Racist jokes on MeFi and AskMe January 10, 2004 1:17 PM Subscribe
What's happening here? Is it just me, or are these comments simply inappropriate? Or has humor devolved to pseudo-racist jabs?
is 2sheets's comment racist, or is it reporting racism by someone else? it seems to me to be a clumsy attack on "muslim-haters" rather than "sand-niggers". fwiw.
posted by andrew cooke at 1:35 PM on January 10, 2004
posted by andrew cooke at 1:35 PM on January 10, 2004
Later in the thread, 2sheets made it clear that he was using racial slurs as a rhetorical device.
I don't what the hell is with mischief.
posted by Ljubljana at 1:35 PM on January 10, 2004
I don't what the hell is with mischief.
posted by Ljubljana at 1:35 PM on January 10, 2004
2sheets is clearly using what some call "irony", of the sledgehammer type. Mischief, on the other hand, is either attempting the same thing and failing, or has revealed himself as a complete bigoted bastard. I'm assuming he justifies his hatred of foreigners with the knowledge he never plans to be one. I await his indignant reubttal.
posted by Jimbob at 1:40 PM on January 10, 2004
posted by Jimbob at 1:40 PM on January 10, 2004
"I don't what the hell is with mischief."
SpecialK nailed it.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:40 PM on January 10, 2004
SpecialK nailed it.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:40 PM on January 10, 2004
You're really stretching it to claim that 2sheets was being racist. I agree, it's not a level of discourse I'd be fond of sharing in my living room. You can say his language was inappropriate, but don't go twisting his intentions.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:46 PM on January 10, 2004
posted by Space Coyote at 1:46 PM on January 10, 2004
You can say his language was inappropriate, but don't go twisting his intentions.
Word. As it were.
posted by y2karl at 1:51 PM on January 10, 2004
Word. As it were.
posted by y2karl at 1:51 PM on January 10, 2004
Well, perhaps I should have been more clear. And Space Coyote, you are correct that I cannot assume that he is a racist, since actions speak louder than words and I don't know the guy personally. However, his poor choice of words, coupled with a response that read like a backpedal (along the lines of, "I robbed the bank to help you beef up security"), made me feel like he was disingenuous at best, and at worst, abusing his privilege to post here.
I feel the hatred caused by 9-11 as well. I understand the fear felt by those who were most hurt by the disaster and can empathize. Therefore, I don't feel the need to use hyperbole to describe the current state of affairs. With language such as his, you alienate those you are trying to sympathize with.
posted by BlueTrain at 1:54 PM on January 10, 2004
I feel the hatred caused by 9-11 as well. I understand the fear felt by those who were most hurt by the disaster and can empathize. Therefore, I don't feel the need to use hyperbole to describe the current state of affairs. With language such as his, you alienate those you are trying to sympathize with.
posted by BlueTrain at 1:54 PM on January 10, 2004
I don't see the sense of posting as if it was someone elses way of wording it. We all know that there are people that talk like that...I personally don't need to be "waken up" about it which seems to be his goal. It's just a matter of not putting a lot of thought into a statement, rather saying things to evoke emotion or response. Close to the definition of trolling.
posted by samsara at 1:59 PM on January 10, 2004
posted by samsara at 1:59 PM on January 10, 2004
It showed the mindset and vocabulary of many regarding middle-easterners who also don't give a shit about the truth of anything Bush said...there's nothing wrong with that, and worse than that is said on radio and in some blogs every day.
posted by amberglow at 2:09 PM on January 10, 2004
posted by amberglow at 2:09 PM on January 10, 2004
Both instances are pretty lame, 2sheets' is crude and clumsy even knowing that he's just repeating what he has heard (we've all probably heard it, but it doesn't help to make your point in an intelligent forum) and I don't know what the hell is up with mischeif, but I removed it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:16 PM on January 10, 2004
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:16 PM on January 10, 2004
it doesn't help to make your point in an intelligent forum
I would think that that would have to be judged on a case by case basis. Blanket dismissal of a huge chunk of social reality hobbles one's ability to highlight and discuss (and oppose) it.
posted by rushmc at 2:25 PM on January 10, 2004
I would think that that would have to be judged on a case by case basis. Blanket dismissal of a huge chunk of social reality hobbles one's ability to highlight and discuss (and oppose) it.
posted by rushmc at 2:25 PM on January 10, 2004
is mischief any more offensive than this? or is objecting to foreigners ok as long as you don't use bad words?
[disclaimer - i live in a less than first world country and work for an american employer. for which i'm very grateful.]
posted by andrew cooke at 2:49 PM on January 10, 2004
[disclaimer - i live in a less than first world country and work for an american employer. for which i'm very grateful.]
posted by andrew cooke at 2:49 PM on January 10, 2004
What comments? They've been removed, so there's no fuel for this thread.
But I for one am fine with that - I don't care to know what mischief said, being familiar with his posting style.
posted by orange swan at 3:09 PM on January 10, 2004
But I for one am fine with that - I don't care to know what mischief said, being familiar with his posting style.
posted by orange swan at 3:09 PM on January 10, 2004
andrew, please explain why i'm racist for wanting to change my isp? This is the second place you've posted it. And it's what's offensive.
As a consumer, I can choose where to spend my money--If I don't want to give my money ($50/month) to a company that's firing people who need jobs at a time when there are no jobs so they can show more earnings on their profit sheets (they're not passing their savings along to the customers--unlike clothing or other goods manufacturers), then that's my right. The jobs are moving overseas whether I stay with them or not. I can only show my displeasure by cancelling my service with them. Does that make me racist?
posted by amberglow at 4:22 PM on January 10, 2004
As a consumer, I can choose where to spend my money--If I don't want to give my money ($50/month) to a company that's firing people who need jobs at a time when there are no jobs so they can show more earnings on their profit sheets (they're not passing their savings along to the customers--unlike clothing or other goods manufacturers), then that's my right. The jobs are moving overseas whether I stay with them or not. I can only show my displeasure by cancelling my service with them. Does that make me racist?
posted by amberglow at 4:22 PM on January 10, 2004
Andrew,
Mischief's comments were probably removed less for being offensive and more for his just being a total ass for no reason and not contributing anything to the thread.
The thread you mentioned may be offensive to you but i am sure it was not phrased to deliberately piss anyone off.
posted by Recockulous at 4:29 PM on January 10, 2004
Mischief's comments were probably removed less for being offensive and more for his just being a total ass for no reason and not contributing anything to the thread.
The thread you mentioned may be offensive to you but i am sure it was not phrased to deliberately piss anyone off.
posted by Recockulous at 4:29 PM on January 10, 2004
I would think that that would have to be judged on a case by case basis
That's exactly what I've done here. It was too much hyperbole and screwed the whole thread up, which is why I said it was bad.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:35 PM on January 10, 2004
That's exactly what I've done here. It was too much hyperbole and screwed the whole thread up, which is why I said it was bad.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:35 PM on January 10, 2004
I have to say, amberglow, that I also was rather offended by the assumptions behind your question. Sorry. That may speak more to differences between our political, social and economic beliefs than anything (obviously you didn't INTEND to offend), but at the same time, I can't help but think that you, and many others, would take offense if someone posted a question to AskMe along the lines of "I am moving to San Francisco with my family soon. Can anyone tell me which schools I can enroll my children in that have no homosexuals as teachers? I'm really worried about this, and want to protect my children and vote with my dollars by not supporting that which I deem immoral." You may view that as a more extreme example, and perhaps it is, but the principle I think is the same, and it is certainly easy to imagine someone's wanting to ask such a question. It seems to me that this forum might be best served by the avoidance of politically-charged questions altogether if it is to not turn into a place for argument and bad feeling rather than answers.
posted by rushmc at 5:26 PM on January 10, 2004
posted by rushmc at 5:26 PM on January 10, 2004
I am moving to San Francisco with my family soon. Can anyone tell me which schools I can enroll my children in that have no homosexuals as teachers?
