India took your job

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: ultra laser
First they took our jobs, now they want our electricity? Screw India.
Long time no post. etc.

They didn't 'take' your jobs. They were given those jobs by Americans (and Canadians, and Britons, etc). There will always be 'jobs' everywhere.

Your complaint is not about India taking American jobs, it is about American companies taking American capital elsewhere, so they can use it to create labour productivity without paying for it. This is described as 'India taking American jobs', but it should be described as 'American money moving to India to find a better (more profitable) job'. In the process, they stripped the capital out from under some American workers, and forced those workers into less productive, less profitable jobs.

This is called a market failure, and in this case it happens because a vast pool of subsititutable labour is suddenly offered a small number of jobs.

If you think this is a free market in action, ask yourself why capital is free to travel the world in search of a better job, but you are not? What would happen if you could do so? What if everyone could do so?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
You shouldnt talk about free markets in here. People dont like 'em.

/grabs lawnchair and popcorn

(I agree 100% BTW)
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
India as a nation invested heavily in training its best and brightest in subjects like computer programming. In the USA, the number is good programmers is much smaller and they commanded large salaries.

For computer software development companies, Indian programmers are a wet dream come true. They can get an almost unlimited supply and pay far less for their services. The only bottle neck is getting them US work Visas. Since the bulk of India has not seen these talent investments paying off domestically, the lowered US wages seem opulent. The big losers are really US programmers who see their wages cut and the Indian people who see their investments wasted.
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
As we see today what happens when jobs are moved over seas.

Those in this country are forced to work a lower paying job, or struggle to find a new job. I got laid off from my software engineer position in 2003, and it wasn't until 2005 I found a new job. During that time, many companies were hiring from India.

Unfortunately the problem is when someone who typically makes 60k+ a year job, and they apply at a place for like 40k for something else (be it a software tester, etc)... They won't get hired, because the company will fear that the software engineer will leave once a job comes around and will be the first out the door. They demand loyalty from their employees, but don't think twice to get someone from India if it saves them a few bucks. So they just refuse to hire someone like that to begin with. I was applying everywhere, minimium wage job to software engineer during those 2 years and it was nearly impossible to get a call back on anything. I eventually did find a bill collecting job for $10.50 an hour to hold me over for a software engineer position.

But because of that, I lost my house... I had to move in with a friend of mine and rent. Not only that is I lost about $20k in the process because I had to sell the house for about the same money I had invested into it and had to pay realitor fees all over again. Whoops their goes my savings.

Ok, I lost my savings, my house, and my job...

Not only that, is when things like that happen here, I have less money to throw around. Our economy isn't that great. We keep putting "bandaids" to give the illusion our economy is well, but it isn't. Our dollar stinks. This makes the USA companies which hire overseas to lose value on their dollar. Sure they save a few bucks hiring from India, but when the US Dollar dies, the company loses money in general. And since everybody was hiring from India, their pool of available software engineers is shrinking, and now their salary is raising.

Guess what... India is more expensive than the USA and now people like me are finding our jobs again... But who paid the price during the process? The companies or me? Its an Ebb and flow type situation, and if people just pull their heads from their ass (management at these corporations) they'd realize that just sticking around here would be better in the long run for them.

I won't work at a place if I don't feel its stable long term now. I don't trust companies in the USA anymore.

I don't blame India, I blame globalization and corporations who do it.

I was thinking of moving other places, but what difference does it make? its globalization and coporations. Should I move to India to get my job? What difference does it make where I live. I work to make a living, be it in the USA or India. If I moved another place, I'd make my living again, and some jackass would outsource to another place on the globe and we do that all over again.

What it comes down to is that corporations look at their excel spreadsheet and crunch numbers until they are blue in the face, and have absolutely no care about their employees or anything else except the money figure. In the process they don't care who they throw under the bus.

Is there a problem with it in the free market? Nope. But it has more to do with society and nationalism more than anything. Wouldn't you want to pat your neighbhor on the back when you could if he did the same for you? You don't see that in globalization. That is more of a money driving cuttthroat world.

No thx.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
19
81
Originally posted by: blackangst1
You shouldnt talk about free markets in here. People dont like 'em.

