Why the Hatred for Outsourcing?

[frostedflakes]

I feel honored you stopped lurking to respond to my post.

Fair wages and benefits being those similar to what employees in developed nations are offered. Of course, the counter-argument is that a few hundred dollars per month, while nothing to us, is a livable wage in poorer countries. Obviously, the definition of a "fair" wage and benefits depends on where live.

My issue is when people like OP use philanthropy to support outsourcing to poorer nations. The only reason for outsourcing is to cut costs, don't try to spin it into anything else. If businesses were truly interested in improving the lives of the people in these nations, they'd be paying them a wage similar to the domestic workers they laid off.

 

[geoffry]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I feel honored you stopped lurking to respond to my post.

Fair wages and benefits being those similar to what employees in developed nations are offered. Of course, the counter-argument is that a few hundred dollars per month, while nothing to us, is a livable wage in poorer countries. Obviously, the definition of a "fair" wage and benefits depends on where live.

My issue is when people like OP use philanthropy to support outsourcing to poorer nations. The only reason for outsourcing is to cut costs, don't try to spin it into anything else. If businesses were truly interested in improving the lives of the people in these nations, they'd be paying them a wage similar to the domestic workers they laid off.

I never said it was for philanthropy. Yes it is for cutting costs.

But, WHY doesnt someone who loses their job to someone from Vietnam feel hatred whereas they lose it to someone a few blocks away its relatively OK?

People are people, Americans aren't some super race better than everyone else.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

My issue is when people like OP use philanthropy to support outsourcing to poorer nations. The only reason for outsourcing is to cut costs, don't try to spin it into anything else. If businesses were truly interested in improving the lives of the people in these nations, they'd be paying them a wage similar to the domestic workers they laid off.

For businesses it is about cutting costs, but for people outside of that circle it can be about developmental purposes. I would support limited outsourcing as it really has developed huge parts of the world.

It interests me how some people support sending countries developmental aid that really doesn't do anything in the long-term, but oppose outsourcing which really helps poorer countries in a substantial and meaningful way. Then it seems that the people who oppose any developmental aid yet support outsourcing for businesses are indirectly aiding those countries even though they tend to not care.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: geoffry

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I feel honored you stopped lurking to respond to my post.

Fair wages and benefits being those similar to what employees in developed nations are offered. Of course, the counter-argument is that a few hundred dollars per month, while nothing to us, is a livable wage in poorer countries. Obviously, the definition of a "fair" wage and benefits depends on where live.

My issue is when people like OP use philanthropy to support outsourcing to poorer nations. The only reason for outsourcing is to cut costs, don't try to spin it into anything else. If businesses were truly interested in improving the lives of the people in these nations, they'd be paying them a wage similar to the domestic workers they laid off.

I never said it was for philanthropy. Yes it is for cutting costs.

But, WHY doesnt someone who loses their job to someone from Vietnam feel hatred whereas they lose it to someone a few blocks away its relatively OK?

People are people, Americans aren't some super race better than everyone else.

I wouldn't be surprised if racism played a part for some, but I think what bugs most people is the reason for losing the job. I could live with losing a job to another American, because the reason would be that they were more qualified. I'd be frustrated, of course (as anybody probably would), but ultimately it's my fault for not working hard enough or not being as educated. However, losing your job so the CEO of some enormous corporation can receive a larger bonus that year is much less palatable.

I don't hate the people working outsourced jobs, they're just trying to provide for themselves and their families. The people I blame are the corporate bean counters who think it's a good idea to screw over the same US consumers that buy the majority of their products. Obviously it's not illegal, I just think it's a pretty sleazy thing to do.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Engineer
And for the record, do you think the right is any better then what you say the left does? They tend to say fuck the world and what they think but tend to think that outsourcing is great and always cite the need for those people to work. Hypocracy works both ways.

No, I think both sides are equally bad about this.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: RichardE
You seem to have no grasp of any poltics right of pure facism. Here, let me help you out a bit.

There is a difference between wanting to generally help people, as well as help people help themselves and giving all you have away to help someone. Sort of like this scenario.