Nope. Not even close. Not to speak for amberglow, but that's one of the most disconnected analogies I've seen on this site. What amberglow seems to be saying is that Earthlink has made a decision to move jobs out of this country and lay off a shitload of people in the process. Because of the decision to lay off these folks, and I expect its affect on our current job market, he doesn't want to support them anymore.
Save that crap for some actual racism.
posted by eyeballkid at 5:33 PM on January 10, 2004
Nope. Not even close. Not to speak for amberglow, but that's one of the most disconnected analogies I've seen on this site. What amberglow seems to be saying is that Earthlink has made a decision to move jobs out of this country and lay off a shitload of people in the process. Because of the decision to lay off these folks, and I expect its affect on our current job market, he doesn't want to support them anymore.
Save that crap for some actual racism.
posted by eyeballkid at 5:33 PM on January 10, 2004
"I expect its affect on our current job market"
effect.
posted by eyeballkid at 5:37 PM on January 10, 2004
effect.
posted by eyeballkid at 5:37 PM on January 10, 2004
What amberglow seems to be saying is that Earthlink has made a decision to move jobs out of this country and lay off a shitload of people in the process.
I'm well aware of what he's saying. The issue is that not everyone agrees that that is an appropriate thing to say. Bias against someone because they happen to work in another country is still bias. The question of the quality of the tech support decreasing when it is shifted overseas is a separate issue. He should have stuck to that one.
posted by rushmc at 5:47 PM on January 10, 2004
I'm well aware of what he's saying. The issue is that not everyone agrees that that is an appropriate thing to say. Bias against someone because they happen to work in another country is still bias. The question of the quality of the tech support decreasing when it is shifted overseas is a separate issue. He should have stuck to that one.
posted by rushmc at 5:47 PM on January 10, 2004
what eyeballkid said : >
I certainly didn't mean to offend, and rush: As consumers (which i believe is the only thing that unites us all as americans) I think we're all justified in choosing goods and services for whatever reasons we want--there's a reason fundamentalists don't move to San Francisco or NYC in great numbers, and that's their right, whether we agree with their reasons or not. I actually mixed 2 reasons in my askme question (the micro and the macro) because it struck me when i heard of Earthlink's news that this is something that affects many many people, and there is something I can do about it beyond this one instance, with the albeit very limited power i wield as a consumer. I just know too many people without work I guess, or am becoming a protectionist in my almost-middle-age.
I'm glad the askme thread itself didn't become a flamefest, but am disappointed (and offended) that andrew took it here and in the legacy thread.
posted by amberglow at 5:47 PM on January 10, 2004
I certainly didn't mean to offend, and rush: As consumers (which i believe is the only thing that unites us all as americans) I think we're all justified in choosing goods and services for whatever reasons we want--there's a reason fundamentalists don't move to San Francisco or NYC in great numbers, and that's their right, whether we agree with their reasons or not. I actually mixed 2 reasons in my askme question (the micro and the macro) because it struck me when i heard of Earthlink's news that this is something that affects many many people, and there is something I can do about it beyond this one instance, with the albeit very limited power i wield as a consumer. I just know too many people without work I guess, or am becoming a protectionist in my almost-middle-age.
I'm glad the askme thread itself didn't become a flamefest, but am disappointed (and offended) that andrew took it here and in the legacy thread.
posted by amberglow at 5:47 PM on January 10, 2004
Bias against someone because they happen to work in another country is still bias.
It's the company's decision (a company I pay 50/month to for a service) regarding the jobs at their disposal that I am unhappy with. If I wasn't clear then i apologize for any misunderstanding.
posted by amberglow at 5:51 PM on January 10, 2004
It's the company's decision (a company I pay 50/month to for a service) regarding the jobs at their disposal that I am unhappy with. If I wasn't clear then i apologize for any misunderstanding.
posted by amberglow at 5:51 PM on January 10, 2004
that's right, Hildago--my words hurt andrew, and his hurt me.
posted by amberglow at 6:02 PM on January 10, 2004
posted by amberglow at 6:02 PM on January 10, 2004
American citizens actively choosing to support the floundering American economy: Racist.
American citizens purchasing American goods and services to support the floundering American economy: Racist.
American citizens seeking advice on supporting companies whose goods and services are produced in America: Racist.
"Made in USA" labels, advertisements: Racist.
American goods and services: Racist.
Americans: Racist.
America: Racist.
Thank you for watching Absurd Reductionist Theatre, most certainly not produced in the United States of America.
posted by Danelope at 6:25 PM on January 10, 2004
American citizens purchasing American goods and services to support the floundering American economy: Racist.
American citizens seeking advice on supporting companies whose goods and services are produced in America: Racist.
"Made in USA" labels, advertisements: Racist.
American goods and services: Racist.
Americans: Racist.
America: Racist.
Thank you for watching Absurd Reductionist Theatre, most certainly not produced in the United States of America.
posted by Danelope at 6:25 PM on January 10, 2004
Racist? For suggesting that he would have a better chance of finding a job in his homeland than here in a country that only produced 1000 new jobs in December? Sheesh!
posted by mischief at 6:47 PM on January 10, 2004
posted by mischief at 6:47 PM on January 10, 2004
Amberglow, you aren't being racist in the least. I'm sure you'd feel just the same even if the IP were hiring a group of expatriate Americans in the new country of operations. You are choosing to make decisions based on your opinion about what's best for the ECONOMY you live in, not the ethnicity or nationality you happen to be, and of course you have that right.
And rush, that homosexual teachers analogy is utterly ridiculous.
posted by orange swan at 6:51 PM on January 10, 2004
And rush, that homosexual teachers analogy is utterly ridiculous.
posted by orange swan at 6:51 PM on January 10, 2004
:: applauds at Danelope's performance ::
posted by eyeballkid at 7:22 PM on January 10, 2004
posted by eyeballkid at 7:22 PM on January 10, 2004
As consumers (which i believe is the only thing that unites us all as americans)
That's the saddest thing I've read all week. I hope you don't really believe that.
I'm glad the askme thread itself didn't become a flamefest
So am I, but I do think your wording of the question invited that, albeit unintentionally. Protectionist ideology is bound to provoke a reaction from those who disagree with it—as would the opposite attitude, no doubt. That's why the best questions are those worded neutrally so that the solution becomes the focus, not the agenda. (I also think you are perfectly entitled to spend your money any way you like; that was never my objection.)
And rush, that homosexual teachers analogy is utterly ridiculous.
No, actually it's not, but that's okay. I'm not interested in trying to persuade you.
posted by rushmc at 8:31 PM on January 10, 2004
That's the saddest thing I've read all week. I hope you don't really believe that.
I'm glad the askme thread itself didn't become a flamefest
So am I, but I do think your wording of the question invited that, albeit unintentionally. Protectionist ideology is bound to provoke a reaction from those who disagree with it—as would the opposite attitude, no doubt. That's why the best questions are those worded neutrally so that the solution becomes the focus, not the agenda. (I also think you are perfectly entitled to spend your money any way you like; that was never my objection.)
And rush, that homosexual teachers analogy is utterly ridiculous.
