[iWrite]

This is kind of a sister thread to my HP thread in that it discusses outsourcing to India...a lot of major companies are now firing U.S. workers and giving people in India our jobs. As mentioned in my other thread, I gave HP tech support in India my credit card number and it was grossly misused/abused to the tune of over $1000.

Not only is this repugnant, in my opinion, but guess what?

Our PERSONAL information is being disseminated on a global scale!

Yes, while Bush, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld are demanding that all persons entering the United States be subjected to fingerprinting and possible criminal background checks, apparently it is okay for U.S. companies to GIVE AWAY our personal information -- including critical information such as social security numbers, credit information, where we live, etc. INFO

EVEN UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ARE GIVING OUT THIS INFORMATION -- despite the fact that we supposedly have serious national security issues. It is truly a bizarre paradox: Allow the U.S. government and U.S. businesses to give out critically important personal information but at the same time attempt to lock down the United States in a permanent "terrorist threat" mentality that cites foreign countries as a source of concern.

READ MORE HERE

Thoughts?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Thoughts?

If you're concerned about jobs being outsourced to other nations, stop expecting such high earnings. What do you think you can do about companies outsourcing your jobs without introducing some serious socialism into your economy?

[iWrite]

Socialism? If you're going to start an argument for socialism then make a GOOD argument -- I don't think socialism has anything to do with this.

(And, speaking of which, socialism is why the Canadian health system fails and people needing GOOD healthcare options cross into the U.S. for help...a socialism discussion needs to be in the Political Lounge, BTW.)

I'm talking about PERSONAL SECURITY issues such as my credit information.

For all I know, my credit information is up for sale to the highest bidder somewhere else in the world.

[Mastrap]

If you've got a cellphone it is possible to trace your movement with pinpoint accuracy.
If you pay for anything by credit card, then again you leave a highly visible trail of your movements.
If you book your holiday tickets online, if you order pizza on the phone, if you're sending an email, if you're posting on macnn.... you get the picture.

Welcome to globalisation.

PS: The Canadian health service is offering a solid if unexceptional service to all. The US health service is failing, except for the very rich and the very poor. /topic

[sanity assassin]

Not sure what's the link with India here. You should have more to fear about your personal info. getting into the hands of criminals in the US, or Europe.

Anyway, it's just theway the world works, might seem crummy, but most of the stuff in my kitchen comes from Asia, whereas it used to be made here. Doesn'y bother me at all since we can't compete on price, and labour, but know what? we find ways to survive, and do other things.

[Developer]

Originally posted by iWrite:
For all I know, my credit information is up for sale to the highest bidder somewhere else in the world.

Are you saying Indian HP employees are stealing customer's credit card information? Just because of their nationality?

I would call that racist.

[Mastrap]

Agreed with Developer. I can't see the difference between my personal info being held in the US or in India.

Especially as US data protection sucks majorly when compared to European law.

[iWrite]

<sigh>

NO DEVELOPER.

If I wanted to say it had to do with RACE I would have SAID so.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE.

It has to do with:

1. Giving out personal credit to people in another country.

2. Losing jobs to people in another country.

Okay, let me give more information.

When this issue with the INDIA HP TEAM charging my credit card REPEATEDLY for $400+ charges over several days, I went to my bank.

My bank said that they would address it.

However, one person at the bank said, "This is tricky because these charges are not originating under U.S. banking laws...they're originating from a foreign banking system. Therefore, I do not know how [this bank] will address this issue."

At that point the regional attorney for the bank was contacted and his office called back and gave my bank manager the HP fraud division number who was then contacted (in Palo Alto.)

HP promised to address it themselves rather than having the bank deal with it through other methods.

But, the attorney raised an issue which is this: Who IS legally responsible when a credit card number is willingly given to a foreign "catch" service (meaning, someone in another country -- business or person -- puts charges on the card) and it is misused or abused?

The customer (me/us/another person) GAVE out the number willingly...

So, if the card is misused/abused, is it really "STOLEN" or "FRAUDULENT" credit? Because the customer willingly gave out the number! So, proving that it was "fraud" is very difficult -- especially when those people are not in any U.S. state that has applicable laws.

Our bank, Bank of America and Citibank (which gave the credit line to our business) are both extremely concerned about this issue to the point where I gave them all of the documentation because who knows how many other people are going to have this issue occur? Who IS responsible for a mischarge?

Furthermore, what if HP refused to give back the credit?

Who does a person file against? HP? HP could say, "It isn't our problem."

In the beginning of this issue, that is exactly what HP said: "Please contact the India division/team because they are the only ones that can credit back the card." When I did that (after MANY hours of phone calls) the charges were NOT put back and furthermore, no one contacted me.