Scenario 1

You give a homeless guy some clothes, some basic skill training and help him go job hunting till he finds a job. You help him find an apartment and teach him how to properly grocery shop for himself. You take him to AA so he can clean up, to a barber shop where they teach him how to groom himself properly. You buy him a few college courses so his brain starts working again. (Btw, all the while he is getting incentive to do this). you befriend him, than you take him back to homeless strip and let him see how far hes come. Usually they will want to stay where they now are (poverty to middle class). (this can also apply to helping other countries start an economy.)

Society now has two contributors

Scenario 2

You find a homeless guy and give him a few basic college courses and job specific training. You than give the homeless guy your job since the job specific training was for you. You than take the homeless guys clothes are a while and go sit on the corner with his bucket as he works your job. You feel warm fuzzies because you helped out society.

Society still has one, very inferior contributor.



The left generally wants to do #1.

But what the left wants to do and how it all plays out is often very different and you have to be ideologically honest to accept some facts which many on the left and right do not want to admit.

Take New Orleans for example. While everyone else is going through their recession and job cuts and all that, New Orleans has tons of work available for good pay. They need labor so bad in New Orleans right now my nephews friend just got a construction job with no experience straight out of high school making 800+ per week.

But there are still tons of homeless people who don't want to work or refuse to work and they are closing down the homeless communities that they all congregate into day by day.

Some people simply refuse to work.

The right says "fuck em let em starve don't give them any handouts" which drives up crime when they have to steal to get what they need.

The left says "we need to extend more of a helping hand" and then you wind up with a welfare utopia like New Orleans where half the people don't do shit.


Sometimes you have to open your eyes and realize that "sweat shops" are great for the economy of small countries. You might not like it, but trust me they love it because the alternative is horrible.

The left has a hard time admitting these things and opening up to see what really is rather than what they want it to be.


(and yes before you start I realize the right is just as bad, see abortions, birth control, drug laws, and a million other issues)

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I don't have anything against outsourcing in general, if a person in India can perform a job better than a person in the US, fine, hire the person in India and pay them a fair wage, give them proper benefits, etc. But outsourcing a job at fractions of the cost is just unfair to US workers. Same reason antitrust laws prevent corporations from significantly undercutting prices on a product, it's unfair and anti-competitive.

What's even worse is when people try to argue outsourcing cheap labor is philanthropic in any way, shape, or form. It's about cutting costs, nothing more, nothing less. Do you really think these corporations give a shit about employees in India or China?

Bingo....

Ok, but what incentive do these companies have to hire and employ the American worker?

What you need to do is look at everything and everyone as if they are a consumer because that's what everything and everyone really is when you think about it. We are consumers of goods. Major corporations are consumers of labor.

The problem with the American worker is that they cost like a Mercedes but they have to be as perform like a Mercedes to make that purchase worthwhile for a company.

Workers in India and China cost like a Hyundai and perform like a Hyundai. You might not be getting American quality sometimes, but you are getting what you paid for at the very least.


Would you be happy if you paid for a Mercedes and got a Nissan? Why should a corporation?

 

[imprimis]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I feel honored you stopped lurking to respond to my post.

Fair wages and benefits being those similar to what employees in developed nations are offered. Of course, the counter-argument is that a few hundred dollars per month, while nothing to us, is a livable wage in poorer countries. Obviously, the definition of a "fair" wage and benefits depends on where live.

My issue is when people like OP use philanthropy to support outsourcing to poorer nations. The only reason for outsourcing is to cut costs, don't try to spin it into anything else. If businesses were truly interested in improving the lives of the people in these nations, they'd be paying them a wage similar to the domestic workers they laid off.

lurking?, i only joined the forum a few hours ago.

and now you've used the term "liveable wage"...

let's pare this down a bit more. if you live in anytown USA what is a "fair wage"?

 

[Squisher]

Here is nice little article about the company I just retired from.

The CEO is now in the process of closing my plant and moving all operations to Mexico. The operation wasn't profitable because just about all product was consumed by other plants in-house and they set the prices. It was funny that we were recently able to win contracts from Toyota and Nissan, because we gave them the best price and the highest quality, but by selling our product in-house we just never really seemed to give enough profit to satisfy the CEO.