No, actually it's not, but that's okay. I'm not interested in trying to persuade you.
posted by rushmc at 8:31 PM on January 10, 2004
And Danelope? Stop manufacturing straw men to play off against. No one in this thread has tried to apply "racism" to any of those things.
posted by rushmc at 8:32 PM on January 10, 2004
posted by rushmc at 8:32 PM on January 10, 2004
I do believe it, rush, and it's not depressing or anything--just a fact...we're a deeply, deeply divided country about so many things that being consumers of goods, services, and entertainment is, in my opinion, the only thing we have in common. (we don't share beliefs, or values, or aspirations, or goals, or visions for the future, or...anything)
posted by amberglow at 8:46 PM on January 10, 2004
posted by amberglow at 8:46 PM on January 10, 2004
I feel guilty continuing on the side topic, but the thing about a job located in the US or Canada is that I can be reasonably sure that the employer is following some semblance of a labour code, is paying their workers something above minimum wage (though I think that should be higher, but that's a different issue) and is generally held to a higher standard. It's funny, actually, but everything that makes moving jobs overseas good for the bottom line comes from employers not having to follow as strict standards or pay their employees as well.
Your belief that you're doing a favour for some third world worker doesn't cancel out the fact that you've just taken away an American worker's livelihood.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:54 PM on January 10, 2004
Your belief that you're doing a favour for some third world worker doesn't cancel out the fact that you've just taken away an American worker's livelihood.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:54 PM on January 10, 2004
I can finally cross MeTalk Callout from my to-do list, but I am a bit disappointed it's over such an ordinary comment.
posted by mischief at 9:17 PM on January 10, 2004
posted by mischief at 9:17 PM on January 10, 2004
And Danelope? Stop manufacturing straw men to play off against. No one in this thread has tried to apply "racism" to any of those things.
I must concede that point to you, rushmc. It technically wasn't this thread, since that accusation was actually made by andrew cooke in his comment on MetaFilter, after which he pointed to this discussion in MetaTalk. Yes, it was only in that thread that amberglow's seeking advice on supporting companies whose goods and services are produced in America was dubbed racism.
But hey, there are semantics to quibble over and nits to be picked! I'd ask you to actually explain the relevance of your analogy, but "I'm not interested in trying to persuade you."
posted by Danelope at 9:19 PM on January 10, 2004
I must concede that point to you, rushmc. It technically wasn't this thread, since that accusation was actually made by andrew cooke in his comment on MetaFilter, after which he pointed to this discussion in MetaTalk. Yes, it was only in that thread that amberglow's seeking advice on supporting companies whose goods and services are produced in America was dubbed racism.
But hey, there are semantics to quibble over and nits to be picked! I'd ask you to actually explain the relevance of your analogy, but "I'm not interested in trying to persuade you."
posted by Danelope at 9:19 PM on January 10, 2004
I am a bit disappointed it's over such an ordinary comment
mischief, you called recockulous's boyfriend a "damn foreigner" after she asked for some advice on his behalf. That's not exactly par for course here, even at its worst. And obviously mathowie didn't think so either.
posted by Ljubljana at 4:35 AM on January 11, 2004
mischief, you called recockulous's boyfriend a "damn foreigner" after she asked for some advice on his behalf. That's not exactly par for course here, even at its worst. And obviously mathowie didn't think so either.
posted by Ljubljana at 4:35 AM on January 11, 2004
Unlike others, I don't think rushmc's point is entirely without merit. Cost-cutting is what companies do. The government could intervene but then America takes one more step away from free trade, the implications of which are very serious, in my opinion. If we must do the capitalism thing, let's do it properly. I do find the implication that a job abroad is less worthy of your dollar than a job at home somewhat unpalatable, but I'm prepared to accept that I'm in a minority.
posted by nthdegx at 4:48 AM on January 11, 2004
posted by nthdegx at 4:48 AM on January 11, 2004
The government could intervene but then America takes one more step away from free trade, the implications of which are very serious, in my opinion.
But we already have protectionist policies for all sorts of industries--agriculture, miltary-defense, corporate taxation, soon anti-spam laws, etc--those are all steps away from free trade.
And when the savings are passed on to me, like with clothing, and appliances, etc, I'm not as pissed about it--we have virtually no more manufacturing/factory jobs in the us--soon we'll have no service jobs either. What's left?
posted by amberglow at 7:56 AM on January 11, 2004
But we already have protectionist policies for all sorts of industries--agriculture, miltary-defense, corporate taxation, soon anti-spam laws, etc--those are all steps away from free trade.
And when the savings are passed on to me, like with clothing, and appliances, etc, I'm not as pissed about it--we have virtually no more manufacturing/factory jobs in the us--soon we'll have no service jobs either. What's left?
posted by amberglow at 7:56 AM on January 11, 2004
Yeah, I'm curious if you free-trade purists think it's perfectly OK if there are no jobs left in the US but burger-flipping. I might remark that Western economies were originally built on protectionism, switching to free trade only when industries were well enough established to be able to survive.
posted by languagehat at 8:07 AM on January 11, 2004
posted by languagehat at 8:07 AM on January 11, 2004
what is patriotism if not thinly veiled racism?
we can quibble over the distinction between state and race, and shift to using words like "xenophobe'', but the basic dirty facts remain - patriosm is an arbitrary divison of people that lets the good guys screw over the bad guys without qualm.
i understand that i'm picking a losing battle trying to explain this to u.s. americans since, in my experience, that country has a higher level of jingoism than almost any other (and i don't think this is entirely separate from that country's willingness to intefere with other countries, or, in extreme circumstances, go to war).
what's the assumption that underlies arguments against racism? that we are all human beings, equal in some moral sense. and what does patriotism say? that "we" are distinct from - implicitly different to - "them". it's litle more than synthetic (in that it's constructed on largely arbitrary political lines) racism.
in one thread amberglow welcomes the fact that rich people are not given an advantage over poor people when entering university. on another they berate the fact that poor people are being considered equally suitable for a particular job. the only difference is that in the first case, where equality appears to be in fashion, everyone is american. in the second case the objection to equality is that the rich are american and the poor are not.
to my eyes the parallels with racism are clear.
to me, at least, racism isn't about using banned words. it's not syntax - you can't write a simple program that can scan the text someone posts and flag it for racism or not. instead, racism is about the way we divide up the world. if there's a clear "us" and "them", on what basis is it made? what is the justification for discriminating against someone on their place of birth?
[on edit - reading that, i'm particularly disappointed that this needs to be said on "left-wing" mefi. wasn't it here that people were disgusted at the difference in treatment between american citizens and "foreigners" at guatanamo bay? even here, do people accept a different morality for americans and "the rest"?]
posted by andrew cooke at 8:20 AM on January 11, 2004
we can quibble over the distinction between state and race, and shift to using words like "xenophobe'', but the basic dirty facts remain - patriosm is an arbitrary divison of people that lets the good guys screw over the bad guys without qualm.
i understand that i'm picking a losing battle trying to explain this to u.s. americans since, in my experience, that country has a higher level of jingoism than almost any other (and i don't think this is entirely separate from that country's willingness to intefere with other countries, or, in extreme circumstances, go to war).
what's the assumption that underlies arguments against racism? that we are all human beings, equal in some moral sense. and what does patriotism say? that "we" are distinct from - implicitly different to - "them". it's litle more than synthetic (in that it's constructed on largely arbitrary political lines) racism.
in one thread amberglow welcomes the fact that rich people are not given an advantage over poor people when entering university. on another they berate the fact that poor people are being considered equally suitable for a particular job. the only difference is that in the first case, where equality appears to be in fashion, everyone is american. in the second case the objection to equality is that the rich are american and the poor are not.
to my eyes the parallels with racism are clear.
to me, at least, racism isn't about using banned words. it's not syntax - you can't write a simple program that can scan the text someone posts and flag it for racism or not. instead, racism is about the way we divide up the world. if there's a clear "us" and "them", on what basis is it made? what is the justification for discriminating against someone on their place of birth?