That was when I finally went to the bank with a dispute.

So, it is much more of a concern than people might realize.

[effgee]

iWrite,

I am not a lawyer (phew ) but it seems quite obvious that the company you entered into a legal agreement with (HP USA) is the entity you're dealing with in regards to any and all problems occuring through said contract.

Should a problem occur, it is not your problem whether HP chose to outsource their support division to Bangalore or to Hicksville, TN. If HP, respectively their representatives, bring this up as a reason why they can't refund your money any earlier, I would make it very clear in my conversation that I don't give a flying f�ck about their internal structure - it's their problem, not yours. If they can charge your credit card within a day, there's no reason, none whatsoever, why they shouldn't be able to credit your account within the same timeframe.

Their calculation seems to be two-fold: Not only do they save a substantial amount of money by outsourcing their labor costs to low-income countries, they also earn money a second time, when they keep your money for a month and cash in the interest accumulated during these 30 days. In a single case that might amount only to a few pennies - but if they have tens of thousands of such incidents each year, which isn't too hard to imagine, those few pennies will most likely add up to several hundred thousand bucks ... it's a scam, nothing else.

As far as the general practice of outsourcing is concerned - imho, this is mostly a consumer problem. Vote with your wallet, make yourself heard and let these companies know that you don't mind paying $99 instead of $69 for a printer as long as you get the quality (for the product and the follow-up support) you expect.

This support-outsourcing thing is just the latest fad in generating income - if a sufficient amount of people complain about it, it will change - even though I don't think enough people (consumers) will care.

In regards to the privacy implications I agree with the other posters that there's not much of a difference between HP in the US and their daughter/subcontractor in India.

As far as your bank account and the charges are concerned however, you have a contract with HP in the US, not India - so don't let them (= HP drones) feed you bullshit about how they can't accomodate you any faster than 30 days - send them a bill for the amount they charged you plus the interest you have to pay on your credit card - I would not accept anything else if I were in your shoes.

[iWrite]

That's one of the best posts I've seen on this topic, period.

It's actually the same attitude adopted by the bank that called HP when they gave them the runaround (after they gave me the runaround) also.

Anyway, it seems that it's cleared up, but you know what? If I did not have online banking and check the accounts every single day to see what is going on, they would have held the money until I received the bill.

Then their stance is "It takes between 30 to 60 days to issue a credit refund."

Yes, I would say that it IS a huge scam, yes.

They think, "Well, we're not holding the consumer/customer's money...we're actually holding the money of the credit card company, so no harm is done." (That's what one person actually said to the bank officer!)

But, the customer DOES pay because there is interest on that credit charge, you see, if it isn't paid off?

It's just a huge fiasco and very disturbing.

People here are reading it and tucking the information away in the backs of their minds, but it really doesn't concern them because they haven't had the experience. I realize that.

But, I just want to get the word out about what to expect if you have a problem with an HP product or if you plan to buy an HP product, that's all.

Maybe some of what I've dealt with will help someone else avoid the same kind of issues or pitfalls.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Socialism? If you're going to start an argument for socialism then make a GOOD argument -- I don't think socialism has anything to do with this.

I'm not making an arguement for Socialism. All I'm saying is that without it, there's not much you can do to stop jobs from being outsourced to other nations where the labour is cheaper.

[iWrite]

Oh, I agree with that, I think!

That's why Canada has VERY LITTLE "outsourcing" because it's against their laws.

In fact, that's why HP still has a Canadian HP tech support team there!

(I only know this because the HP folks from Canada told me that themselves this week, but they're still very worried about their jobs.)

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I'm not making an arguement for Socialism. All I'm saying is that without it, there's not much you can do to stop jobs from being outsourced to other nations where the labour is cheaper.

Yes you can. If people buy from companies who don't outsouce jobs more than they buy from companies who do (in significant enough numbers) then it becomes more profitable to hire US workers even if you have to pay them more. When the companies who are outsourcing see this, they will move jobs back to the US in order to increase profits. Competition is what allows the consumer to have a say in the market, and capitalism, not socialism, is what competition arises from.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Yes you can. If people buy from companies who don't outsouce jobs more than they buy from companies who do (in significant enough numbers) then it becomes more profitable to hire US workers even if you have to pay them more. When the companies who are outsourcing see this, they will move jobs back to the US in order to increase profits. Competition is what allows the consumer to have a say in the market, and capitalism, not socialism, is what competition arises from.

Of course, but that is almost more fantastic than Karl Marx's Eutopia. Your scenario forgets one minor factor: consumers will choose to buy the cheaper product regardless of where it is made or where it's tech support is. Competition gives the consumers a say in the market, but it also drives producers to keep costs down in order to get the consumer to choose their product over the competition. Having manufacturing and tech support off-shore reduces the cost of the product and makes it the cheaper one on the shelf. How are you going to convince consumers that it is worth it to pay more for a product that doesn't profit from off-shore labour?

