in reply to Re^3: When are you moving to India to find a better job?
in thread When are you moving to India to find a better job?

When work goes overseas because a multinational corporation has means to underpay workers in another country, making them work in less protected environments and with less guarantees, I can say that "this is my goverment that gives the free market the right to do the wrong thing".

While I can partly agree with the mere economic argument (I've to think carefully about it, I admit), I really don't agree with the social implication of this "free market"; to this extent, regulation should be used to raise the conditions of the others and force corporations to treat them as they deserve. This is something to keep in mind the next time we eat a banana, for example.

Flavio
perl -ple'$_=reverse' <<<ti.xittelop@oivalf

Don't fool yourself.
  • Comment on Re^4: When are you moving to India to find a better job?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: When are you moving to India to find a better job?
by merlyn (Sage) on Sep 07, 2005 at 16:36 UTC
    means to underpay workers
    You had me until there. What do you consider "underpay"? What if it's higher than the typical local standard-of-living pay? I know that when the word got out about Nike hiring all these overseas workers, that the workers were clamoring for these jobs, because they were better conditions and higher pay than the typical local jobs.

    Just because someone wants $20/hr to do something in the US, and a guy in India will do it for $3/hr, can you still feel bad if that Indian guy would have gotten $1.50/hr anywhere else? I don't think so. I think what we're seeing is that Americans have been living high on the hog, and the rest of the world has suffered, and that eventually, it'll all sort itself out globally.

    -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
    Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

[reply]
      Good point, you're right on this. But I hope that I had you in what followed (making them work in less protected environments and with less guarantees), because a broken leg should be the same all over the world.

      Flavio
      perl -ple'$_=reverse' <<<ti.xittelop@oivalf

      Don't fool yourself.
[reply]
        because a broken leg should be the same all over the world.
        The Western world should be upset about the unfair competition ... keeping taxes low by not having a public health system. Private health care is probably more effective but causes unnecessary suffering to people not covered by it. Those low taxes results in higher investments.

        US use this totally inhuman treatment of many workers to outcompete Europe and Canada!

        (The above is a bit tounge-in-cheek. The US health care system is fscked, but so is my local Swedish public system. :-( )

        Seriously, you have no sense of history.

        The workers at many of those factories probably have better health care then the rest of the working population of that country.

        If you want to argue, give good references showing why the economists are wrong, who argue that those factory jobs (etc) better the economy and people's life in all of Asia.

        It was less than a century we had child workers in the west. Human rights for women isn't exactly new, either.

[reply]

In Section Past Polls