[on edit - reading that, i'm particularly disappointed that this needs to be said on "left-wing" mefi. wasn't it here that people were disgusted at the difference in treatment between american citizens and "foreigners" at guatanamo bay? even here, do people accept a different morality for americans and "the rest"?]
posted by andrew cooke at 8:20 AM on January 11, 2004
in one thread amberglow welcomes the fact that rich people are not given an advantage over poor people when entering university. on another they berate the fact that poor people are being considered equally suitable for a particular job. the only difference is that in the first case, where equality appears to be in fashion, everyone is american. in the second case the objection to equality is that the rich are american and the poor are not.
to my eyes the parallels with racism are clear.
andrew, call me protectionist, but i'm not being racist or anti- "poor people." The college thing is about an equal playing field, which i believe is important for access to higher education and the opportunities it provides.
The outsourcing of jobs is about corporations saving money by hiring cheaper workers--they can't do that here because of labor laws and the standard of living, and when it's service companies like Earthlink, they're not passing the savings on that they gained by hiring what you call "poor people." It's not about whether anyone else on earth can do the job or not. Any foreign company can come sell their goods and services in the US without many exceptions. Foreign workers for US companies overseas are being used to show a corporate profit and will be dropped like a hot potato when cheaper markets open up, just like they were with manufacturing jobs that went overseas.
posted by amberglow at 8:32 AM on January 11, 2004
to my eyes the parallels with racism are clear.
andrew, call me protectionist, but i'm not being racist or anti- "poor people." The college thing is about an equal playing field, which i believe is important for access to higher education and the opportunities it provides.
The outsourcing of jobs is about corporations saving money by hiring cheaper workers--they can't do that here because of labor laws and the standard of living, and when it's service companies like Earthlink, they're not passing the savings on that they gained by hiring what you call "poor people." It's not about whether anyone else on earth can do the job or not. Any foreign company can come sell their goods and services in the US without many exceptions. Foreign workers for US companies overseas are being used to show a corporate profit and will be dropped like a hot potato when cheaper markets open up, just like they were with manufacturing jobs that went overseas.
posted by amberglow at 8:32 AM on January 11, 2004
Yeah, I'm curious if you free-trade purists think it's perfectly OK if there are no jobs left in the US but burger-flipping. I might remark that Western economies were originally built on protectionism, switching to free trade only when industries were well enough established to be able to survive.
Can you provide some examples of that, historically I would have said there have been swings back and forth between more and less protectionism. Certainly in the 1930's the swing to protectionism to try to protect national interests can be regarded as exacerbating economic collapse.
I think it is always important to note that those who take part in free trade negotiation at the international level do not do so with any belief in establishing a consumer choice-led paradigm but are completely focussed on giving up the least protectionism on their own national interests while removing the most protectionism from their non-domestic competitors. Self-interest not ideology underpins the free trade movement.
posted by biffa at 8:35 AM on January 11, 2004
Can you provide some examples of that, historically I would have said there have been swings back and forth between more and less protectionism. Certainly in the 1930's the swing to protectionism to try to protect national interests can be regarded as exacerbating economic collapse.
I think it is always important to note that those who take part in free trade negotiation at the international level do not do so with any belief in establishing a consumer choice-led paradigm but are completely focussed on giving up the least protectionism on their own national interests while removing the most protectionism from their non-domestic competitors. Self-interest not ideology underpins the free trade movement.
posted by biffa at 8:35 AM on January 11, 2004
I'm disinclined to elevate the free trade debate because it's not the issue, and it's a question of ideals, so no one is going to change their mind (although one thing I will see for free trade: I think the world should try it before it knocks it). amberglow always strikes me as an incredibly nice guy; but in this instance, for the raft of people telling rushmc he's wrong, I felt compelled to say that I don't see it that way.
posted by nthdegx at 8:39 AM on January 11, 2004
posted by nthdegx at 8:39 AM on January 11, 2004
I'd also like to add that members of any nation benefit by full employment in their home country--we all do...if fewer people are working, there is less money coming in for schools, and hospitals, and roads, and social security, etc. It directly and practically affects all of the members of that nation, whether a nation is an artificial construct or not. I can't come and take advantage of the social services in another country, only the one I'm a member of. Homeless people in the US are not helped by more people elsewhere working. Poor people in the US are not helped either, and are hurt because of the budget-cutting due to lessened tax revenue coming in.
posted by amberglow at 8:39 AM on January 11, 2004
posted by amberglow at 8:39 AM on January 11, 2004
I do believe it, rush, and it's not depressing or anything
I doubt the founding fathers would agree. Somehow I don't think "shared consumerism" was among their goals for this nation.
And when the savings are passed on to me, like with clothing, and appliances, etc, I'm not as pissed about it
And this is the core of my objection to your position: however you try to pretty it up as concern for your unemployed brethren, it's actually based upon short-sighted self-interest. I.e., greed. Also, the parochial "us vs. them" view of the world is highly offensive to me. It's outdated, false, and just plain wrong, and it contributes to the more unpleasant isolationist AND interventionist opinions of the various "America is god-blessed, innately superior, and entitled to do as she pleases to others in the world" crew.
Homeless people in the US are not helped by more people elsewhere working.
Again, that is simply not true. Are you completely unaware of the interconnected network of world economics in the 21st century?!? Would you equally claim that economic strength in the U.S. has never benefitted anyone beyond our borders?
posted by rushmc at 10:01 AM on January 11, 2004
I doubt the founding fathers would agree. Somehow I don't think "shared consumerism" was among their goals for this nation.
And when the savings are passed on to me, like with clothing, and appliances, etc, I'm not as pissed about it
And this is the core of my objection to your position: however you try to pretty it up as concern for your unemployed brethren, it's actually based upon short-sighted self-interest. I.e., greed. Also, the parochial "us vs. them" view of the world is highly offensive to me. It's outdated, false, and just plain wrong, and it contributes to the more unpleasant isolationist AND interventionist opinions of the various "America is god-blessed, innately superior, and entitled to do as she pleases to others in the world" crew.
Homeless people in the US are not helped by more people elsewhere working.
Again, that is simply not true. Are you completely unaware of the interconnected network of world economics in the 21st century?!? Would you equally claim that economic strength in the U.S. has never benefitted anyone beyond our borders?
posted by rushmc at 10:01 AM on January 11, 2004
Any foreign company can come sell their goods and services in the US without many exceptions.
except when "protectionsists" boycott american firms that deal with some of those companies. suddenly they find they can't sell their goods - in this case customer care - quite so easily.
can you really not see the parallels between this and posters saying "negro owned business"?
posted by andrew cooke at 10:05 AM on January 11, 2004
except when "protectionsists" boycott american firms that deal with some of those companies. suddenly they find they can't sell their goods - in this case customer care - quite so easily.
can you really not see the parallels between this and posters saying "negro owned business"?
posted by andrew cooke at 10:05 AM on January 11, 2004
Sure it's self-interest, but it has nothing to do with any blessings from God or superiority--by accident of birth, I'm here, as are you. I benefit, and people above and below me benefit when more people in the same nation are working than less. It's a fact, and it doesn't mean that everyone who is worried about jobs disappearing is a Pat Buchanan. You're the one grouping my beliefs with those types of people, and it's wrong. Unions have been fighting this for years, and Gephardt for decades. Are they all racist isolationists?
And please tell me how people in need here are helped by jobs elsewhere? Since when are other countries/governments sending aid to house the homeless or stock food kitchens?
except when "protectionsists" boycott american firms that deal with some of those companies. suddenly they find they can't sell their goods - in this case customer care - quite so easily.
They can't sell their goods or services quite so easily? Then perhaps they shouldn't fire the people who actually make up their customer base. It's not a wise business strategy at all, I don't believe, and it's generating a big backlash. I also choose to spend my money in gay-owned bars and restaurants when I can (supporting my community's small businesses)--is that racist too?
posted by amberglow at 10:19 AM on January 11, 2004
And please tell me how people in need here are helped by jobs elsewhere? Since when are other countries/governments sending aid to house the homeless or stock food kitchens?
except when "protectionsists" boycott american firms that deal with some of those companies. suddenly they find they can't sell their goods - in this case customer care - quite so easily.