[11011001]

I know many products are supposed to have where they are manufactured. Does this apply to software products to? Is it a requirement that a software company say product-X was programmed in India?

If one is going to start boycotting companies that outsource, we are going to need to know if they are doing this or not.

For example, the nearest software box to me right now is Halo. I just looked it over several times, and it says nothing about where the game was developed.

[Judge_Fire]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Our PERSONAL information is being disseminated on a global scale!

I understand your concern for storing personal information at untrusted locations. However, it isn't any safer stored inside the US, so I don't really see what India has to do with it. Or don't your credit card companies take full responsibility for misuse?

Credit card information can be intercepted at any grocery store by day and then be used criminally by night, and in some cases it'll be used for trading for other goods at a global level. And there you go again.

In the end, a lot of information on all of us will be stored all around the world by immoral corporations on leaky servers full of holes.

J

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Of course, but that is almost more fantastic than Karl Marx's Eutopia. Your scenario forgets one minor factor: consumers will choose to buy the cheaper product regardless of where it is made or where it's tech support is. Competition gives the consumers a say in the market, but it also drives producers to keep costs down in order to get the consumer to choose their product over the competition. Having manufacturing and tech support off-shore reduces the cost of the product and makes it the cheaper one on the shelf. How are you going to convince consumers that it is worth it to pay more for a product that doesn't profit from off-shore labour?

The consumers are still exercising their say. It just happens that most of them care more about the monetary prices they pay for their goods than the other prices. The system is working as it should, and the majority of consumers simply don't agree with you (and me) that it's worth temporarily higher prices to prevent outsourcing.

The cost of democracy is that the minority doesn't get what they want.

[itai195]

I don't really see how outsourcing is a universally bad thing. Off-shoring doesn't necessarily just reduce the cost of the product -- in many cases it makes development of the product feasible. For one example, there are many Silicon Valley startups that outsource some of their jobs to engineers in India. Most of their jobs are still in the US. If it weren't for outsourcing, many of those companies probably wouldn't have the capital to develop a product and wouldn't have any jobs in the US. Would you prefer Indian companies to develop and sell the newest technology products, keeping all the benefits in India? In the long run, US companies will have to have access to global resources in order to compete globally.

I suppose it's worth mentioning the classical argument that protectionism would hinder exports, not exactly a good thing during a time of record trade deficits.

BTW, if you're going to start boycotting from companies that outsource, you're not going to have many things left to buy. You know, even Apple outsources most of their manufacturing.

I also wouldn't make light of the security issue regarding outsourcing. I'd say that's probably the primary reason my own firm hasn't outsourced any jobs yet.

[nonhuman]

Outsourcing could be a good thing, if everyone did it. But I don't think many foreign companies outsource their jobs to the US. This creates something of a problem because the number of jobs in the US decreases while the number of people increases.

[itai195]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Outsourcing could be a good thing, if everyone did it. But I don't think many foreign companies outsource their jobs to the US. This creates something of a problem because the number of jobs in the US decreases while the number of people increases.

Actually, the size of the US workforce is going to decrease radically when all of the baby boomers retire.

Also, who is to say that companies can't reinvest their outsourcing savings in more US jobs so that they can develop more products and compete in more markets?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by itai195:
Actually, the size of the US workforce is going to decrease radically when all of the baby boomers retire.

That is a very good point that I hadn't thought of, and I don't think I've heard anyone else bring up before. That aught to have a significant impact on the job market/economy.

Also, who is to say that companies can't reinvest their outsourcing savings in more US jobs so that they can develop more products and compete in more markets?

Have they been doing this? Will they? I don't see how it would increase their profits so I don't see why they would.

[tomdavidson69]

Outsourcing is done on profit-based terms. If labour was cheapest and viable in France, that's where the centre would be.

That's one of the major upsides of outsourcing, the downside is that the 'parent' company loses a piece of control. Hence the loss of quality. Also I wouldn't be surprised if that call centre handled support for more than one company so it is not dependent on HP. Thus they are not going to make the same amount of effort as they would if HP was their only customer.

One thing that iWrite (i think) said was HP "giving people in India our jobs". Without sounding too militant, they are not your jobs. The people would best fit the criteria the employer is looking for be that cost, skills, flexibility etc gets the job. If the US could provide labour that was cost-viable then the call-centres will come back. It's the same story everywhere!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
The consumers are still exercising their say. It just happens that most of them care more about the monetary prices they pay for their goods than the other prices. The system is working as it should, and the majority of consumers simply don't agree with you (and me) that it's worth temporarily higher prices to prevent outsourcing.