My die room was the most advanced in the company. One of its greatest assets to the company wasn't even something that company set about to do. It was negotiated by the union. Unlike most operations, the floor workers did all their own programing for computer aided machining. What this did is give a great deal of autonomy and flexibility to the operation. Anytime someone could see a better way of doing something it was implemented immediately. Anytime a change would be made to a model, programs were changed on the fly. We did many machining operations that NOBODY else wanted to do.

Now, they are soon to be replaced with Mexican drones that will push a button when told to. I hope they reap what they've sown.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: imprimis

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I feel honored you stopped lurking to respond to my post.

Fair wages and benefits being those similar to what employees in developed nations are offered. Of course, the counter-argument is that a few hundred dollars per month, while nothing to us, is a livable wage in poorer countries. Obviously, the definition of a "fair" wage and benefits depends on where live.

My issue is when people like OP use philanthropy to support outsourcing to poorer nations. The only reason for outsourcing is to cut costs, don't try to spin it into anything else. If businesses were truly interested in improving the lives of the people in these nations, they'd be paying them a wage similar to the domestic workers they laid off.

lurking?, i only joined the forum a few hours ago.

and now you've used the term "liveable wage"...

let's pare this down a bit more. if you live in anytown USA what is a "fair wage"?

Depends on the work being done and where you live. Fair wage is obviously a bit ambiguous, average probably would have been a more appropriate word to use. Not sure exactly what the average annual wage in the US is, but think it's around $35k.

But anyways, where are you going with this?

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: geoffry
Why do most people hate outsourcing?

Question for those that do, what makes an American, Canadian or European more important than an Asian or a South American?

Why should the person in the developed country have a job but not the developing country?

America is beautiful because so many died to make it so. F*** the people in the rest of the world that refuse to fight for their livelihood. This isn't about jobs here or there, its about survival.

 

[imprimis]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: imprimis

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I feel honored you stopped lurking to respond to my post.

Fair wages and benefits being those similar to what employees in developed nations are offered. Of course, the counter-argument is that a few hundred dollars per month, while nothing to us, is a livable wage in poorer countries. Obviously, the definition of a "fair" wage and benefits depends on where live.

My issue is when people like OP use philanthropy to support outsourcing to poorer nations. The only reason for outsourcing is to cut costs, don't try to spin it into anything else. If businesses were truly interested in improving the lives of the people in these nations, they'd be paying them a wage similar to the domestic workers they laid off.

lurking?, i only joined the forum a few hours ago.

and now you've used the term "liveable wage"...

let's pare this down a bit more. if you live in anytown USA what is a "fair wage"?

Depends on the work being done and where you live. Fair wage is obviously a bit ambiguous, average probably would have been a more appropriate word to use. Not sure exactly what the average annual wage in the US is, but think it's around $35k.

But anyways, where are you going with this?

yes, "fair wage" cannot be broadly defined. where am I going? you said "outsourcing a job at fractions of the cost is just unfair to US workers."
it is not unfair. we need to consider why a company would want to outsource, the obvious answer is to make more profit. making more profit is neither fair or unfair, it is the reason the business exists. a by product of a business is job creation, nothing else. labor is a resource, just like raw materials, energy supply etc..
now, lets consider how a company can move it's production facility 12,000 miles away and be more competitive than their domestic adversary.
obviously the power bill in bangladesh could be cheaper than anytown USA. perhaps the raw materials are as well, and that could account for some of the outsourcing we see. this topic however centers on outsourced labor, so why is US labor (highly skilled @ times) shunned for foreign labor?
maybe high skilled labor isn't necessary.
US labor though, skilled or otherwise is most always more expensive; sometimes prohibitively.
could it be because many American workers demand "fair wages, "proper benefits" etc as if these are entitlements?
in fact, many of these things, however defined, have become entitlements via legislation.
we have minimum wage laws, fmla, flsa, ada, cobra, discrimination laws, osha, unions (a major factor ) etc..

in essence, by law, we make our workforce highly unattractive when compared to many other countries.
is that fair?

