basis, looking for seasonal employment.

posh, the local villages are stuck in poverty because they do not receive enough investment from government, what is needed is large amounts of micro-loans too not only provide improved farming equipment but also the building of libraries and schools for all that jazzy education

Yes! Exactly! Turn the subsistence farms into commercial farms through better farming techniques. Now all you have to do is wait while the often corrupt and ineffective Indian government actually does this, or some more Muhammad Yunus' turn up. Unfortunately the rural poor aren't willing to wait that long.

selling your farm and living in a slum is not how you escape poverty, in fact its one of the few ways you can get stuck in it as you do not have any assets with which to put loans on (unlike say if you owned a farm)

Again with the selling. As I have previously stated, you haven't provided evidence of this.

pfft so Timmy sending a pittance home every month is going to save the farm? no, what is needed is local banks regulating the development and providing low cost loans when they are needed (because you can't exactly sit there and save up for hens when all yours die of disease) this provides professional assistance and a government interest in the area

once you get small farms spewing out profit its plain sailing :)

which are the smart ones considering the success rate of moving to the city

actually farmers can and have saved up to buy machinery when it becomes available, not to mention had local government assistance when the need arises

its a rather slow process however

As above, remittances is the only way to go while the poor wait for development to happen. A promise of development won't educate their kids.

yes, I'm sure the farms will do fine competing with large commercial farms that have access to the latest technology...

As you've already kindly pointed out, small farms are more productive, more efficient and more sustainable than large ones which should help to keep the costs down. On top of that, wage costs are higher in the developing world and you have to get the food all the way to India. So I'd say it will be very easy for small Indian farms to compete with large rich world farms when their food costs a fraction of the price once subsidies are eliminated.

if they could afford to pay rent on tower blocks the slums wouldn't exist in the first place

Tower blocks weren't there went they arrived, and suitable ones still do not exist. However, they still pay rent - slums aren't free, you know. First it was the criminal gangs charging rent, now its the government.

you missed the part where they get onto what happens to dalits in schools

your kind of useless if you can't speak English in a call center

Very few Indians in the cities are employed by call centres, and they are often university graduates not poor migrants. Moving to the cities allows them to find jobs where the old caste distinctions are blurred - but not in call centres. It will take a long time before they reach that level of prosperity.

Blah blah blah, people can throw around their statistics, all of which are highly disputed, but I can see it on the ground here in Asia as I travel to India, China and more.

Free trade has opened up opportunities, free information has strengthened rights and free movement of people and goods has strengthened economies.

There's a difference between responsible globalisation and irresponsible globalisation and people are comparing apples with oranges here.

Isn't outsourcing in order to pay less for less qualified people doing the job a way of circumventing labour protection laws?
Not necessarily.
It is a Human Right.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.Just because the UN or somebody says it's so doesn't make it so. People do have a right to work because it is something they should be free to do. People also have a right to food, shelter, and retention of personal property. That doesn't mean people have a right to expect to enter a specific kind of arrangement of their choosing with somebody else in exchange for a wage, and for society at large to facilitate this. That's unrealistic, and panders to a specific type of economic system - specifically one that's exploitative and authoritarian. It's like saying I have a human right to go up to whomever I please and insist that I be made a slave and that they feed me and clothe me.

If capitalism is unable to provide it, then capitalism is not compatible to Human Rights, and should be transcended.It is true that capitalism is not compatible with human rights in its present form, but not for the specific reason that it doesn't provide everybody with the job of their choosing.

Not necessarily.
Just because the UN or somebody says it's so doesn't make it so. People do have a right to work because it is something they should be free to do. People also have a right to food, shelter, and retention of personal property. That doesn't mean people have a right to expect to enter a specific kind of arrangement of their choosing with somebody else in exchange for a wage, and for society at large to facilitate this. That's unrealistic, and panders to a specific type of economic system - specifically one that's exploitative and authoritarian. It's like saying I have a human right to go up to whomever I please and insist that I be made a slave and that they feed me and clothe me.

It is true that capitalism is not compatible with human rights in its present form, but not for the specific reason that it doesn't provide everybody with the job of their choosing.

I think you find that if a legislating body says it's a right, it's a right.
There are no other forms of rights, only those granted by society to the individual by means of legislation.
It is then up to society to make sure those rights are maintained for everyone.

I think you find that if a legislating body says it's a right, it's a right.
There are no other forms of rights, only those granted by society to the individual by means of legislation.
It is then up to society to make sure those rights are maintained for everyone.You're mistaken on the definition of right. A right isn't a description of a legislated phenomenon. It's a universal moral concept.

You're mistaken on the definition of right. A right isn't a description of a legislated phenomenon. It's a universal moral concept.That rather depends on whether we are speaking about legal rights, or moral rights..
And where moral rights aren't translated into legal rights, they're very much only a theoretical notion. Claiming a right for someone is one thing, but convincing others of it's legitimacy is another.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=right has at least 20 definitions of the noun "right". For example
18. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.

You're mistaken on the definition of right. A right isn't a description of a legislated phenomenon. It's a universal moral concept.

Morals don't describe rights, they describe duties of the individual.
Legislation is what gives you rights. If you don't have a legal right to do something, it's not a right but a privilege at best.

It's a universal moral concept.
Presumably you meant "natural" rather than moral or ethical (both of which are cultural formalisations interchangeable with law)?

Morals don't describe rights, they describe duties of the individual.Morals can involve rights, duties, virtues and quite a few other principles.

Presumably you meant "natural" rather than moral or ethical (both of which are cultural formalisations interchangeable with law)?I suspect Tongass is a moral realist, subscribing to the idea that rights are real and universal, regardless of people's practice towards them.

Morals don't describe rights, they describe duties of the individual.What I mean when I say right is related to the duties of the individual. At the least, a right is that which other individuals have a moral duty to refrain from violating.[/QUOTE]

Legislation is what gives you rights. If you don't have a legal right to do something, it's not a right but a privilege at best.If that's how you define right, that's fine, but it's not what I'm talking about. The chain of quotes will lead you back to me saying that outsourcing is okay, and somebody else posting a "right" whereby it's not. My impression what that a moral/political question was being discussed.

Presumably you meant "natural" rather than moral or ethical (both of which are cultural formalisations interchangeable with law)?I might have said natural, but that always seems to lead to people talking about how "nature" wouldn't respect the purported "natural rights", so I wanted to avoid that by clarifying that I'm talking about a question of "ought". As in, "ought" we implement protectionist policies to restrict outsourcing or "ought" we not.

I suspect Tongass is a moral realist, subscribing to the idea that rights are real and universal, regardless of people's practice towards them.At least for the sake of most discussions, yes.