/grabs lawnchair and popcorn

(I agree 100% BTW)
:D


Societies always favor trade. If they don't, then we're all stuck with the goods we've got within our borders. It's not efficient, and not everyone benefits as much as they could. It's just basic economics. If you can specialize in something, and sell that resource to other traders in the market, you do it. Ideally, efficient resource distribution results. Yes, sometimes it hurts some people, but that's the inevitable expense of progress. Look at automobile assembly. There is a LOT of automation in the factories, which means that many people are not employed there. But the benefit is that the markets of the world gain access to lower priced vehicles made with more consistent quality than when error-prone humans are everywhere on the assembly line. In addition, the people who would otherwise have been performing menial, repetitive jobs in an assembly line are now available to perform other jobs that are not yet done by robots. "Efficient resource utilization" needs not apply only to natural resources. Human labor is a resource.

The global market is just like the market in this country, compete, or get out of the market.
OR work to change the nature of the market, namely with things like labor laws in mind. We complain now about the working conditions in China or India, seemingly forgetting that not too long ago, corporations in this country loved the environment. Workers' rights? Yup, you have the right to shut up and get to work. Got injured on the job? Oh well, sucks for you, you're disposable. Need time off for your family? Find, you're fired, now you've got all the time in the world.

Another fact to face is that people actually seek out these jobs. You can face a life of complete poverty, barely able to make enough to eat every day, or go to a factory, and live in slightly better poverty, with the knowledge that you can eat every day, and that you'll have something to live in. True, there are some cases of forced labor, which I find unacceptable. Child labor, also unacceptable, and as I understand it, it's also often forced upon them.

In time, I think that the workers in China and India will want better conditions, and eventually, there may be the government in place to do something about it. It took us many decades to complete the transition; no reason to think they'll do it any quicker, especially with China's more restrictive government. Ultimately, I think that the passage of time will favor more and more personal liberties, and protections of civil liberties and human rights.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
82,854
17,365
136
I have to agree with brandonb. The problem is the same as its always been: The CEO's and anyone else in power at a large business or corporation.
They want to increase profits 2% or make a recovery from last years 2% loss so they screw over a hundred thousand employees and move their microchip plant to Malaysia. That hurts but I wont blame Malaysia, they want to survive just like us.

(But dont worry, the CEO will pay himself an extra 2 million bucks to help his nest egg protect him against the unstable economy.)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,329
6,040
126
I'm waiting for the robots to come and there won't be any jobs at all. It will be a great time to get some psychotherapy.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: Jeff7Societies always favor trade. If they don't, then we're all stuck with the goods we've got within our borders. It's not efficient, and not everyone benefits as much as they could. It's just basic economics.

International trade makes sense when you need to obtain a natural resource or an agricultural product that is unavailable in your own nation, when your own nation's population is too small to support an effective distribution and specialization of labor in certain areas, and/or when the trade situation is in fact one of bona fide comparative advantage (as opposed to absolute advantage).

Unfortunately, many people have taken the theory of comparative advantage as a dogma and failed to realize (or never been taught) that it rested on certain conditions and assumptions, such as the immobility of capital, and gone on to assume that all international trade is necessarily a manifestation of beneficial comparative advantage.

Look at automobile assembly. There is a LOT of automation in the factories, which means that many people are not employed there. But the benefit is that the markets of the world gain access to lower priced vehicles made with more consistent quality than when error-prone humans are everywhere on the assembly line. In addition, the people who would otherwise have been performing menial, repetitive jobs in an assembly line are now available to perform other jobs that are not yet done by robots.

Danger! What you say is basically correct, however, there is a danger that you could confuse two very different economic phenomena with one another:

1. Technological Advance (Innovation), which eventually benefits most people in the near future and results in more wealth for everyone since the benefits will be internalized within the nation using the technological advance. For example, although the light-bulb replaced the candlestick makers, almost everyone ended up being more wealthy as a result and the candlestick makers were presumably able to find jobs in other fields since money that was previously spent on candles could now be spent on other stuff.

2. Global Labor Arbitrage, which has almost nothing to do with technological advance. In the case of global labor arbitrage, a nation's middle class gets merged with the world's impoverished masses as a result of the disintegration of barriers to international trade. (It's essentially a near-infinite increase in the supply of labor relative to the demand from capital with expected decreases in wages and standard of living (the price point) as a result.)

I've often seen people make the mistake of confusing Global Labor Arbitrage with Innovation. It's a very common error.

 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlieThis is called a market failure, and in this case it happens because a vast pool of subsititutable labour is suddenly offered a small number of jobs.

It's an example of an instance of laissez-faire failing, however, the particular situation you describe has a name:

Global Labor Arbitrage


 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I'm waiting for the robots to come and there won't be any jobs at all. It will be a great time to get some psychotherapy.