 

[babylon5]

What I learn from this thread is, USA is going downhill from #1 nation to god knows what.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: imprimis

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: imprimis

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I feel honored you stopped lurking to respond to my post.

Fair wages and benefits being those similar to what employees in developed nations are offered. Of course, the counter-argument is that a few hundred dollars per month, while nothing to us, is a livable wage in poorer countries. Obviously, the definition of a "fair" wage and benefits depends on where live.

My issue is when people like OP use philanthropy to support outsourcing to poorer nations. The only reason for outsourcing is to cut costs, don't try to spin it into anything else. If businesses were truly interested in improving the lives of the people in these nations, they'd be paying them a wage similar to the domestic workers they laid off.

lurking?, i only joined the forum a few hours ago.

and now you've used the term "liveable wage"...

let's pare this down a bit more. if you live in anytown USA what is a "fair wage"?

Depends on the work being done and where you live. Fair wage is obviously a bit ambiguous, average probably would have been a more appropriate word to use. Not sure exactly what the average annual wage in the US is, but think it's around $35k.

But anyways, where are you going with this?

yes, "fair wage" cannot be broadly defined. where am I going? you said "outsourcing a job at fractions of the cost is just unfair to US workers."
it is not unfair. we need to consider why a company would want to outsource, the obvious answer is to make more profit. making more profit is neither fair or unfair, it is the reason the business exists. a by product of a business is job creation, nothing else. labor is a resource, just like raw materials, energy supply etc..
now, lets consider how a company can move it's production facility 12,000 miles away and be more competitive than their domestic adversary.
obviously the power bill in bangladesh could be cheaper than anytown USA. perhaps the raw materials are as well, and that could account for some of the outsourcing we see. this topic however centers on outsourced labor, so why is US labor (highly skilled @ times) shunned for foreign labor?
maybe high skilled labor isn't necessary.
US labor though, skilled or otherwise is most always more expensive; sometimes prohibitively.
could it be because many American workers demand "fair wages, "proper benefits" etc as if these are entitlements?
in fact, many of these things, however defined, have become entitlements via legislation.
we have minimum wage laws, fmla, flsa, ada, cobra, discrimination laws, osha, unions (a major factor ) etc..

in essence, by law, we make our workforce highly unattractive when compared to many other countries.
is that fair?

Our entitlement programs are modest compared to most other first world nations. And it's not like you see companies outsourcing to countries like Japan or Germany, it's all going over to India, China, Malaysia, etc. where cost of living is lower and people are willing to work for much less. We cannot possibly compete with third world labor, I don't see how you can claim that's fair.

I also understand that the whole point of a business is to make money, I just think most corporations take it too far. IMO, it's pretty immoral to screw over American employees and exploit third world poverty in order to increase my company's profits (and probably more importantly, my compensation). Is a bit of integrity and morality too much to ask from these people?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: geoffry
Why do most people hate outsourcing?

Question for those that do, what makes an American, Canadian or European more important than an Asian or a South American?

Why should the person in the developed country have a job but not the developing country?

Troll thread.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Because it's taking an Amercan's job, that's why. The only people to benefit from the outsourcing are the investor class, which is typically the upper 1% of the population (1% owns over 80% of all stocks of business). The rest of us piss ants get the trickle down...and shit rolls down hill so that's our trickle.

Fuck the rest of the world. Let them even the currency and have "FAIR" trade rules. Until then, fuck em.

Why should Americans give up their jobs so that other countries can have jobs. Why can't they develope their own jobs? Why don't you go to their countries and help them or better yet, donate your job to them?

Except there is zero evidence that outsourcing has an overall net negative benefit on job creation in the U.S.

Also, it is short-shorted or just straight asinine in the extreme to ignore the reality that when outsourcing increases firm efficiency (that includes the "investor class") that it has a direct impact on the ability of firms to grow, hire more workers, and create new jobs or industries in the process. I recommend a course in international economics.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Slew FootI suppose nursing is as close as you can get in the US right now. Easy to train for, buckets of pay and opportunities.