The cost of democracy is that the minority doesn't get what they want.

I'm not saying that the system isn't working, nor am I criticizing it. All I'm saying is that the system does not really provide a means by which jobs can be kept national.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I'm not saying that the system isn't working, nor am I criticizing it. All I'm saying is that the system does not really provide a means by which jobs can be kept national.

But it does. Just because the average consumer doesn't care enough about jobs being kept national to pay a little more for their stuff, doesn't meant that the system doesn't provide a way for jobs to be kept national. "All" that has to be done is that the average consumer needs to be convinced that it's better for him to pay a little more to buy things from companies that don't outsource and there you go. It's just like that "buy US-made" ad campaign a couple years back.

[Mediaman_12]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
But it does. Just because the average consumer doesn't care enough about jobs being kept national to pay a little more for their stuff, doesn't meant that the system doesn't provide a way for jobs to be kept national. "All" that has to be done is that the average consumer needs to be convinced that it's better for him to pay a little more to buy things from companies that don't outsource and there you go. It's just like that "buy US-made" ad campaign a couple years back.

But in the long run most people don't care about anything except the price of stuff. The same argument can be said about most things i.e. Shop at your local store not at the New Wal*Mart, it may cost more but it helps the local economy. Most people just don't give a damn go to Wal*Mart anyway. Outsourcing of jobs to India is exactly the same, just on a Global level.

Lot's of the people who complain about this are just as big a hypocrites as the people who protest about a Cell Phone tower near them, and then spend the entire day yapping on there phone.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
But it does. Just because the average consumer doesn't care enough about jobs being kept national to pay a little more for their stuff, doesn't meant that the system doesn't provide a way for jobs to be kept national. "All" that has to be done is that the average consumer needs to be convinced that it's better for him to pay a little more to buy things from companies that don't outsource and there you go. It's just like that "buy US-made" ad campaign a couple years back.

Ok. Fair enough, but it is the nature of the system for those in it to seek the lowest cost. How do you convince the consumer that there is value in paying more for a product to keep jobs national, remembering that the "buy US-made" campaign failed and that our high standard of living is based largely on our cheap material goods made through outsourcing.

People have been trying for a very long time to convince the average consumer that it is better to pay a little more to purchase from companies that don't outsource. The average consumer disagrees. You cannot blame HP (and others) for outsourcing; you can only blame the average consumer.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Mediaman_12:
But in the long run most people don't care about anything except the price of stuff. The same argument can be said about most things i.e. Shop at your local store not at the New Wal*Mart, it may cost more but it helps the local economy. Most people just don't give a damn go to Wal*Mart anyway. Outsourcing of jobs to India is exactly the same, just on a Global level.

Lot's of the people who complain about this are just as big a hypocrites as the people who protest about a Cell Phone tower near them, and then spend the entire day yapping on there phone.

Which is exactly the point. If only a small minority of people care enough to want something done, what motivation is there for it to be done?

Why should companies stop outsourcing if most people don't care?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Ok. Fair enough, but it is the nature of the system for those in it to seek the lowest cost. How do you convince the consumer that there is value in paying more for a product to keep jobs national, remembering that the "buy US-made" campaign failed and that our high standard of living is based largely on our cheap material goods made through outsourcing.

People have been trying for a very long time to convince the average consumer that it is better to pay a little more to purchase from companies that don't outsource. The average consumer disagrees. You cannot blame HP (and others) for outsourcing; you can only blame the average consumer.

I agree, I just don't agree that this is evidence of a problem with the system. I'm sure there are companies out there that don't outsource, and if one actually cares enough one can go out of their way to shop there. If enough people actually do care enough then they'll make a difference. Otherwise they won't.

I can only think of one way to effectively change the average (American) consumer's mind on this issue. Demonstrate (or at least suggest) that outsourcing makes us more vulnerable to terrorism. That would probably do the trick right quick.

[brachiator]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
You cannot blame HP (and others) for outsourcing; you can only blame the average consumer.

Sure I can -- and I do. HP and its ilk reap enormous benefits from being US corporations, including protection of their property by US police and military forces, hugely important interventions by US diplomats and trade representatives in the international and global economic/trade systems, and gigantic windfalls in the form of publically financed infrastructure, research, and training of personnel. For HP to abandon the American worker for a lower-paid foreign worker is for HP to piss all over not only the American workers who built the company but also the American taxpayers who protected and nurtured not only the firm but the entire industry.

And lets not forget the outrageous lengths these "American" firms and their corporate chieftains and majority shareholders go to to avoid paying taxes...