They can't sell their goods or services quite so easily? Then perhaps they shouldn't fire the people who actually make up their customer base. It's not a wise business strategy at all, I don't believe, and it's generating a big backlash. I also choose to spend my money in gay-owned bars and restaurants when I can (supporting my community's small businesses)--is that racist too?
posted by amberglow at 10:19 AM on January 11, 2004
Wait, wait. Let me see if I got this straight:
Company A lays off 2500 workers to move those 2500 jobs to another country, where they won't have to adhere to the laws that govern fair wages and safe working conditions, a decision obviously motivated by corporate self-interest, not some kind of benign philanthropy.
They lay off 2500 men and women who needed the jobs to support themselves and their families. There isn't a job genie who's going to make those 2500 jobs mysteriously reappear. And we're essentially 2500 steps closer to becoming even more of a consumerist state with a continually-weakening economy.
And if I protest that....... I'm a racist? Are you shitting me?
What if I were one of the Earthlink employees who'd gotten laid off? Would it be okay then for me to angrily switch my service to AOL because my job had been sent overseas, or would I still be racist? Or better yet, should I turn the other cheek and say, "Well, at least another needy human can support their family now." Last time I checked, I wasn't Jesus, nor is anyone else here.
While we are all indeed hu-mans, we happen to be humans who are governed by boundaries and borders. As a US citizen, whether or not I like it (more often not), I have to adhere to US policies, laws, and I have to experience the effects of the choices that businesses make. Everything that happens here affects me, my child, my family, and my friends and every aspect of my life. Very rarely will a policy effected in China affect me directly. Every day, policies created in my country affect me directly or damn near.
Of course I'm going to have a vested interest in preserving the quality of living in the country where I live, if I'm SMART. I'm not saying it should be at the expense of another country; I don't support the war for this very reason. But how is keeping jobs created in this country--by companies who are being funded by the people in this country--in this country... a bad thing? Seriously. Someone, please explain that to me, because apparently I just don't get it.
Yes, I realize people in other countries need jobs too. And if people in THIS country didn't also need jobs, I'd have absolutely no complaint. Maybe it wouldn't matter so much, if other countries were in the habit of coming to the US and taking care of our poor and creating jobs for us, but for whatever reasons, they don't.
I could see the argument if we had this golden flowing bounty of jobs, and every man woman and child lived in comfort and the streets were veritably paved with gold! Well then, keeping all those jobs to ourselves would just be mean and selfish.
Call it what you want-- selfish, self-preservationist. It sure as hell isn't jingoist, or racist. Go apply those labels to something that actually fits the bill.
posted by precocious at 10:25 AM on January 11, 2004
Company A lays off 2500 workers to move those 2500 jobs to another country, where they won't have to adhere to the laws that govern fair wages and safe working conditions, a decision obviously motivated by corporate self-interest, not some kind of benign philanthropy.
They lay off 2500 men and women who needed the jobs to support themselves and their families. There isn't a job genie who's going to make those 2500 jobs mysteriously reappear. And we're essentially 2500 steps closer to becoming even more of a consumerist state with a continually-weakening economy.
And if I protest that....... I'm a racist? Are you shitting me?
What if I were one of the Earthlink employees who'd gotten laid off? Would it be okay then for me to angrily switch my service to AOL because my job had been sent overseas, or would I still be racist? Or better yet, should I turn the other cheek and say, "Well, at least another needy human can support their family now." Last time I checked, I wasn't Jesus, nor is anyone else here.
While we are all indeed hu-mans, we happen to be humans who are governed by boundaries and borders. As a US citizen, whether or not I like it (more often not), I have to adhere to US policies, laws, and I have to experience the effects of the choices that businesses make. Everything that happens here affects me, my child, my family, and my friends and every aspect of my life. Very rarely will a policy effected in China affect me directly. Every day, policies created in my country affect me directly or damn near.
Of course I'm going to have a vested interest in preserving the quality of living in the country where I live, if I'm SMART. I'm not saying it should be at the expense of another country; I don't support the war for this very reason. But how is keeping jobs created in this country--by companies who are being funded by the people in this country--in this country... a bad thing? Seriously. Someone, please explain that to me, because apparently I just don't get it.
Yes, I realize people in other countries need jobs too. And if people in THIS country didn't also need jobs, I'd have absolutely no complaint. Maybe it wouldn't matter so much, if other countries were in the habit of coming to the US and taking care of our poor and creating jobs for us, but for whatever reasons, they don't.
I could see the argument if we had this golden flowing bounty of jobs, and every man woman and child lived in comfort and the streets were veritably paved with gold! Well then, keeping all those jobs to ourselves would just be mean and selfish.
Call it what you want-- selfish, self-preservationist. It sure as hell isn't jingoist, or racist. Go apply those labels to something that actually fits the bill.
posted by precocious at 10:25 AM on January 11, 2004
or what amber said
posted by precocious at 10:28 AM on January 11, 2004
posted by precocious at 10:28 AM on January 11, 2004
what is patriotism if not thinly veiled racism?
Acording to Webster's, patriotism is "love for or devotion to one's country" while racism is " a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."
The only way you could relate the two is if you suffered from the delusion that this country is only made up of a single, defining race.
posted by eyeballkid at 10:50 AM on January 11, 2004
Acording to Webster's, patriotism is "love for or devotion to one's country" while racism is " a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."
The only way you could relate the two is if you suffered from the delusion that this country is only made up of a single, defining race.
posted by eyeballkid at 10:50 AM on January 11, 2004
Man, I need to take that spell check button for a spin occasionally.
posted by eyeballkid at 10:52 AM on January 11, 2004
posted by eyeballkid at 10:52 AM on January 11, 2004
The only way you could relate the two is if you suffered from the delusion that this country is only made up of a single, defining race.
And this, precisely, is the crux of this argument. eyeballkid, I assure you, I'm not singling your comment out, but this makes for a great jumping board into the point I've been contemplating for the past couple of hours.
There is, in fact, a relation between choosing American over foreign and choosing white over coloured: discrimination. One is socially acceptable discrimination (buying American is showing support for your nation, your economy, your community). One is socially unacceptable discrimination (choosing white over coloured is arbitrary discrimination since we are all "equal").
andrew cooke's original argument stands, although it has been twisted so many times now that who knows if the original question is even relevant now...
"How can you justify choosing American over foreign and then condemn the legacy system since both examples are forms of discrimination?"
I do not have a "correct" answer to that question. I am personally in favor of legacy points. I am also in favor of discretion when it comes to race. Finally, I am in favor of choosing American vs. foreign when quality is not an issue.
posted by BlueTrain at 11:04 AM on January 11, 2004
And this, precisely, is the crux of this argument. eyeballkid, I assure you, I'm not singling your comment out, but this makes for a great jumping board into the point I've been contemplating for the past couple of hours.
There is, in fact, a relation between choosing American over foreign and choosing white over coloured: discrimination. One is socially acceptable discrimination (buying American is showing support for your nation, your economy, your community). One is socially unacceptable discrimination (choosing white over coloured is arbitrary discrimination since we are all "equal").
andrew cooke's original argument stands, although it has been twisted so many times now that who knows if the original question is even relevant now...
"How can you justify choosing American over foreign and then condemn the legacy system since both examples are forms of discrimination?"