Supposedly if you believe all of the hype that's reported. I think it's probably true but I take that sort of thing with many lumps of salt. Anyway, I suspect that even though the field has opportunities available now that even if all of the slots were filled it could only employ a small percentage of Americans and not all of the people who have lost their jobs nor the college-educated unemployed and underemployed.

In CA with OT, nurses make more than some physicians, its pretty pathetic.

Sheesh. Why go to medical school. That's amazing. Maybe I should retrain to become a male nurse.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Engineer
Because it's taking an Amercan's job, that's why. The only people to benefit from the outsourcing are the investor class, which is typically the upper 1% of the population (1% owns over 80% of all stocks of business). The rest of us piss ants get the trickle down...and shit rolls down hill so that's our trickle.

Fuck the rest of the world. Let them even the currency and have "FAIR" trade rules. Until then, fuck em.

Why should Americans give up their jobs so that other countries can have jobs. Why can't they develope their own jobs? Why don't you go to their countries and help them or better yet, donate your job to them?

Except there is zero evidence that outsourcing has an overall net negative benefit on job creation in the U.S.

Also, it is short-shorted or just straight asinine in the extreme to ignore the reality that when outsourcing increases firm efficiency (that includes the "investor class") that it has a direct impact on the ability of firms to grow, hire more workers, and create new jobs or industries in the process. I recommend a course in international economics.

I recommend that you stick the international economics course up your ass. The word efficiency only means cheap, period. The US has the most efficient and productive workers in the world. Efficiency when it comes to foreign labor = cheaper, period.

I ask you the same as I asked the others...are you willing to give up your job so a foreign job can be created? Yes or no? If no, then you are a complete hyprocrit (like the others) who advocate giving up other American's jobs while not willing to give up your own.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: geoffry
Why do most people hate outsourcing?

Question for those that do, what makes an American, Canadian or European more important than an Asian or a South American?

Why should the person in the developed country have a job but not the developing country?

I don't understand why people despise outsourcing.

Anyone with a decent knowledge of economics is familiar with the term Comparitive Advantage. In simple words, this means Do what you do best, because you'll produce it for the best price. America doesn't have comparitive advantage in some manufacturing anymore. China has had it for awhile, and they're losing it to India.

The reason this is good is that the low price of manufactured goods can be passed on to the consumer, and low prices are a good thing.

As far as the relatively low pay in the manufacturing countries, it's only fair to consider their pay with respect to what that pay can buy in their country. 25 cents an hour is worthless to us, but they can live off of it. If not, they wouldn't take the job. Seems pretty simple to me.

Regarding our own unemployment: There's no right to employment. If the market shifts and you get laid off in favor of someone who will work for less so that the company can charge cheaper prices so as to more effectively compete, that's the way the economy works, and should work.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Engineer
Because it's taking an Amercan's job, that's why. The only people to benefit from the outsourcing are the investor class, which is typically the upper 1% of the population (1% owns over 80% of all stocks of business). The rest of us piss ants get the trickle down...and shit rolls down hill so that's our trickle.

Fuck the rest of the world. Let them even the currency and have "FAIR" trade rules. Until then, fuck em.

Why should Americans give up their jobs so that other countries can have jobs. Why can't they develope their own jobs? Why don't you go to their countries and help them or better yet, donate your job to them?

Except there is zero evidence that outsourcing has an overall net negative benefit on job creation in the U.S.

Also, it is short-shorted or just straight asinine in the extreme to ignore the reality that when outsourcing increases firm efficiency (that includes the "investor class") that it has a direct impact on the ability of firms to grow, hire more workers, and create new jobs or industries in the process. I recommend a course in international economics.

I recommend that you stick the international economics course up your ass. The word efficiency only means cheap, period. The US has the most efficient and productive workers in the world. Efficiency when it comes to foreign labor = cheaper, period.

I ask you the same as I asked the others...are you willing to give up your job so a foreign job can be created? Yes or no? If no, then you are a complete hyprocrit (like the others) who advocate giving up other American's jobs while not willing to give up your own.

