Dell

That's a rather impractical way to look at things, considering we still have
to make a living. Blind free market trade is not a panacea for all the
world's economic ills. What you propose can lead to economic collapse in
nations that have higher standards of living, and higher wages. You see,
it's not simply a matter of not being able to compete. It's not a level
playing field to begin with. If you want a level playing field, then either
the competing worker in the foreign country needs to make a wage similar to
Americans, or the American worker needs to work for poverty-level wages. How
do you see that as a practical solution? It simply ISN'T. You cannot have an
American working for poverty-level wages to compete with someone in a
country whose cost of living more closely fits his meager wages.

But your idea of "competing" is unreasonable to the point of being an
impossibility. How do you expect me as an American requiring a wage
commensurate with our costs of living, to compete with someone in India
making 2 dollars an hour? There is no competing with that. You are saying
that we shouldn't do anything about it. That's nonsense in my book. You
cannot simply throw up your hands and say, "well that's the free market, so
tough!". I still have to make a living. You say no one has a right to a job.
That may be true, but no one has a right to expect completely free trade in
the face of UNFAIR competition either, when the wage difference is so
dramatic. The two different labor pools are inherently incompatible as far
as competition is concerned.

Sorry, but I shouldn't have to expect to work for 2 dollars per hour in
order to compete with your idea of economic nature. It's only that way if we
allow it to be so. There is "free" trade and then there is "fair" trade. I'm
a supporter of the second, not necessarily the first, because the first is
not a guarantee of the second. Free AND fair trade cannot possibly exist on
all levels between two countries with radically differing average wage
levels. It simply will not work without harming one of the countries. And
that is not the goal of trade. it makes no sense to pursue such a goal
knowing it will wind up harming you in the end. Thats where we are with
India and the tens of thousands of IT jobs they getting from US-based
companies who are trying increase their profits at the expense of the work
force.

 

Unfair competition? Sorry-I see it as a matter of choice. If the cost of
living in American is too high (actually, this is a misnomer too-what's
actually too high is the cost of the way I *choose* to live) then I
should move elsewhere.

What's needed is the removal of governmental barriers to both free trade
& travel.

Remember, a government is a group of people who band together to force
others to either do or not do something that the first group desires.
The main difference between a government and a gang is that a government
will *sometimes* use force to create a fair situation. Usually however,
both governments & gangs use force (actual or threatened) simply to
protect their members from competition. Sorry, but I just don't buy into
that.

 

So you are saying that all these IT people who are losing jobs to Indians,
should move to India (or a suitable facsimile thereof) to get a job so that
their cost of living will decrease? That's simply a ridiculous solution.
What's needed is sensible trade policy when dealing with countries with
insanely cheap labor forces. You simply cannot expect people living a decent
middle-class (or even lower class) lifestyle in the US to suddenly lower
their standard of living so far as to make the poverty wages of India work
for them. That's plainly insane. Ecomomies, businesses and trade cannot be
completely unregulated, and still serve the public good. Yours is an
unworkable capitalist idealist's position that helps nothing but the
corporation, and frequently victimizes the worker. Completely unregulated
capitalism can be just as dangerous as a socialist or communist state. It
puts all the money and power in the hands of a few wealthy and powerful, and
leaves the workers as a faceless commodity that is treated as such, with no
concern for their well being or ability to provide for a family. You would
see us return to the 1920s, and 30s with companies like Standard Oil
mastering huge monopolies, and unregulated capitalism at it's finest (or
worst). Labor-busting, no benefits, no insurance and workers paid poor man's
wages, then you have the frequently unsafe working conditions, the list goes
on. Yes, capitalism left completely alone and unregulated has certainly
produced some monumental things, but usually on the backs of it's workers
who didn't get to share in the benefits of the company's extreme wealth.

 

In order for Calvin's plan to work, along with me settling for a lower cost
of living, people need to drop prices of things like apartments, food,
water, electricity, clothing, etc. Otherwise, I work about 52 hours a week
right now at two part time jobs and I can not afford to live on my own. If
I had to work 52 hours a week and make 1/3 of what I make now, I'd
basically be living on the streets.

--
AIM: FrznFoodClerk
email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
website: under construction
Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
email/IM for rates/services

 

Because change is difficult you say "I cannot do this". He who starts
the change has a hard time of it-does that make the change less worth
doing? While I don't advocate that the end justifies the means,
shouldn't the end be taken into consideration?

If I advocate for noone else then who will advocate for me? If I work
solely to benefit myself then who will work to benefit me? The greatest
good for me comes from working towards the greatest good for all. I
don't expect to convince anyone else but I don't feel free to cease
making the effort just because I don't expect to be successful-waiting
until success is guaranteed before you try is the best recipe I know of
for failure.

 

Yeah it should, and the end is that if I had to live off of half of what I
make now, in this country, I would not live at all. I would be making well
below the poverty line. The problem with your idea is that it requires all
companies in the US to charge the same amount (after exchange) for stuff
here as in India, which isn't going to happen. The root of the problem is
there is no system set up so that US companies have to pay the same amount
for overseas workers as US workers, and overseas nations like India do not
have the high cost of living we have. They can afford to make 1/2 what I
would make and not be starving on a street corner.

--
AIM: FrznFoodClerk
email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
website: under construction
Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
email/IM for rates/services

 

Precisely. Somehow I think he'd have a different opinion if his job was
exported to a third-world country and he was expected to compete with
someone that makes 1/10th of his salary, and does the same job. Somehow I
doubt he would shake his head, and say "well the guy in India can do the job
cheaper that I can, so he deserved to have my job". There is no "deserving"
either way. It just amounts to who is willing to fight for their jobs. When
you have no possible way to compete with someone in another country, then
you do what you can to swing the pendulum in your direction. That may amount
to erecting trade barriers, but so be it.

 

No, I'd move to India, live like the guy trying to replace me, and prove
that either I was better at my job than (s)he or that I wasn't. And,
after proving that I was best at my job I would then decide whether or
not I liked it well enough to continue to live in India or give it up,
move back to the US, and find the best job that I could here. If it
didn't let me live as well here as I would have in India then doing that
would be a bad decision. Sometimes I make bad decisions-but I don't try
to disguise that fact by claiming the bad results were because someone
else 'done me wrong'.

 

So in order to fight for 1/10 my current salary, I should learn a
completely different speaking and written language, a different culture,
fly halfway around the world with no guarentee of a roof over my head or
food to eat, to prove I'm better than someone else? As bad as current
officials may be, at least I can see there are worse picks.

--
AIM: FrznFoodClerk
email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
website: under construction
Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
email/IM for rates/services

 

Plus...what's the chances of an American gettin' hired for a menial
computer job in a land of mostly Indians?

I don't think they have Affirmative Action over there! lol


Have a nice week...

Trent

If the cheese isn't yours...its Nacho cheese, man!

 

Yeah, right. By that statement you just proved my point that your idea of
what people should do in that situation is pure insanity, and completely
unrealistic for most people.

 

I can't help but think there HAS to be good CEO material in India and
China...good, competent people who have no desire or need for 15,000 square
foot homes or Mercedes Benzes... I wonder when shareholders will demand
that executive searches be performed overseas???