I do not have a "correct" answer to that question. I am personally in favor of legacy points. I am also in favor of discretion when it comes to race. Finally, I am in favor of choosing American vs. foreign when quality is not an issue.
posted by BlueTrain at 11:04 AM on January 11, 2004
Discrimination actively hurts the group being discriminated against--If some foreign workers aren't hired because of my choices, that's not taking anything away from them--they wouldn't have been hired in the first place.
posted by amberglow at 11:07 AM on January 11, 2004
posted by amberglow at 11:07 AM on January 11, 2004
and then there's the fact that the company is discriminating against US employees in favor of foreign, and actually removing their livelihoods and thus hurting them.
posted by amberglow at 11:08 AM on January 11, 2004
posted by amberglow at 11:08 AM on January 11, 2004
you're quibbling over details and ignoring the moral issues. you're dividing the world up into "us" and "them" just to keep your own standard of living high (at the expense of others). you're playing lip service to equality only when it suits you.
as i said earlier: racism isn't about using banned words. it's not syntax - you can't write a simple program that can scan the text someone posts and flag it for racism or not. instead, racism is about the way we divide up the world. if there's a clear "us" and "them", on what basis is it made? what is the justification for discriminating against someone on their place of birth?
if you want to use "love of your country" as an excuse to exploit your fellow human beings, then there's damn all i can to stop you, but have the moral honesty to acknowledge that you're motivated by selfish greed and not dictionary definitions.
i'll take back my claims of "racism" (as i said, i'm happy to use "xenophobe" instead) if you'll admit to being morally in the wrong...
posted by andrew cooke at 11:12 AM on January 11, 2004
as i said earlier: racism isn't about using banned words. it's not syntax - you can't write a simple program that can scan the text someone posts and flag it for racism or not. instead, racism is about the way we divide up the world. if there's a clear "us" and "them", on what basis is it made? what is the justification for discriminating against someone on their place of birth?
if you want to use "love of your country" as an excuse to exploit your fellow human beings, then there's damn all i can to stop you, but have the moral honesty to acknowledge that you're motivated by selfish greed and not dictionary definitions.
i'll take back my claims of "racism" (as i said, i'm happy to use "xenophobe" instead) if you'll admit to being morally in the wrong...
posted by andrew cooke at 11:12 AM on January 11, 2004
I'm not motivated by love of my country at all--it's practical self-interest and an exercise of my choices, mixed with sympathy for people I know being fired, and knowing I could be next, along with everyone I know, and knowing that less people working is bad for my life and the lives of all of those around me.
None of us here speaking out against outsourcing hate foreigners or are jingoistic patriots. And we're not the ones exploiting other humans--the companies trolling the globe for cheap labor are.
posted by amberglow at 11:19 AM on January 11, 2004
None of us here speaking out against outsourcing hate foreigners or are jingoistic patriots. And we're not the ones exploiting other humans--the companies trolling the globe for cheap labor are.
posted by amberglow at 11:19 AM on January 11, 2004
And throughout this conversation, I've refrained from calling you names or slurring you--maybe you could do the same?
posted by amberglow at 11:21 AM on January 11, 2004
posted by amberglow at 11:21 AM on January 11, 2004
Andrew Cooke earlier compared this to not frequenting a "negro-owned business". Funny, though, but an american company with a large contingent of workers in a warehouse in some foreign country answering phones doesn't sound like his "negro" is the owner. Sounds more like the way things used to work in the US, actually...
posted by Space Coyote at 11:23 AM on January 11, 2004
posted by Space Coyote at 11:23 AM on January 11, 2004
what's the difference between "practical self interest" and "selfishness"? why do you have sympathy for those being fired and not for those - in worse conditions - who won't get the chance to work? why do say "less people working" as if only those in america count? why do you restrict "all those around me" to some arbitrary boundary at the eexpense of those outside? why is it exploitation to offer foreigners jobs but good practice to give those same jobs to americans?
the only answer to those questions that i can see is that you're picking sides. some people are in your club. some are out. and - surprise - the people in the club are the rich people. the people outside are the poor.
posted by andrew cooke at 11:26 AM on January 11, 2004
the only answer to those questions that i can see is that you're picking sides. some people are in your club. some are out. and - surprise - the people in the club are the rich people. the people outside are the poor.
posted by andrew cooke at 11:26 AM on January 11, 2004
amberglow, you're avoiding the moral question in favor of the more practical one.
Moral Question: "How can you justify one form of discrimination over another?"
Practical Question: "How can you justify choosing American over Foreign?"
posted by BlueTrain at 11:27 AM on January 11, 2004
Moral Question: "How can you justify one form of discrimination over another?"
Practical Question: "How can you justify choosing American over Foreign?"
posted by BlueTrain at 11:27 AM on January 11, 2004
"How can you justify one form of discrimination over another?"
Because consumer choice as discrimination is not the same as making other people "less than" or "more than" as discrimination. Morally, they're not equal, and I think that's clear.
posted by amberglow at 11:34 AM on January 11, 2004
Because consumer choice as discrimination is not the same as making other people "less than" or "more than" as discrimination. Morally, they're not equal, and I think that's clear.
posted by amberglow at 11:34 AM on January 11, 2004
Since it's continuing anyway...
I might remark that Western economies were originally built on protectionism
Not to mention completely free labour and resource-theft. This is part of the reason I find any implication that America is somehow getting a raw deal to be unpalatable. It didn't get a raw deal, it was dealt a royal flush, and someone else anted up on their behalf. Now, God forbid, other countries are showing signs that they can compete, so the solution is to quash that with protectionism?
If self-interest is the key here, then surely the biggest issue is immediate customer satisfaction with the product. If service quality drops with a move abroad then there's every reason to switch. Surely this is the most immediate issue if it's self-interest we're talking about.
Unemployment is an ugly thing, but the responsibility for it lies with the government and not with Earthlink. It isn't Earthlink's fault if the USA is no longer viable. Unemployment and the economy has been a disaster for the present administration, and one of the major success of the war on terror is that no one is talking about it.
There's a fundamental shift in effect with services heading eastwards. Many of the call-centres I speak to these days are based in Asia, and as yet I have had no cause for complaint. It wouldn't even occur to me to change bank because mine now employs customer services staff in Asia. I guess we can agree to call it patriotism, but to my mind patriotism equates to nationalism. Although I've been very careful to separate the definitions of nationalism and racism recently, I am inclined to agree with Ben Elton when he calls nationalism "racism's bastard brother".
posted by nthdegx at 11:45 AM on January 11, 2004
I might remark that Western economies were originally built on protectionism
Not to mention completely free labour and resource-theft. This is part of the reason I find any implication that America is somehow getting a raw deal to be unpalatable. It didn't get a raw deal, it was dealt a royal flush, and someone else anted up on their behalf. Now, God forbid, other countries are showing signs that they can compete, so the solution is to quash that with protectionism?
If self-interest is the key here, then surely the biggest issue is immediate customer satisfaction with the product. If service quality drops with a move abroad then there's every reason to switch. Surely this is the most immediate issue if it's self-interest we're talking about.
Unemployment is an ugly thing, but the responsibility for it lies with the government and not with Earthlink. It isn't Earthlink's fault if the USA is no longer viable. Unemployment and the economy has been a disaster for the present administration, and one of the major success of the war on terror is that no one is talking about it.
There's a fundamental shift in effect with services heading eastwards. Many of the call-centres I speak to these days are based in Asia, and as yet I have had no cause for complaint. It wouldn't even occur to me to change bank because mine now employs customer services staff in Asia. I guess we can agree to call it patriotism, but to my mind patriotism equates to nationalism. Although I've been very careful to separate the definitions of nationalism and racism recently, I am inclined to agree with Ben Elton when he calls nationalism "racism's bastard brother".
posted by nthdegx at 11:45 AM on January 11, 2004
Consumer choice as discrimination is very important now. Globalization, capitalism, and free markets dictate that protectionism and nationalism are no longer morally acceptable options. In a global economy where the world continually shrinks and we become more of a global community, your form of discrimination is becoming less socially acceptable. (And yes, I understand that I, too, discriminate, and it's a question I'm still wrestling with)
posted by BlueTrain at 11:46 AM on January 11, 2004
posted by BlueTrain at 11:46 AM on January 11, 2004
The race to the bottom re-characterized as equality for all.