If these guys really want to play in an unregulated market, lets strip their firms of their corporate charters and limited liability, and require payback of every cent of taxpayer-financed R&D -- including the training costs of every engineer trained with public moneys at Stanford and Berkeley, etc. (yes, of course I know that Stanford is private, but it gets a lot of public money). After these free-marketeers have paid back what they owe, let them venture forth onto the global stage as rugged individuals -- not "Americans" -- no US military protection of their overseas assets, no US police protection of their domestic assets, no US Trade Representative to protest unkind foreign treatment, no recourse to US courts when another privateer breaches a "contract", no access to publically financed research or facilities, no FDIC insurance of their bank accounts.

At long last, have these firms no decency, no sense of duty and gratitude?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I agree, I just don't agree that this is evidence of a problem with the system. I'm sure there are companies out there that don't outsource, and if one actually cares enough one can go out of their way to shop there. If enough people actually do care enough then they'll make a difference. Otherwise they won't.

I can only think of one way to effectively change the average (American) consumer's mind on this issue. Demonstrate (or at least suggest) that outsourcing makes us more vulnerable to terrorism. That would probably do the trick right quick.

But, does it make you more vulnerable to terrorism?

[villalobos]

Originally posted by iWrite:
...a lot of major companies are now firing U.S. workers and giving people in India our jobs. ...[/url]

Thoughts? [/B]

Your jobs eh? Why are they your jobs? Is your name on these jobs? Do you have a supreme right to these jobs that nobody from a lesser country (race?) might have?
Interesting concept.

villa

[brachiator]

Originally posted by villalobos:
Your jobs eh? Why are they your jobs? Is your name on these jobs? Do you have a supreme right to these jobs that nobody from a lesser country (race?) might have?
Interesting concept.

villa

This isn't a racial issue, although the hype surrounding it may be racially-motivated -- lots more publicity when jobs go to India than to, say, Ireland, another outsourcing haven.

Americans -- of all skin tones -- have a superior claim to these jobs because the companies offering the jobs are American companies, and have taken advantage of the benefits conferred by being American. Sort of a "dance with them what brung ya" thing.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally posted by brachiator:
This isn't a racial issue, although the hype surrounding it may be racially-motivated -- lots more publicity when jobs go to India than to, say, Ireland, another outsourcing haven.

Americans -- of all skin tones -- have a superior claim to these jobs because the companies offering the jobs are American companies, and have taken advantage of the benefits conferred by being American. Sort of a "dance with them what brung ya" thing.

Plus the fact that a USA citizen will be more likely to buy a HP product than an Indian one (per capita)

[deekay1]

a) the personal information you post on the internet or give people over the phone is going to be sold to the highest bidder and those, who the ones you gave the information to can profit from (standard procedure, especially in the us!). i'm with the rest of the crowd here who say that it really doen't make any fu<king difference wether this information is sold to a company in seattle, singapore, or san sebastian. as long as people can profit from the information you provide them, they will sell it.

b) the whole thing about "buying national" is a neat idea, but almost impossible to see through. though some products may (still) be produced only in a single country, most will be assembled from "components" that come from various different countries (even if they say they were "made in the us").
as long as people will be able to profit from cheap labor and lower production standards in so called "third world countries", they will ship their jobs exactly to those locations.

[Judge_Fire]

Originally posted by brachiator:
Americans -- of all skin tones -- have a superior claim to these jobs because the companies offering the jobs are American companies, and have taken advantage of the benefits conferred by being American. Sort of a "dance with them what brung ya" thing.

Large companies aren't necessarily all that American, even if their headquarters are located there.

Ownership is already globally distributed through the capital market and corporate structures can reveal a surprising history of mergers and acquisitions. Who owns who? I wish there was a mega-chart.

Businesses increasingly consider themselves global entities, with the ability to relocate not only their workforce, but their management and headquarters, too. Change taxation too much and you'll notice this tendency.

J

[Mastrap]

Exactly. I am going through the process of building a company from scratch right now.
Although we are still tiny we do take global realities into account.

We were offered production facilities in India but decided against it. For us the savings on offer weren't big enough to outweigh the potential customer service nightmare.
We decided to manufacture our books in the US and the UK instead.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by itai195:
Actually, the size of the US workforce is going to decrease radically when all of the baby boomers retire.

Of course, all the baby boomers leaving active, money-making, tax-paying status to become senior citizens will open up a whole 'nother can of beans with regard to health care and social support costs.

-s*

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
PS: The Canadian health service is offering a solid if unexceptional service to all. The US health service is failing, except for the very rich and the very poor. /topic

Hmm, I am neither, and it has never failed for me. :/

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Developer:
Are you saying Indian HP employees are stealing customer's credit card information? Just because of their nationality?

I would call that racist.

