Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations strongm on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Call Centres any one? 1
- Thread starter vbkris
- Start date
Here's a good article on the subject:
One quote from the article: "Critics are pushing for legislation that would halt projects from being sent abroad if they're funded by tax dollars. Others want tax incentives to help keep business on U.S. soil."
Susan
[sup]Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone you may still exist, but you have ceased to live. - Mark Twain[/sup]
One quote from the article: "Critics are pushing for legislation that would halt projects from being sent abroad if they're funded by tax dollars. Others want tax incentives to help keep business on U.S. soil."
Susan
[sup]Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone you may still exist, but you have ceased to live. - Mark Twain[/sup]
The countries they're sending the labour to have low costs. This means that, although their people generally live a slightly lower standard of life, they also pay less for their goods. So the amount they're paying them is around equivalent to the amount US workers would receive. This works out much cheaper for companies. Where's the fairness in that!?!?
The universal exchange rate obviously isn't up to scratch.
The universal exchange rate obviously isn't up to scratch.
- Thread starter
- #4
absolutely.. but the angle matters here. r u looking from an indian's point of view? let me tell u what might seem paltry in the US is a treasure to us... i aint saying we are mad after money. its just that the concept of fairness crops up only in discussions like this. any indian will agree that they are exploited. but given the chance they will go to the US...
Known is handfull, Unknown is worldfull
Known is handfull, Unknown is worldfull
Well I'm not saying the standards in India are the greatest, but they are better than poorest and things are cheaper. More eastern countries seem the same. The truth is that Western Corporations exploit Westerners a lot.
But yeah, it will make the world more equal as long as ALL the jobs don't go abroad.
But yeah, it will make the world more equal as long as ALL the jobs don't go abroad.
-
1
- #7
It won't necessarily ever equal out, until the entire playing field is level. For example, a typical small American manufacturing shop pays many thousands per month in environmental fees (solvent disposal, etc), and other hidden fees--consider all the extra nickle-and-dime safety stuff, like goggles, earplugs, special antislip mats---all of that is mandatory. What about the $20,000 it costs a tiny mom & pop shop to put in that mandated handicapped ramp--when no one who works their is handicapped? That alone can kill a quarter's profit for a small shop.
I could go on, but in the third world countries, they dump the solvent in the river behind the plant; when a worker gets his arm taken off because they didn't spend the $1000 for the new belt-shroud on the drill press, the send him out the back door with a bandage and open the front and get the next desparate person willing to risk his life to rise above the level of living in a corrugated shack. And handicapped access? You've got to be kidding.
Those costs are only a few of what foriegn firms don't have to pay, and it all adds up to the difference between someone buying their widget and not ours. I'm all for globalization, but not until the field is level.
--jsteph
I could go on, but in the third world countries, they dump the solvent in the river behind the plant; when a worker gets his arm taken off because they didn't spend the $1000 for the new belt-shroud on the drill press, the send him out the back door with a bandage and open the front and get the next desparate person willing to risk his life to rise above the level of living in a corrugated shack. And handicapped access? You've got to be kidding.
Those costs are only a few of what foriegn firms don't have to pay, and it all adds up to the difference between someone buying their widget and not ours. I'm all for globalization, but not until the field is level.
--jsteph
- Thread starter
- #8
jsteph:
i would like to comment on what u said bout the compensation. its not like third world companies are not paying. its just that they cannot. i accept third world countries simply dont have any infrastructure. but any book on history will tell u how our culture and traditional methods were crushed by the so called developed nation. its not as if i am complaining. its just that its a fact...
Known is handfull, Unknown is worldfull
i would like to comment on what u said bout the compensation. its not like third world companies are not paying. its just that they cannot. i accept third world countries simply dont have any infrastructure. but any book on history will tell u how our culture and traditional methods were crushed by the so called developed nation. its not as if i am complaining. its just that its a fact...
Known is handfull, Unknown is worldfull
another link, i thought it was interesting anyways ...
vbkris,
I really didn't directly mention compensation, but now I will. What my point really was is that the price of, say a widget (or the contract price for providing call-center service) isn't entirely determined by the wage for the worker, but all the extraneous costs involved in running a business.
And it's a fact that in the U.S., we have so many laws and regulations (which I happen to agree with in concept), that drive up the final cost of our product or service to the point where we lose the sale or the contract.