Yes, I would give up my job if my company could find someone as qualified as me to do the same job for cheaper. I wouldn't like it, but I can find a better job.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Atreus21


Yes, I would give up my job if my company could find someone as qualified as me to do the same job for cheaper. I wouldn't like it, but I can find a better job.

Good for you. And those people that are replacing American workers are "as qualified" as they are?

I think you should call your company and ask if there is a chance that you give your job to a foreign worker offshore and tell them to make sure they are "as qualified" as you are. I'm sure that they will make sure of that.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Atreus21


Yes, I would give up my job if my company could find someone as qualified as me to do the same job for cheaper. I wouldn't like it, but I can find a better job.

Good for you. And those people that are replacing American workers are "as qualified" as they are?

I think you should call your company and ask if there is a chance that you give your job to a foreign worker offshore and tell them to make sure they are "as qualified" as you are. I'm sure that they will make sure of that.

It's not my decision on whether the other person is as qualified as me. The company hired me. I didn't hire myself. The company must do what is in its best interest. If it decides someone can do the job better, then it should do so.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Deudalus
Ya know it is interesting and it almost belongs in that oxymoron thread (like the pro-life pro-death penalty people being hypocrites and such).

Left leaning people are in general more worried about how the world thinks, wants more world involvement, and preaches how important everyone else is not just Americans.

But then outsource some jobs and those same people who are just as valuable as we are are all the sudden not quite so important as we are.

You seem to have no grasp of any poltics right of pure facism. Here, let me help you out a bit.

There is a difference between wanting to generally help people, as well as help people help themselves and giving all you have away to help someone. Sort of like this scenario.


Scenario 1

You give a homeless guy some clothes, some basic skill training and help him go job hunting till he finds a job. You help him find an apartment and teach him how to properly grocery shop for himself. You take him to AA so he can clean up, to a barber shop where they teach him how to groom himself properly. You buy him a few college courses so his brain starts working again. (Btw, all the while he is getting incentive to do this). you befriend him, than you take him back to homeless strip and let him see how far hes come. Usually they will want to stay where they now are (poverty to middle class). (this can also apply to helping other countries start an economy.)

Society now has two contributors

Scenario 2

You find a homeless guy and give him a few basic college courses and job specific training. You than give the homeless guy your job since the job specific training was for you. You than take the homeless guys clothes are a while and go sit on the corner with his bucket as he works your job. You feel warm fuzzies because you helped out society.

Society still has one, very inferior contributor.



The left generally wants to do #1.

The theory seems nice - what is breaking it?

They do not succeed very well at it many times. That class of people seems to be expanding over the past 40+ years. Why?

 

[Lalakai]

i think there are several origins of the sense of hatred for outsourcing.

Loyalty. For years many workers have given the companies what they wanted in terms of labor and quality and commitment, only to have it taken away and sent to a place where the premium is on wages. But the companies still want us to buy their product and often tout the benefits of buying "American made".

Taxes and benefits. here i'm on slightly weaker ground, but by moving out of country, there is a significant reduction in taxes and benefits paid, while the company still avoids some hefty import fees.

Market. The US market is one of the biggest consumers in the world and the companies want to keep that access, but they don't want to pay the workers, who buy their products.

sorry but one of the first things i look at is where a product is manufactored. even my kids try and avoid buying products from China and many of the Asian countries. The companies are getting huge profits while workers make pennies per hour, work in some of the nastiest conditions, while CEO's make millions in benefits. American workers are part of the cause also, having retirement and health care packages that are breaking many companies, while most Americans have amoung the lowest savings levels for a developed country; they want to retire and have someone else pay for it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Outsourcing, as currently practiced, will eventually destroy the market for the goods being outsourced. The use of credit on every level, huge balance of payments deficits, and negative savings rates merely confirm that the process of looting continues unabated. Which doesn't really matter to those at the top, at all. They're exploiting the lag time between cause and effect rather handsomely at the moment, and will be so wealthy and so diversified worldwide that their personal position will be unassailable. Well, unless they get caught by an angry mob before they can get to the airport...