[iWrite]

Funny pic, Zimphire.

First, addressing the "race" issue with respect to people from India.

It's bullsh*t.

My son's best friend is from India, little boy named Mark.

My personal banker at Bank of America is from India.

My veterinarian is from India (and he is a sikh, also, complete with turban and long beard -- doesn't get more ethnic than that.)

My personal physician that I LOVE is from India.

I live in a upper middle class neighborhood and area and there are a LOT of VERY well-educated people from India living here alongside us and they hold professional positions in the area...

I would MUCH rather live alongside them than live alongside some of the "white trash" that I could live alongside of...think "Jerry Springer." Believe me, there is a LOT of that in this country.

As I say to people, I have NEVER met a dysfunctional Indian family. They value their lives, other people's lives, value education, and work hard.

Now addressing THIS issue, it has NOTHING to do with another RACE...it has to do with another COUNTRY...ANY COUNTRY.

brachiator said
For HP to abandon the American worker for a lower-paid foreign worker is for HP to piss all over not only the American workers who built the company but also the American taxpayers who protected and nurtured not only the firm but the entire industry.

And lets not forget the outrageous lengths these "American" firms and their corporate chieftains and majority shareholders go to to avoid paying taxes...

If these guys really want to play in an unregulated market, lets strip their firms of their corporate charters and limited liability, and require payback of every cent of taxpayer-financed R&D -- including the training costs of every engineer trained with public moneys at Stanford and Berkeley, etc. (yes, of course I know that Stanford is private, but it gets a lot of public money). After these free-marketeers have paid back what they owe, let them venture forth onto the global stage as rugged individuals -- not "Americans" -- no US military protection of their overseas assets, no US police protection of their domestic assets, no US Trade Representative to protest unkind foreign treatment, no recourse to US courts when another privateer breaches a "contract", no access to publically financed research or facilities, no FDIC insurance of their bank accounts.

What an excellent thing to say! VERY TRUE!

They take the jobs away from Americans, Americans who made the company what it is through hard work and buying the same product over many years...

Give it to someone else in another country with reckless disregard for Americans who built the company through hard work and consumerism...

Then expect Americans to keep their loyalty to the product!

Like he said, HP still expects Americans to retain their loyalty...they're betting on the idea that most Americans won't KNOW that the company is in another country and that the money they spend on the product owned by an American company doesn't feed or house an American...it is feeding and housing people in another country.

I wish there was a law that said that if a certain percentage of the workforce is outsourced to another country then that company is no longer considered an "American" company and protected under American laws.

If HP wants to hire Indian people then bring them to THIS country and give them a job HERE.

Lastly, has anyone considered the thought that HP is EXPLOITING those people who are poor and will work for much less? Yes, if you want to make a case for "racism" there it is right there: "Let's take these jobs overseas to poor people who will make this product cheaply for wealthier people."

[iWrite]

One more thing?

My neighbor, whose son is my son's best friend and is from India, said this about this issue:

"If HP valued the Indian worker then HP would bring the Indian worker to this country and give them all of the benefits and rights and OPPORTUNITIES that they deserve and do not get when in India. Like health insurance and pension and other benefits. They get none of that. They know that tomorrow they may be out of a job and they will not have much opportunity to find another position because so many people need work. These Fortune 500 companies do not pay them enough but string them along with vague promises of eventually being transferred to the United States, which is where they truly want to be, but they will never come to the United States and the companies are mistreating them."

He is a biochemical engineer working for GE and GE paid for him to come to this country 12 years ago and he has been here since, he and his wife. THAT is the "right" way to do things: Pay money and bring your VALUED employee to THIS country. Companies like HP that have outsourced, called "BPOs," will not do that -- because they want to exploit and take advantage of poor people -- er, "labor." Their actions prove that they do not truly value the worker overseas...they are just using them.

He also says that American firms are exploiting not only India, but other poor countries. He truly believes that handling business by outsourcing not only devalues and demoralizes Americans, but also the people in the country that was outsourced to. He specifically said that companies like HP (and GE -- who he works for) FIGHT TO PAY THE LEAST AMOUNT OF MONEY POSSIBLE TO THE CITIZENS IN THE POOR COUNTRY WHERE THEY WANT THEIR PRODUCTS MADE.

It's just another perspective -- one from someone who has a better idea than any of us speculators.

[FeLiZeCaT]

got to see this documentary: "The Corporation".

They got this great website as well:

http://www.thecorporation.tv

[iWrite]

Hey, thanks...I will!

[James L]

I have been a victim of CC fraud, in America. I have seen people sell their houses to pay the bill for their surgery, in America. I have seen America get beat in the World Courts for various poor trade practices, such as the tariffs they are leveling against countries on certain imports right now.