And we're all fucked.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:54 AM on January 11, 2004
And we're all fucked.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:54 AM on January 11, 2004
Earthlink isn't moving those jobs overseas because the US is not viable--they're not a multinational corp. All of their customers are in the US, and they make all of their money here. If the US wasn't viable, they'd go out of business.
We're not a global community at all if services and benefits and taxes and laws (and rights) are still national and local.
posted by amberglow at 11:55 AM on January 11, 2004
We're not a global community at all if services and benefits and taxes and laws (and rights) are still national and local.
posted by amberglow at 11:55 AM on January 11, 2004
Erm. Viable in terms of employment, not customers. Two entirely different things. As viable means "Capable of success or continuing effectiveness", then surely they are looking to ensure their continuing effectiveness by cutting costs. Clearly, they can't do that with an American workforce. But if you like strike "not viable" for "can't compete".
posted by nthdegx at 12:00 PM on January 11, 2004
posted by nthdegx at 12:00 PM on January 11, 2004
evan, just a reminder of my offer to host your website, even if you only want the subdomain temporarily as you switch ISPs. email me, if need be.
posted by t r a c y at 12:04 PM on January 11, 2004
posted by t r a c y at 12:04 PM on January 11, 2004
amberglow - you've said that companies sending jobs oversees are exploiting those workers who aren't subject to the same salary and labor laws that make US workers more expensive.
You've also said that one of your problems is that the savings aren't passed on to you. So basically, I read that as saying that you would like to exploit those unprotected workers to get the lowest price possible, or barring that you want to look out for your friends.
Now, I can understand the desire for enlightened self-interest, but how can you not see that somebody from outside your country wouldn't see that as morally questionable? Basically you're saying you want to step on off-shore workers, or if you can't step on them you want to only support companies who refuse to hire those off-shore workers so that your friends have less competition in the labor market.
posted by willnot at 12:13 PM on January 11, 2004
You've also said that one of your problems is that the savings aren't passed on to you. So basically, I read that as saying that you would like to exploit those unprotected workers to get the lowest price possible, or barring that you want to look out for your friends.
Now, I can understand the desire for enlightened self-interest, but how can you not see that somebody from outside your country wouldn't see that as morally questionable? Basically you're saying you want to step on off-shore workers, or if you can't step on them you want to only support companies who refuse to hire those off-shore workers so that your friends have less competition in the labor market.
posted by willnot at 12:13 PM on January 11, 2004
Clearly, they can't do that with an American workforce.
How, exactly, is this "clear"?
On another note, Henry Ford reduced working hours and increased pay to much better than average levels at the time for a reason.
posted by Space Coyote at 12:25 PM on January 11, 2004
How, exactly, is this "clear"?
On another note, Henry Ford reduced working hours and increased pay to much better than average levels at the time for a reason.
posted by Space Coyote at 12:25 PM on January 11, 2004
I do truly believe that the companies are exploiting those foreign workers, and I would feel less upset if I did benefit personally with lower rates, or better service, but as I think more and more about it, I'm not going to sit idly by or continue giving them my money every month regardless of whether they charge me less because of this (which they have no intention of doing anyway, and i've never know of a service company lowering rates after outsourcing, unlike clothing and goods manufacturers).
Yes, I want my friends, and people in my community/city/state/nation to have jobs--it makes all of our lives better. I don't see how it's stepping on offshore workers to make choices that support that. It's like my gay bar/restaurant thing above--is that stepping on all the other bar/restaurant owners/workers?
and Space Coyote has made some very good points throughout this thread--Henry Ford (for all his faults) wanted his workers to be able to afford to buy the products he produced--no corporation today cares about that.
posted by amberglow at 12:30 PM on January 11, 2004
Yes, I want my friends, and people in my community/city/state/nation to have jobs--it makes all of our lives better. I don't see how it's stepping on offshore workers to make choices that support that. It's like my gay bar/restaurant thing above--is that stepping on all the other bar/restaurant owners/workers?
and Space Coyote has made some very good points throughout this thread--Henry Ford (for all his faults) wanted his workers to be able to afford to buy the products he produced--no corporation today cares about that.
posted by amberglow at 12:30 PM on January 11, 2004
In Amberglow's case, he's either concerned with poorer service (anyone who's bought a Dell lately knows all about that) or wishes to patronize companies which treat their workers decently, and don't do things like carry out massive layoffs because some consultant told them outsourcing was the way to go to please those bonus-weilding board members.
posted by Space Coyote at 12:30 PM on January 11, 2004
posted by Space Coyote at 12:30 PM on January 11, 2004
Also, and i don't know if this counts or not, but I've been looking around at all the goods and services I consume, and the goods are almost entirely made by multinational or foreign corps, who use workers in various places, but also sell in various countries. It's striking me differently when a company only sells a product or service in one country, yet is using labor in other countries to help provide that service...I see a difference there.
posted by amberglow at 12:49 PM on January 11, 2004
posted by amberglow at 12:49 PM on January 11, 2004
We're not a global community at all if services and benefits and taxes and laws (and rights) are still national and local.
And yet, that's exactly what you're trying to enforce—a localization of services and benefits!
You admit that your prejudice toward those who live nearer to you is a mere "accident of birth," and yet, so is being the child of an alumnus of a university and many other accidents of birth that you are opposed to. Do you also support nepotism?
Yes, I want my friends, and people in my community/city/state/nation to have jobs
And not just to have jobs, but at the expense of other people who happen not to be members of your tribe or whom you happen not to have met. You don't see the bias here?
posted by rushmc at 12:54 PM on January 11, 2004
And yet, that's exactly what you're trying to enforce—a localization of services and benefits!
You admit that your prejudice toward those who live nearer to you is a mere "accident of birth," and yet, so is being the child of an alumnus of a university and many other accidents of birth that you are opposed to. Do you also support nepotism?
Yes, I want my friends, and people in my community/city/state/nation to have jobs
And not just to have jobs, but at the expense of other people who happen not to be members of your tribe or whom you happen not to have met. You don't see the bias here?
posted by rushmc at 12:54 PM on January 11, 2004
rushmc, please address the issue of working conditions and wanting to support an employer who treats its employers better.
posted by Space Coyote at 12:57 PM on January 11, 2004
posted by Space Coyote at 12:57 PM on January 11, 2004
It's striking me differently when a company only sells a product or service in one country, yet is using labor in other countries to help provide that service...I see a difference there.
Why? Why is this artificial distinction of "country," which means less and less in world economics and even directly in our personal lives, so important to you? Reeks of nationalism to me. Some countries may be better suited to provide certain goods/services to the world economy, while others may be better at providing others. But it all goes into the same pot, ultimately. Look beyond the short-range thinking of "jobs," which gives only a very simplistic idea of the complexity of global economics!
rushmc, please address the issue of working conditions and wanting to support an employer who treats its employers better.
I won't, because that's not the issue being discussed here. If Amberglow feels that the quality of service was diminished when it was relocated, or that the working conditions for the new workers was inferior to those of the old workers, those would be legitimate concerns. But that's not how he presented his original objection, which is what I'm taking objection to. I've never said that there might not be other, valid reasons for protesting the relocation of tech support to an overseas provider. What I object to is the "don't give good American jobs to those damned foreigners" attitude.
posted by rushmc at 1:00 PM on January 11, 2004
Why? Why is this artificial distinction of "country," which means less and less in world economics and even directly in our personal lives, so important to you? Reeks of nationalism to me. Some countries may be better suited to provide certain goods/services to the world economy, while others may be better at providing others. But it all goes into the same pot, ultimately. Look beyond the short-range thinking of "jobs," which gives only a very simplistic idea of the complexity of global economics!
rushmc, please address the issue of working conditions and wanting to support an employer who treats its employers better.
