Forum Moderators: buckworks
yet another set of jobs going to India.
Weird that its coming from AOL. I know, I know...competition, effeciencies, etc.....
but from America Online?
I know all of the studies that this will be better in the long run and foster a global market.
Just curious if anyone has an opinion or has been affected by moves such as this?
Zuko
The market simply isn't willing to pay the price it has been anymore. I saw a PeoplePC commercial the other day touting "the high price of AOL".
India doesn't hoard all the money it makes, either. If India has more money to spend, it will spend it, with part of it going back to the U.S. Part of it will go to other countries, who are richer now, and will spend money, going back to the U.S. We don't live in a bubble.
If someone can do the same job cheaper, let them do it. It's hard to make the case to use the high-price producer to produce any equal product or service.
This is true in economics.
But for someone who has a family, house, education tailored for this kind of work, do you tell them come bill time that this is for the better of the whole?
I understand and almost agree 100% with everything that you say. Same product at 20% of the price. It just seems to me that the profit from these lower overheads grows instead of a cheaper product for the rest of the world.
Should there be any protectionist laws that protect jobs locally but ony slightly hinder production of these products?
Should there be any protectionist laws that protect jobs locally but ony slightly hinder production of these products?
It won't work. It's simply not feasable.
Of course, if it did work 100% (all jobs/services/goods/money changing staying within a specified community with no money/goods in or out), it would be isolated communism, would it not?
Unfortunately, the one country that could present an argument as to why isolated communism is good can't be with us right now, because they don't have Internet access, because they don't believe in trade, etc. ;-)
Consider on the other side of the spectrum of that argument. In a 100% open market economy (the economists' 'in a perfect market' base), ALL of the jobs would be outsourced and the only ones reaping the benefits would be the execs, marketing, and very scarce technology staff that coordinated projects overseas(and of course the janitors that clean the cubicles).
'What technology jobs?' would be the question on those students entering college.
Again, I do agree that the act of outsourcing is better for the whole. But at what point is it that we find a balance between what is acceptable and unacceptable? Also, should we let the consumers decide what is acceptable? The "I'm only buying this product if x% of it is manufactured in the US"? We've seen this with Wal Mart and how most of their goods come from China, but consumers in a recession can only afford these products and will choose these products simply because of their price.
Not trying to argue any one point here, just seeing what the general attitude is.
Zuko
Not trying to argue any one point here, just seeing what the general attitude is.
Actually, I rather enjoy discussions like this. :)
Also, should we let the consumers decide what is acceptable?
They already do, and I think that they should. The average American consumer says "to hell with Mr. Joe's job, I want the cheapest price". To bring this slightly on-topic, this is why shopping search is growing.
Minimum wage laws also cause a lot of problems. Pure free-market economics says that you should not have minimum wage laws, because they drive up prices. They also cause a lot more job loss. Which is better - 100 people getting paid $5.00/hr. or 50 people getting paid $10/hr.?
But for someone who has a family, house, education tailored for this kind of work, do you tell them come bill time that this is for the better of the whole?
True, but if nothing was outsourced his bills would be 5 times higher and he would still not be able to pay them.
Unfortunately, the one country that could present an argument as to why isolated communism is good can't be with us right now, because they don't have Internet access, because they don't believe in trade, etc. ;-)
Economic isolationism has nothing to do with communism.
(and of course the janitors that clean the cubicles).
The sad truth about the USA is: human beings are simply not worth the government-established minimal wage.
Think about it for a minute and you will realize the huge dilemma that causes a lot of problems in the USA (and affects the rest of the world).
Hey now, lets stay in the focus of the discussion. If we start debating Government structures and their benefits/detriments, then we will start some entirely new discussion.
I do agree that when compared with the rest of the world, that our minimum wage is too much. But cost of living in your environment would not allow you take the worldly $0.35 per hour or whatever the current fair market value of uneducated human labor goes for nowadays. Minimum wage workers ARE worth what they get paid.
Chris Rock: "Do you know what minimum wage means? It means if I could pay you less, I WOULD!"
Not bragging here, but has anyone been to Switzerland, or to Monte Carlo? Cost of goods there is freakin amazing. I never thought a can of Coke would cost $2.50 US. (And by the way, if anyone is a traveler, the cost of a can of coke is an excellent easy rough calculation of the cost of goods in that area).
I think we can all agree that global trade of educated human capital is a good thing, just at what rate do we "spread the wealth"
So lets take the United States. Imagine a 20-30 year depression where we have negative inflation. 30-40% of the workforce is unemployed, cannot afford health insurance, extreme health problems and a rise in infant mortality, 30-40% of the population is homeless creating rampant crime and homicides (basically the current conditions of other lesser countries), while the wealth is spread across the globe.
Or a gradual 100 year approach where federal funding is spent on education across the globe and here (10 fold than what is spent currently here). Where protectionist laws gradually over time fade away?
I truly believe that alternative energy sources will spur this migration to a true world economy since the US is so stuck on oil, but that is another discussion.
Any rebuttals?
I truly believe that alternative energy sources will spur this migration to a true world economy since the US is so stuck on oil, but that is another discussion.
I don't think the shift of jobs has much to do with the cost of energy.
As with many other problems, the resolution of this problem is in the hands of the affected.
If consumers stopped chasing the lowest prices they could get - things would be different. But that's not going to happen.
>>> Can of coke
Costs around $0.30 here. You just gave me a business idea. I am going to sell coke in Switzerland.
sweet... can I get a cut?
bcc1234
I don't think the shift of jobs has much to do with the cost of energy.
I don't necessarily mean the cost of energy, I mean that other countries like the netherlands, germany, entire continent of africa, etc... would adopt the use of alternative fuel like hydrogen much quicker than the US, spurring an entirely new industry that the oil loving US will be left behind in. We (US) would not invest the money needed to be leaders in this technology right now, as other countries are already doing. This would help other countries though, to attain an energy industry comparable to ours.
This of course will only happen in good time.
Hmmmmmm, I think I want a Coke.
Zuko