Incidently, the World Health Organization rates Canada's health care system far ahead of America's on a regular basis.

...just to keep things in perspective!

[OwlBoy]

Wired's Current issue's cover story is this.

-Owl

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
But, does it make you more vulnerable to terrorism?

I seriously doubt it, but telling people that it does would be one effective way of shifting consumer attitudes.

[brachiator]

Originally posted by Judge_Fire:
Large companies aren't necessarily all that American, even if their headquarters are located there.

Ownership is already globally distributed through the capital market and corporate structures can reveal a surprising history of mergers and acquisitions. Who owns who? I wish there was a mega-chart.

Businesses increasingly consider themselves global entities, with the ability to relocate not only their workforce, but their management and headquarters, too. Change taxation too much and you'll notice this tendency.

J

I'm not talking about determining corporate nationality by ownership or by the ability to take advantage of global resources.

I'm talking only about determining nationality and duty based on (1) which country made it possible for the company to exist and thrive, and (2) of which country's benefits/protection a company continues to avail itself. Although, admittedly, on the last point, Unocal could be considered Burmese, and Nike Indonesian, considering how those firms (and others) profited so nicely from the brutality of those military dictatorships!

At base, corporations are so powerful, and high-investment businesses possible, because of (among other factors) the corporation is treated as an entity unto itself, and the owners/shareholders maintain extremely limited liability for the corporation's conduct.

This is true in Anglo-American law, most Western law, and the global business/trade system, generally. It is a formula for both successful entrepreneurship/progress, and corporate irresponsibility -- especially with globally dispersed shareholding.

Originally posted by Judge_Fire:
Businesses increasingly consider themselves global entities, with the ability to relocate not only their workforce, but their management and headquarters, too. Change taxation too much and you'll notice this tendency.

Sure, and this is the essence of capitalism. But, it brutalizes people in the short run, and in the long run, as Keynes said, we are all dead. Anyway, it is not necessarily inevitable. The problem is the lack of a force equal to the capitalistic pressure, to counter its most destructive tendencies. Organized labor, social justice, and consumer activists could be one such counterweight, but they've been emasculated here in the US. Government could be another counterweight, but it has similarly been co-opted and corrupted by the business sector.

Capitalism and free-trade are great, extremely productive and progressive. But, they are also hugely corrosive if unchecked, and in today's political climate anyone who criticizes the inevitable downsides or proposes ways to mitigate them is labelled pro-terror, soft on defense, anti-competitive, a socialist -- becuase the common, unexamined and overly simplistic wisdom is that capitalism and free-trade are unmitigated good, and regulation is bad. I mean, look at this thread, for example. I'm not sure exactly where Wiskedjak is coming from, but no "socialism" is necessary, and the term itself is either designed to smear people in favor of sensible regulation and limits to business' power, or at the least a self-defeating reference to sensible steps. No one wants to be a "socialist," after all -- why, the New York Times would never print your letters to the editor!

[iWrite]

And the NYTimes is inherently left-leaning, also.



I agree with you brachiator.

The U.S. sees itself as the #1 country in terms of consumables -- which is probably true -- and allowing commerce to progress in various ways with little or no regard to whether or not the economic infrastructure of the U.S. is supplying any of those consumables is not good. The attitude is, "We don't care. We don't want those jobs anyway. We'll get OTHER jobs." Truly, that is the attitude.

That was the attitude when the trickle to outsourcing began, but it began with things like rubber tennis shoes and textiles. On the NYTimes front page today (Sunday, 25 January) it discusses how baseballs are manufactured.

The baseball workers typically make about $2,750 a year. A baseball player in the United States makes, on average, about $2,377,000, the Players Association says.

"It is hard work, and sometimes it messes up your hands, warps your fingers and hurts your shoulders," said Overly Monge, 37. Temperatures inside the factory can rise to 90 to 95 degrees, he said, and when they do, "we suffocate."

He makes $55 a week after 13 years at the baseball factory, barely above Costa Rica's minimum wage. After he pays for the necessities of life, he has about $2 a day left over for himself, his wife and daughter. His salary, adjusted for inflation, is about the same as when he started.

Rawlings was awarded a 54,000-square-foot free-trade zone by Costa Rica. It pays no taxes. It imports duty-free the makings of millions of baseballs � cores from the Muscle Shoals Rubber Company in Batesville, Miss.; yarn from D&T Spinning in Ludlow, Vt.; cowhide from Tennessee Tanning in Tullahoma, Tenn.

Its operations are a harbinger of a pending free-trade accord between Costa Rica and the United States; negotiations on that agreement, expected to bring more such ventures to Costa Rica, are in their final stages.