For the environmental stuff, it often seems as if the U.S. is the only one who tries to keep the air on this earth clean. An analogy would be my kids: If Kid A (a radiohead fan) came home from school and cleaned up his room, which he shares with Kid B, he has less time to play--but he's required to do it and knows that in the long run, it's better. Then Kid B comes home, messes up what Kid A has just cleaned, and waltzes off and has more time to play. Is that fair, that Kid B isn't required to clean the room that they share--which in turn negates all the extra work that Kid A did to the detriment of his play time?
U.S. workers tend to be more productive, so I would argue that if a U.S. factory pays $12 per hour for a factory worker to make widgets, that company can still compete on overall value--which takes quality, reliability, and service into consideration with a widget made in, say, Mexico where the wage may be $3 per hour.
All sorts of things contribute to this difference in productivity: For example the $3 per hour worker, living in a dirt floor corrugated steel shack, will tend to have higher absenteeism, lower education, and scores of other human-related attributes that directly impact the quality and efficency of the plant which depends on him/her. Jobs that don't require any attributes that can be directly affected by a differences in human's performance are mostly automated and done by robot or some other high-technology.
--jsteph
I really didn't directly mention compensation, but now I will. What my point really was is that the price of, say a widget (or the contract price for providing call-center service) isn't entirely determined by the wage for the worker, but all the extraneous costs involved in running a business.
And it's a fact that in the U.S., we have so many laws and regulations (which I happen to agree with in concept), that drive up the final cost of our product or service to the point where we lose the sale or the contract.
For the environmental stuff, it often seems as if the U.S. is the only one who tries to keep the air on this earth clean. An analogy would be my kids: If Kid A (a radiohead fan) came home from school and cleaned up his room, which he shares with Kid B, he has less time to play--but he's required to do it and knows that in the long run, it's better. Then Kid B comes home, messes up what Kid A has just cleaned, and waltzes off and has more time to play. Is that fair, that Kid B isn't required to clean the room that they share--which in turn negates all the extra work that Kid A did to the detriment of his play time?
U.S. workers tend to be more productive, so I would argue that if a U.S. factory pays $12 per hour for a factory worker to make widgets, that company can still compete on overall value--which takes quality, reliability, and service into consideration with a widget made in, say, Mexico where the wage may be $3 per hour.
All sorts of things contribute to this difference in productivity: For example the $3 per hour worker, living in a dirt floor corrugated steel shack, will tend to have higher absenteeism, lower education, and scores of other human-related attributes that directly impact the quality and efficency of the plant which depends on him/her. Jobs that don't require any attributes that can be directly affected by a differences in human's performance are mostly automated and done by robot or some other high-technology.
--jsteph
- Thread starter
- #11
hi,
in 3rd world country the problem is infrastructure (the keyword) let it be politics or industry. since we lack it we are still polluting. and let me tell u something- the U.S may be keeping its country pollution free, but the companies from U.S (E.g-Coke) are not ready to take the same steps in India. therefore it is only the law that matters. no one is bothered whether he/she is hurting the environment/general public.
Known is handfull, Unknown is worldfull
in 3rd world country the problem is infrastructure (the keyword) let it be politics or industry. since we lack it we are still polluting. and let me tell u something- the U.S may be keeping its country pollution free, but the companies from U.S (E.g-Coke) are not ready to take the same steps in India. therefore it is only the law that matters. no one is bothered whether he/she is hurting the environment/general public.
Known is handfull, Unknown is worldfull
vbkis,
Exactly my point--U.S. can move our jobs offshore because the other countries aren't willing to keep the earth clean.
It's not the CEO's or the companies who care about the earth--they'd dump toxic solvents in their mother's backyard if it would shave a penny from their costs. It's the governments--whether it be Mexico or India--they are the ones who either do or don't take the steps to clean the envioronment.
Currently they feel that it's more important to take the jobs and screw the environment. Will they clean up once their standard of living is improved? Maybe--but then they will loose those jobs to the next country willing to sell out the earth for jobs.
I know I sound like a tree-hugger--but I'm not. For all it matters, I could raze a forest while clubbing seals with a giant can of aerosol taken from the backseat of my gas guzzling SUV (I'm kidding of course) and it wouldn't make my views different on this subject--the crux is that if one country puts itself at a massive competitive disadvantage for the sake of the earth--and another country effecively not only negates the good we've done, but also takes our manufacturing and other job sectors--then there is something wrong with the playing field.
