bnb.. I'm not sure, it was just a small part of his speech so he didn't cover it all in detail... I should have asked him afterwards one on one or during the question and answer session... then again if it was obvious, I'd have looked stupid in front of the profs I was surrounded by.. I'll ask one of my profs..
on another note. he stayed surprisingly unpolitcal which was nice... other than admitting... he was appointed by clinton, so when your in office you dance with the person that got you there.. etc.. Not sure if he is always pretty unpoliical or just because it was at the school he went to and was a little more relaxed than most speaking engagements
Only selectively. As I pointed out, if it happened everywhere, there would be opportunities galore here. Will some jobs be employed overseas? Yes. Always. But that inevitably creates opportunities at home. My point is that, especially if we are talking about a hypothetical person with a good degree, 10+ years of experience and intelligence, is that there will always be opportunities - not always that conform 100% to what you want, but that's life.
And you don't seem to understand morality, and decency. Is this really the kind of debate we want to get into? It's not about having the best benefits package. It's about having minimum standards of acceptable working conditions. They work fewer hours with more vacation in Europe. That has little to do with people working in dangerous conditions in places where they receive no health benefits from it. I'm not saying the workers should be paid the same as American workers and have identical conditions. What I am saying is that it's wrong to support any system where work conditions are DANGEROUS. You are right that it's ok for you to work 12 hours a day because you can be compensated for it and should be by our labor laws. In India it's not a choice and there isn't additional compensation for that work. It's just the way it is in order to get the job. We formed labor laws to combat that kind of exploitation because we felt it unjust. I don't care what the P&L margin says when we have to compare it to what's just and unjust.
You aren't exploited because you have chosen to work those hours, and you are compensated for them, or at least have the chance of being compensated for the work. I'm not asking for handouts or to stop people from working long hours. I easily work 70 hour work weeks myself on one job, and 10-20 hour weeks at time on another job. The other thing is that I work those hours in a relatively safe working environment, I get holidays, and health benefits. When you require that kind of work without benefits or opportunity for being compensated for the work, it's wrong.
FB, if your concern is for the worker in India, you may find that he (or she) disagrees. By our standards, their conditions and pay are exploitive. But their options are not between an exploitive job and a non-exploitive job, but rather between an exploitive job and no job at all. I've read some pretty convincing arguments about the benefits of economic activity in 'third world' countries. Not to justify the most deplorable condition, but to recognize that there can be huge benefit to the workers themselves (not just the capitalistic barons), to what we would consider exploitive jobs. If our concern if for them, then we should be pressuring our companies to treat them well...not to abandon them. This has been done relatively successfully with the pressure on Nike -- in what was probably one of the industries most susceptible to abuse. The companies are under pressure to ensure they have worker standards and that those standards are enforced. And that's a good thing. My impression is that the IT jobs being 'outsourced' are considered good jobs in the countries that receive them. Not the same environment for abuse as the production jobs of before. If your concern is for NoWorries, and the US workers and US standards, then i think they are very valid. I just think it's disingenuous to pretend this is an altruistic issue about the well-being of the tech guys in India or elsewhere. By stopping 'outsourcing' you're doing them no favours.
Stopping (or even slowing) outsourcing would be doing favors to Americans and that is all I am concerned about. John Kerry will fight to give consideration to companies that hire within the US rather than outside of it and that is good enough for me.
I see that argument very clearly. And i think there has to be a position somewhere between a protectionist wall and everything goes. It was FB's contention that this was a moral issue about working condition that i disagreed with. .
There is definitely gray area between protectionism and a free-for-all and I believe that this is exactly the kind of thing that Kerry understands. Kerry has not talked about being protectionist, just giving consideration to companies that keep their jobs in the US, a position that is "dead on balls accurate" (it's an industry term).
Ive seen a couple of people starting to argue that if you have a degree and experience, outsourcing shouldn't effect you....well...Obviously this question I asked has been overlooked, cause I dont see any of you pro-outsourcing people responding to it. well? what do you do?
bnb, I agree that in India it is a question of a bad with those conditions or no job at all. I also agree that companies should treat them well, and our pressure should be focused in that direction. I think we would find that if companies do treat them well and give them the benifits needed that it might not be so cost effective to outsource, at least in some cases. So in those cases American workers aren't necessarily going to lose out because of outsourcing. In other cases where conditions are comporable we have a better chance of seeing the better trained person with experience get the job. I think that companies that take advantage of a place where work is cheap because conditions for the workers are poor, then those companies are guilty of doing something morally reprehensible. If companies outsource to a place where work conditions are equivalent then the problem isn't as bad, but it's ashame to lose American jobs. What I think is happening is both. We are losing American jobs because corporations are supporting work conditions that are sub-standard. Yes the people working in those substandard conditions are happy to have that job over no job just as workers were in our country were during the robber baron period. They are happy to be able to have food and clothes, for themselves and family, but that doesn't make it ok to subject them to substandard working conditions. So I think we can offer tax breaks to those that create new jobs here, and enforce regulations that allow companies to support substandard work conditions and exploiting foreign workers.
I don't post much, however I hope my post count doesn't make what I am about to say less meaningful. Let me just give you guys a small background. I was part of the IT boom in the States, in the late nineties I was a web developer for an IT firm in southern california. In 2000 I moved to the bay area and got a job in silicon valley. However, in 2003 like most firms my company had to face a whole bunch of layoffs, our office was closed as the company was trying to downsize. Was I affected? Wll of course, however I didn't make it affect me much, because I decided to go back to school. Not just that, I decided to do my studies in the Philippines, one reason is to "get to know my culture" and the other is because its cheaper. Like India, the Philippines is also one of the countries that get benefits from the "outsourcing" of jobs from the U.S. A lot of call-centers are popping up everywhere. Companies from Citibank, Dell, Earthlink, and etc have outsourced they're call-centers here. What I want to say about this is that, no one is being exploited. There are NO children working, there is OVER-TIME pay,and people do get benefits. However, since labor is cheaper, organizations still get a huge benefit from a reduction in cost. There is even a time-differential from being able to work nights, since most of the clients of these companies are in the U.S. and the have to work based on U.S. time. I see outsourcing this way, if things where not outsourced companies like Earthlink would not be able to stay in business. When that happens then these companies would have to close down and ALL the jobs will be lost. I know since this is an American board that you guys would probably not even care about this, but if it wasn't for call-centers then the economy of this country would be worse. Also, outsourcing does keep organizational costs down, by keeping these costs down in the end all of us benefit by having goods and services that are affordable.
I thank you for your imput. And in cases such as you describe I might be willing to buy into the ideas that it's just competition and outsourcing isn't so bad. But to say that there is no exploitation, and no overtime without pay etc. might isn't correct. It might be true in your instance and in many others. I think it would be more accurate to say that there isn't always exploitation etc. But there have been documented and filmed cases of both child labor, and forced overtime etc.
why should he be? if his attitude towards it is like most Repubs seem to be, he has a non-outsourcable job, so why worry?