Few baseball players are aware of where the ball comes from, said Charles Kernaghan, the executive director of the National Labor Committee, an international workers' rights group based in New York. "But if the players would actually stand up, it would have enormous consequences" for the baseball workers, including better pay, he said.

Some past employees say they had to quit after developing repetitive stress injuries, and they have the medical records to prove it.

"The work deforms your fingers and arms," said Maribel Alezondo Brenes, 36, who worked seven years at the plant � until her doctor told her to stop sewing baseballs.

In short, this is just one story of thousands: People exploited to manufacture an item that Americans will buy for less.

Shoes are another example: Women will pay hundreds of dollars for a pair of Manolos but they cost$20 to $50 to manufacture.

And who hasn't heard references about the "sweatshop" textile factories that are manufacturing designer clothing designed by celebrities -- or at least endorsed by them? Think Kathie Lee Gifford and "Sean Jean" (P. Diddy) clothing lines. It doesn't end.

Most recent defection out-of-country is Levi Strauss: Gone, gone, gone.

The bottom line is that outsourcing is ugly from any angle that you look at it. The bottom line is that U.S. companies simply want to get away with as much as possible out of the desire to make more -- and keep more. Screw the American who has held the position, screw the team, screw the poor exploited third-world country, screw the third-world people who earn pennies on the dollar, have no employment or health rights, and end up with permanent injuries and remain impoverished. Screw them all -- and the U.S. government is looking the other way and even rewarding these companies by allowing them to not pay taxes...further encouraging these practices!

Meanwhile, the government's bottom line seems to be American national vulnerability when it comes to security (and election campaigns)...but where free trade is concerned, anything goes.

Truly a bizarre situation. Meanwhile, Americans will continue to lose jobs and trust me, the tech jobs are now leaving. It was okay to ignore the menial jobs that went away, but now the higher-paying tech jobs are leaving and people are starting to sit up and take notice and protest.

But, the problem is, the process that streamlines those jobs out of this country is already in place, endorsed by this government, and too easy and profitable for companies to ignore.

Meanwhile, another indication of our terrorist stance softening when it comes to foreign people taking American jobs is the most recent policy adopted by Bush: "It's okay for Mexicans to come into the country and take the menial jobs that are here because Americans don't want them anyway. Just remember, just like companies that outsource to poor countries, we will not give them the same rights and benefits that our own citizens have." Implicit in that stance is that such rights and benefits cost companies money.

I see it as nothing more than collusion between big business and big government. Nothing more, nothing less.

[brachiator]

Originally posted by iWrite:
On the NYTimes front page today (Sunday, 25 January) it discusses how baseballs are manufactured.

And in other news, I hear that Pudge Rodriguez will be signing a $40 million contract with the Detroit Tigers. He seems like a stand-up guy, look at his position on the union contract while he was negotiating his deal all this time. Maybe he'll step up to the plate to demand pay increases and better working conditions for the baseball-makers. Maybe he'll show the sort of moral fiber that the Michael Jordans ("Republicans buy shoes, too") and Tiger Woodses ("I had to cross the picket line because I promised I'd shoot the commercial") of the world don't seem to have.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Of course, all the baby boomers leaving active, money-making, tax-paying status to become senior citizens will open up a whole 'nother can of beans with regard to health care and social support costs.

-s*

No doubt, and it won't be pretty. It's about time someone seriously started worrying about this, because we're going to have a problem on both sides of the coin -- more senior citizens claiming services and less workers paying taxes.

But the point stands, there will be jobs. In light of that reality, the opinions of anti-outsourcers are pretty shortsighted. There's an article about this in Business from a month ago I think, it laid out the facts pretty clearly for anyone interested in the issue.

In short, this is just one story of thousands: People exploited to manufacture an item that Americans will buy for less.

It's not just Americans buying these products, you know.

I don't see how outsourcing tech jobs to India exploits Indian workers. India has a large supply of highly skilled tech workers... isn't this the kind of work they WANT to do? It's not as if there are a lot of new creative tech companies sprouting up in India. As far as bringing the workers to this country goes, didn't there used to be a similar ruckus over H1B visas? As a matter of fact, I think they've substantially lowered the annual quota for those visas.

He makes $55 a week after 13 years at the baseball factory, barely above Costa Rica's minimum wage. After he pays for the necessities of life, he has about $2 a day left over for himself, his wife and daughter. His salary, adjusted for inflation, is about the same as when he started.

You know, there are plenty of Americans who are in the same boat. The issues regarding pay and benefits seem kind of irrelevant to the core of your argument anyway. Would you still object to outsourcing if the foreign workers received comparable pay and benefits to American workers (adjusted for cost of living)? My understanding is that Indian tech workers do receive that, btw.