Corporations leave the west at an amazing pace. Atleast there hiring does...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
This is a good trend. We should shovel as many jobs overseas as possible, especially service jobs to India.

Aren't service jobs usually relegated to those who live near the people being served?

[Ned]

Azazel, perhaps one cannot raise average living standards without population growth reductions, however, one can certainly raise the living standards of the middle class, well educated India or Chinese, etc., by giving them jobs. This has got to help the third world far more than shipping them bags of corn, which is about all Western governments, as opposed to private businesses, can do.

Jobs will continue to move to India and China so long as they continue to produce well educated, English-speaking people who are willing to work for what to them are "princely" sums (as compared to their fellow citizens), but which are far below comparing wage rates in the West. I for one fail to see how this a bad thing for anyone - except for perhaps the Westerner who job has moved to India or China. But the complaints of displaced labor have been with us forever. This is not a new phenomenon.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
So tell me again how firing an American or Canadian who answers phones for 20$ an hour to hire some Indian living in Calcutta who makes 5$ an hour is supposed to help the economy????

Indians are employed. Indians buy American goods. Americans get cheaper services. American corporations have higher profits. American workers move to higher value trades, where they get paid more.

Except that there's a constant downwards pressure on their paychecks because there are a hundred million other Americans looking for a job too. Net result is that median salary stagnates or falls back, top end goes through the roof...

[Ned]

Also, think about this - what if we protected the buggy whip industry when cars replaced horse drawn carriages? Industries begin, grow, reach a plateau, then die. Companies that can change survive.

Ditto, labor.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Frogger


Aren't service jobs usually relegated to those who live near the people being served?

Eg... your PC breaks you call customer support - a UK person costs 10£ an hour and a Indian person costs .9 £/hr. Now that is one/ manual admin jobs like invoicing/ simple accounting/ expenses handling/ departmental finance/ everyhing that can be done on a PC only - that can all go to India/China mainly and be done for 1/10 of the cost.

And for the westerner - this will be on the level never seen before, it will actally affect a lot of people as a good % of the workforce works in such "outsorceable" services.

Except that there's a constant downwards pressure on their paychecks because there are a hundred million other Americans looking for a job too. Net result is that median salary stagnates or falls back, top end goes through the roof...

true, you cannot create higher value services where there is no need for one. Pehaps you can employe everyone in a gov job, but what's the point when there is no need, as all the new jobs of the type will be hired overseas for forseeable future. No this will bring a rise in unemployment in the west in the next couple of years, but is the only way to go. It remains to be seen how will the western workers produce higher value goods/services that have to stay in US/Europe

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Ned


I would think, then, that the left should be strongly in favor of globalization. But the anti-globalization demonstrators sure do not appear to be right wing crazies, do they?

Well, Socialist are in general against globalization. They don't want to see a collapse of the global economy. Anarchist are definitely against globalization because to the big business it encourages. Communists just look at it as a process, a part of history that can't be changed.

edit: on your other comment there are right wing crazies who are against globalization. Buchanon comes to mind. Not much following though, bit of an odd ball. Still there are some.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

To add a point this will serve as an "equilizer " in the incomes of the west and the countries used. In the same way that the Taiwans/Malasian/east Asian value output grew, and living standard accordingly, because of manufacturing/ so will Indian and Chinas now for services.

IT boom has driven the whole thing now after it is over we will see what will happen next. If nothing happens coupled wiht the economic measures proposed by Bush we might be in to a nasty suprise. Life is a rollercoaster, so is the economy.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave


Eg... your PC breaks you call customer support - a UK person costs 10£ an hour and a Indian person costs .9 £/hr. Now that is one/ manual admin jobs like invoicing/ simple accounting/ expenses handling/ departmental finance/ everyhing that can be done on a PC only - that can all go to India/China mainly and be done for 1/10 of the cost.

Uh...there is such a thing as a phone bill. Never mind the fact that customers don't like talking to people for whom English is a second language.

I've never once called customer service and been connected outside NA, so far as I know...

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
To add a point this will serve as an "equilizer " in the incomes of the west and the countries used.

For workers sure, but I doubt if the overall gap between rich and poor will close.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Frogger


Uh...there is such a thing as a phone bill. Never mind the fact that customers don't like talking to people for whom English is a second language.

I've never once called customer service and been connected outside NA, so far as I know...

Maybe not yet but you will soon. In HP UK if you call IT support (local UK number of course) you will be transferred to Bangalore India, where someone will help you and these guys speak well so you might not even notice. (could have been an indian in UK as there is plenty of them here anyway ) There is a lot of cheap available educated people in India.