I'm waiting for space aliens to discover the Earth and make people their pets, just like that song from the '90's:

"Now imagine yourself in a different world where the people are the pets. We'll make great pets! We'll make great pets! We'll make greeeeaaat pets!"
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: brandonb
Those in this country are forced to work a lower paying job, or struggle to find a new job. I got laid off from my software engineer position in 2003, and it wasn't until 2005 I found a new job. During that time, many companies were hiring from India.

Unfortunately the problem is when someone who typically makes 60k+ a year job, and they apply at a place for like 40k for something else (be it a software tester, etc)... They won't get hired, because the company will fear that the software engineer will leave once a job comes around and will be the first out the door. They demand loyalty from their employees, but don't think twice to get someone from India if it saves them a few bucks. So they just refuse to hire someone like that to begin with. I was applying everywhere, minimium wage job to software engineer during those 2 years and it was nearly impossible to get a call back on anything. I eventually did find a bill collecting job for $10.50 an hour to hold me over for a software engineer position.

But because of that, I lost my house... I had to move in with a friend of mine and rent. Not only that is I lost about $20k in the process because I had to sell the house for about the same money I had invested into it and had to pay realitor fees all over again. Whoops their goes my savings.

Ok, I lost my savings, my house, and my job...

Tongue in cheek response...

Oh now come on Brandon! Surely you're making this up! This sort of thing doesn't happen in a free market economy! The American economy is good and getting goodah! Heck, our unemployment rate is under 5% and only teenagers and uneducated people end up having to work low wage McJobs and Walmart jobs! Companies can't find enough skilled workers, especially in the computer and high tech fields!

Didn't you work hard at your previous job? You must be pretty danged lazy not to have found a job as good as or as better as the one you had before!

Besides, why would you complain? After all, some people are just destined to have to live as working poor and to be unemployed. Some Americans have to get sacrificed for the economic benefit of other Americans. It's the American way. Besides, we have a meritocracy in this country. Those people who are real talented an who work real hard and who look hard for a job in their field will find one!

Why not go back to school and retrain and reeducate so that you have more skills to offer in our nation's booming economy?

Removing tongue from cheek.



 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
19
81
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
2. Global Labor Arbitrage, which has almost nothing to do with technological advance. In the case of global labor arbitrage, a nation's middle class gets merged with the world's impoverished masses as a result of the disintegration of barriers to international trade. (It's essentially a near-infinite increase in the supply of labor relative to the demand from capital with expected decreases in wages and standard of living (the price point) as a result.)

I've often seen people make the mistake of confusing Global Labor Arbitrage with Innovation. It's a very common error.
In time though, is it not possible that the impoverished masses could be brought up to the level of "middle class?" In the interim, it may bring down the average level of what "middle class" means. Long run though, such as in a few generations, it could result in an improvement for everyone.

 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Maybe because your politicians raised the taxes too high in the USA they were forced to find help overseas. The result of too much taxation is business moves elsewhere.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,681
11,024
136
Originally posted by: piasabird
Maybe because your politicians raised the taxes too high in the USA they were forced to find help overseas. The result of too much taxation is business moves elsewhere.

Then the company who takes jobs formerly held by Americans to foriegn countries should be heavily taxed if they bring the products back to the USA...YES, that also applies to tech-support jobs.

Remove the cost-savings and hit them the ONLY place they care about...the bottom line.

By the same token, American companies who hire illegals should be hit with HEAVY fines and jail time for HR people, managers, and CEO's.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlieThis is called a market failure, and in this case it happens because a vast pool of subsititutable labour is suddenly offered a small number of jobs.

It's an example of an instance of laissez-faire failing, however, the particular situation you describe has a name:

Global Labor Arbitrage

I should hope it has a name!

I can't be the first person to propose a meaningful economic mechanism for destructive free trade.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: shortylickens
I have to agree with brandonb. The problem is the same as its always been: The CEO's and anyone else in power at a large business or corporation.
They want to increase profits 2% or make a recovery from last years 2% loss
so they screw over a hundred thousand employees and move their microchip plant to Malaysia. That hurts but I wont blame Malaysia, they want to survive just like us.

(But dont worry, the CEO will pay himself an extra 2 million bucks to help his nest egg protect him against the unstable economy.)

you dont understand public companies. It's not the CEO who wants it, its shareholders. BIIIIG difference.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: piasabird
Maybe because your politicians raised the taxes too high in the USA they were forced to find help overseas. The result of too much taxation is business moves elsewhere.

Please don't crap in my thread.

Read above about comparative advantage, and carefully follow what happens when you relax the assumption of immobile capital.

Taxes are not a major issue, though tax breaks on re-patriated profits are.