My personal preference of course would be to do the right thing and have all countries who trade globally be bound to some universal Environmental ans Worker Saftey standards.
--jsteph
Exactly my point--U.S. can move our jobs offshore because the other countries aren't willing to keep the earth clean.
It's not the CEO's or the companies who care about the earth--they'd dump toxic solvents in their mother's backyard if it would shave a penny from their costs. It's the governments--whether it be Mexico or India--they are the ones who either do or don't take the steps to clean the envioronment.
Currently they feel that it's more important to take the jobs and screw the environment. Will they clean up once their standard of living is improved? Maybe--but then they will loose those jobs to the next country willing to sell out the earth for jobs.
I know I sound like a tree-hugger--but I'm not. For all it matters, I could raze a forest while clubbing seals with a giant can of aerosol taken from the backseat of my gas guzzling SUV (I'm kidding of course) and it wouldn't make my views different on this subject--the crux is that if one country puts itself at a massive competitive disadvantage for the sake of the earth--and another country effecively not only negates the good we've done, but also takes our manufacturing and other job sectors--then there is something wrong with the playing field.
My personal preference of course would be to do the right thing and have all countries who trade globally be bound to some universal Environmental ans Worker Saftey standards.
--jsteph
jsteph -
Interesting that you state that the $3 per hour worker will have higher absenteeism - have you a source on this? I would have thought the $3 an hour worker would potentially have more dependents and less welfare to fall back on, which might increase rather than decrease attendance.
Interesting that you state that the $3 per hour worker will have higher absenteeism - have you a source on this? I would have thought the $3 an hour worker would potentially have more dependents and less welfare to fall back on, which might increase rather than decrease attendance.
LesleyW,
Someone living in a corrugated shack is far more likely to be sick. And while this may sound 'elitist', someone making $3 per hour is more likely to drink that paycheck away. More dependants means more kids home sick to watch (especially in the case of single parenthood--which also is more common in that economic sector). All of these are leading causes of absenteeism.
No, I don't have hard numbers on this. But it wouldn't be difficult to come up with numbers show that, if all the costs of OSHA regs, EPA Regs, Insurance costs, and the multitude of other government regulations, were removed from a typical U.S. plant's balance sheet--the price of their product would be competetive with a similar product made in Mexico or India--even though the U.S. wages may be 4 times higher.
--jsteph
Someone living in a corrugated shack is far more likely to be sick. And while this may sound 'elitist', someone making $3 per hour is more likely to drink that paycheck away. More dependants means more kids home sick to watch (especially in the case of single parenthood--which also is more common in that economic sector). All of these are leading causes of absenteeism.
No, I don't have hard numbers on this. But it wouldn't be difficult to come up with numbers show that, if all the costs of OSHA regs, EPA Regs, Insurance costs, and the multitude of other government regulations, were removed from a typical U.S. plant's balance sheet--the price of their product would be competetive with a similar product made in Mexico or India--even though the U.S. wages may be 4 times higher.
--jsteph
jsteph,
Your comments on low payed workers may apply in the US, I wouldn't say they necessarily apply in the countries getting the outsourced work. For a start many of the workers will not drink because of their religious beliefs. If they really do stay at home to look after sick kids then there's some deceitful aid agencies around - the stories I've read tend to be that the kids are out working themselves & nobody can afford to take time off unless they're at deaths door. Do you have any evidence that single parenthood is more common amongst these demographic groups?
As an aside may I also point out that the rest of the developed world has made quite a fuss about the perceived lack of commitment the US has shown towards environmental issues.
Sharon
Your comments on low payed workers may apply in the US, I wouldn't say they necessarily apply in the countries getting the outsourced work. For a start many of the workers will not drink because of their religious beliefs. If they really do stay at home to look after sick kids then there's some deceitful aid agencies around - the stories I've read tend to be that the kids are out working themselves & nobody can afford to take time off unless they're at deaths door. Do you have any evidence that single parenthood is more common amongst these demographic groups?
As an aside may I also point out that the rest of the developed world has made quite a fuss about the perceived lack of commitment the US has shown towards environmental issues.