Or if you are are looking for some other inter-company services many of those have been shifted to India too. I myself was working on the beginning when my first department (inter-company accounting) was outsourced there, and I got to train those guys for three months, as they came here in UK for training. (and they still pay me the same as than I know it sucks, but this is a big company in recession, just the big bosses get pay rises, anyway in a month I expect to be given a boot as this outsourcing project I am working on now will outsource me as well , at least they are flexible and as you can see I can be here a lot ) it is all working there now for two years already without a hitch and they have made a big global department where the people who do the same service (eg inter-company accounting for various world wide entities) sit together and it makes the operation even more efficeint compared to a single person sitting in a regional office doing its thing.

Now this is just an example there are plety more. For a customer, be it inter-company or outside it doesn't matter as they can get the service that they need all from there.

[Az]

Azazel, perhaps one cannot raise average living standards without population growth reductions, however, one can certainly raise the living standards of the middle class, well educated India or Chinese, etc., by giving them jobs. This has got to help the third world far more than shipping them bags of corn, which is about all Western governments, as opposed to private businesses, can do.

that's because our governments have a policy of not controlling means of productions. I do agree that creating jobs is the only way. But as faded glory has posted, this lowers the lifestyle of the middle class in the 1st war, that works in the same jobs with a fraction of it shifting to lower paying jobs, subsequently shifting the entire population lower down the scale.

My belief is that by increasing effective taxation on companies, changing the taxation method from profit based to revenew based, we can avoid people from going Inc. just in order to evade tax, and stop punishing companies for being more efficient ( making a profit ). a revenew tax for companies just as for individuals would be more fair, and more pragmatic. with the increase in the effective taxation of companies and high-upper class individuals, who's lifestyle won't effectively be affected, we will be able to suppliment the salaries of the simple workers. This together with cuts in welfare will decrease unemployment, since people would prefer to work and make much more money than they do on welfare.

Jobs will continue to move to India and China so long as they continue to produce well educated, English-speaking people who are willing to work for what to them are "princely" sums (as compared to their fellow citizens), but which are far below comparing wage rates in the West. I for one fail to see how this a bad thing for anyone - except for perhaps the Westerner who job has moved to India or China. But the complaints of displaced labor have been with us forever. This is not a new phenomenon

The westerner is a human being too.

I think that we must change severly priorities in according to managing human resources. I think that the welfare and heathcare system is important, but we should give people more incentives to work ( carrots as well, not just sticks like " if you don't work, you'll starve" ), and much more education to health. More junior sport, more adult sports, more healthy eating. This is not an isoteric subject. the most frequent reason of deaths in the western world is heart related problems. if we create heath through healthy food and lifestyle education to the people, we'll be able to cut down government's health bill.

[Asher]

changing the taxation method from profit based to revenew based

I don't think that's such a great idea...

Why, again, is it good to tax revenues for a company if the majority of that is lost on costs of production?

Taxing revenues is a bit ridiculous, IMO. And you are right, it probably would discourage companies from going Inc., but I don't see why this is a good thing either.

[Az]

I don't think that's such a great idea...

Why, again, is it good to tax revenues for a company if the majority of that is lost on costs of production?


Taxing revenues is a bit ridiculous, IMO. And you are right, it probably would discourage companies from going Inc., but I don't see why this is a good thing either

If we initate a tax rate low enough (maybe even control the rates for different companies we want to stimulate for different reason):
1) there would be no incentive for companies to hide their profits.
(this would create a problem with hiding reveniews, but if the financial system is transparent enough, this shouldn't be a problem.
2) more efficient companies, due to more streamline work wouldn't be punished.
3) many individuals turn themselves into companies, to pay less taxes. This would avoid this.

Look, I am not saying "**** the companies". as long as no decision on government controlling means of production has been made, the private sector is the economy. taxing reveniews will give government greater powers to push the economy forward. And yes, governments can do this. just look at the slump nowadays. can you see corporations pull the economy out of the slump? They're just trying to minimize losses, and cover their collective asses.

why is taxing reveniews rediculous again?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

There sure would be incentive enough as long as the investors are looking to maximise them for their own pockets.

Taxin revenues would tax companies that make a loss, unless they would be exempt, and favouring the high profit margins on products, companies like Microsoft would be valued even higher as they have ridicolously high profit margins, so they would pay less tax for sure than they pay now. Plus it would discourage them to start new ventures as the new ventures produce revenue but can be loss making operations for years to come, so why would they want to do it if it will give them a tax burden on top of the problems of making it in the market.

So overall this would slow the business dynamic in the west IMHO.

[Az]

Thing is that taxation is only one thing that draws investors from one place to another.