Sharon
Jsteph makes very good points about environmental aspects and H & S and the messy bedroom scenario.
Vbkris, you say Indian cultures (I take it you're talking about India) have been crushed by developed influences (I also take it you mean things like the British prescence in India, etc). But, if you think about it, I doubt these jobs would be available in India if this had not taken place, due to lack of English-speaking workers, communication problems between countries, etc.
I reckon the solution to the problem is to give the companies a choice: if they wish to have overseas workers on lower standards, etc, then they must move all their company's assets to the same country and along with the same standards, and then the developed nations can decide whether they still wish to import such products or services. This would balance things a little more. The alternative to the company is to stay within a set of standards, ie, the US.
Vbkris, you say Indian cultures (I take it you're talking about India) have been crushed by developed influences (I also take it you mean things like the British prescence in India, etc). But, if you think about it, I doubt these jobs would be available in India if this had not taken place, due to lack of English-speaking workers, communication problems between countries, etc.
I reckon the solution to the problem is to give the companies a choice: if they wish to have overseas workers on lower standards, etc, then they must move all their company's assets to the same country and along with the same standards, and then the developed nations can decide whether they still wish to import such products or services. This would balance things a little more. The alternative to the company is to stay within a set of standards, ie, the US.
- Thread starter
- #17
plastic:
like i said i aint complaining bout the jobs. but thats just about the only positive effect the british culture seems to have had - globalisation. other than that they have lef our economy in shambles (that is 50 years before). like any oher country india does not hold just one culture. its diverse. u have to see it to believe it. and we also have our local problems...
Known is handfull, Unknown is worldfull
like i said i aint complaining bout the jobs. but thats just about the only positive effect the british culture seems to have had - globalisation. other than that they have lef our economy in shambles (that is 50 years before). like any oher country india does not hold just one culture. its diverse. u have to see it to believe it. and we also have our local problems...
Known is handfull, Unknown is worldfull
sharon,
<< For a start many of the workers will not drink because of their religious beliefs>>
Ok, so they'll be facing mecca and praying 5 times a day--when in the U.S. a typical worker gets 1 break per day?
Ok, I'm being facetious.
As for single parenthood I have seen numbers for the U.S. (and I don't see why the trend would differ greatly in, say, Mexico) showing that the vast majority of single parents are decidedly low-income. You can argue about which came first--the chicken or the egg--since divorced mothers tend to drop a notch or two in income--but the fact is that single parenthood families on average have vastly lower incomes than dual-parenthood families.
--jsteph
<< For a start many of the workers will not drink because of their religious beliefs>>
Ok, so they'll be facing mecca and praying 5 times a day--when in the U.S. a typical worker gets 1 break per day?
Ok, I'm being facetious.
As for single parenthood I have seen numbers for the U.S. (and I don't see why the trend would differ greatly in, say, Mexico) showing that the vast majority of single parents are decidedly low-income. You can argue about which came first--the chicken or the egg--since divorced mothers tend to drop a notch or two in income--but the fact is that single parenthood families on average have vastly lower incomes than dual-parenthood families.
--jsteph
guestgulkan
Technical User
vbkris wrote earlier... "any book on history will tell u how our culture and traditional methods were crushed by the so called developed nation."
As a semi-third world originee, I must say that I totally disagree with this statement, and consider it utter nonsense! and is just a lame excuse for the 'gimme gimme ' attitude that some of these countries are adopting.
A major problem with these countries is piss-poor leadership on the part of their respective government and politicians ( gross corruption, malpractice, embezzlement, human rights violations, mass murders, attempted genocides etc..) a high proportion of whom are just plain criminals.
Billions of tax dollars (some of it mine) has been wasted on some of these countries, and most of it end up in the pockets of these despots.
As a semi-third world originee, I must say that I totally disagree with this statement, and consider it utter nonsense! and is just a lame excuse for the 'gimme gimme ' attitude that some of these countries are adopting.
A major problem with these countries is piss-poor leadership on the part of their respective government and politicians ( gross corruption, malpractice, embezzlement, human rights violations, mass murders, attempted genocides etc..) a high proportion of whom are just plain criminals.
Billions of tax dollars (some of it mine) has been wasted on some of these countries, and most of it end up in the pockets of these despots.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question