I won't, because that's not the issue being discussed here. If Amberglow feels that the quality of service was diminished when it was relocated, or that the working conditions for the new workers was inferior to those of the old workers, those would be legitimate concerns. But that's not how he presented his original objection, which is what I'm taking objection to. I've never said that there might not be other, valid reasons for protesting the relocation of tech support to an overseas provider. What I object to is the "don't give good American jobs to those damned foreigners" attitude.
posted by rushmc at 1:00 PM on January 11, 2004
I'm not enforcing anything--I'm stating fact as regards to laws and benefits and rights etc, and voting with my wallet.
I see it, but don't see how it's at the expense of other people. They're working for Earthlink whether I stay or not, until Earthlink finds a place with cheaper labor and people who can read the scripts. If I buy a Gap sweater instead of an Armani, is that bias? Is that at the expense of foreign workers in the Armani sweatshop? Or is that exploiting foreign workers in the Gap sweatshop?
posted by amberglow at 1:01 PM on January 11, 2004
I see it, but don't see how it's at the expense of other people. They're working for Earthlink whether I stay or not, until Earthlink finds a place with cheaper labor and people who can read the scripts. If I buy a Gap sweater instead of an Armani, is that bias? Is that at the expense of foreign workers in the Armani sweatshop? Or is that exploiting foreign workers in the Gap sweatshop?
posted by amberglow at 1:01 PM on January 11, 2004
And you're the one calling them "damn foreigners," rush--not me. They're in the same boat I and people I know are--they want to be able to eat and provide for themselves and their family and maybe have some fun in life. Is it my responsibility to provide that for them?
posted by amberglow at 1:05 PM on January 11, 2004
posted by amberglow at 1:05 PM on January 11, 2004
Well, there is this whole global minimum wage idea. Which Dick Gephardt promotes as the international minimum wage. It seems a bit pie in the sky as so far proposed but the concept has merit.
posted by y2karl at 1:08 PM on January 11, 2004
posted by y2karl at 1:08 PM on January 11, 2004
it's easy as hell (being one of the fortunate) to preach about the way the world should be, quite another thing to actually act on those convictions, something that requires discipline and sacrifice. amberglow has shown that rare quality by trying to act in accordance with his/her morals, something that most of us only talk about.
we can disagree with amberglow's reasons but to yell 'prejudice' against another member is a judgement leveled against all of us.
posted by poopy at 1:32 PM on January 11, 2004
we can disagree with amberglow's reasons but to yell 'prejudice' against another member is a judgement leveled against all of us.
posted by poopy at 1:32 PM on January 11, 2004
Corporations would never allow it, y2k, but it is a good idea--when we finally do become a global community, maybe....
and thanks poopy.
I'm off to commit racism and jingoistic bias at the expense of workers in straight bars...back later or tom'w ; >
posted by amberglow at 1:39 PM on January 11, 2004
and thanks poopy.
I'm off to commit racism and jingoistic bias at the expense of workers in straight bars...back later or tom'w ; >
posted by amberglow at 1:39 PM on January 11, 2004
So, you won't be hitting on any barmaids then? That should offset some of your guilt.
posted by y2karl at 2:13 PM on January 11, 2004
posted by y2karl at 2:13 PM on January 11, 2004
And not just to have jobs, but at the expense of other people who happen not to be members of your tribe or whom you happen not to have met.
If I start a company and I employ the person who lives down the street, am I doing so at the expense of a person in another country? I didn't think so. As a matter of fact, when I pay my employee, he'll probably (preferably) use the corner store to buy groceries. And the corner store will use the money to continue to provide the community with much-needed groceries.
I'd honestly love to see someone point out what's racist or jingoist about that. I'd imagine some of the people crying foul engage in those very same practices-- patronizing community establishments for the benefit of the community. It doesn't mean you hate people from other communities, wish them ill, or are doing them any harm. If they're smart, they're doing the same thing.
If American companies won't employ Americans, and no other country is stepping forward to do it, then where does that leave the people who need jobs? Replace American with any other NATIONALITY--not race--if you must. The fact of the matter is that the economy of ANY country (and the welfare of its people--the ones who aren't wealthy, at least) depends on its businesses employing the people of that country.
THAT is what amber's protesting. Cries of prejudice are pretty ignorant, in my estimation. I could understand there being some issue of 2sheets' mention of sand niggers (which even I realized was a form of commentary, and a quite powerful form). But this is one fight that's been erroneously picked.
Please go find some actual racists to annoy. *buries dead horse*
posted by precocious at 3:09 PM on January 11, 2004
If I start a company and I employ the person who lives down the street, am I doing so at the expense of a person in another country? I didn't think so. As a matter of fact, when I pay my employee, he'll probably (preferably) use the corner store to buy groceries. And the corner store will use the money to continue to provide the community with much-needed groceries.
I'd honestly love to see someone point out what's racist or jingoist about that. I'd imagine some of the people crying foul engage in those very same practices-- patronizing community establishments for the benefit of the community. It doesn't mean you hate people from other communities, wish them ill, or are doing them any harm. If they're smart, they're doing the same thing.
If American companies won't employ Americans, and no other country is stepping forward to do it, then where does that leave the people who need jobs? Replace American with any other NATIONALITY--not race--if you must. The fact of the matter is that the economy of ANY country (and the welfare of its people--the ones who aren't wealthy, at least) depends on its businesses employing the people of that country.
THAT is what amber's protesting. Cries of prejudice are pretty ignorant, in my estimation. I could understand there being some issue of 2sheets' mention of sand niggers (which even I realized was a form of commentary, and a quite powerful form). But this is one fight that's been erroneously picked.
Please go find some actual racists to annoy. *buries dead horse*
posted by precocious at 3:09 PM on January 11, 2004
I do find the assertion that people on metafilter are all talk and no action to be completely ridiculous. On a site grounded in discussion, it's gonna look like all talk. Making judgements about people's lives with insufficient data is idiotic.
posted by nthdegx at 3:21 PM on January 11, 2004
posted by nthdegx at 3:21 PM on January 11, 2004
The race to the bottom re-characterized as equality for all.
Precisely. I'm deeply bummed (and I just woke up) and totally mystified that otherwise smart people like rushmc and Andrew would so vociferously argue to the contrary, apparently in all sincerity. I need to think about this some more. Interesting (and other than the truly dumb epithet of 'racist' being bandied about) quote reasonable discussion. Thanks.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:22 PM on January 11, 2004
Precisely. I'm deeply bummed (and I just woke up) and totally mystified that otherwise smart people like rushmc and Andrew would so vociferously argue to the contrary, apparently in all sincerity. I need to think about this some more. Interesting (and other than the truly dumb epithet of 'racist' being bandied about) quote reasonable discussion. Thanks.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:22 PM on January 11, 2004
nthdegx, by 'us' i was referring to humans in general (i know, i'm stereotyping the human race and therefore a racist), not the mefi community in particular which is above this sort of behaviour. and 'Making judgements about people's lives with insufficient data' is just a small part of what it means to be human.
posted by poopy at 3:45 PM on January 11, 2004
posted by poopy at 3:45 PM on January 11, 2004
Last time I checked, I wasn't Jesus, nor is anyone else here.
Speak for yourself, my son.
posted by Jimbob at 4:12 PM on January 11, 2004
Speak for yourself, my son.
posted by Jimbob at 4:12 PM on January 11, 2004
'Making judgements about people's lives with insufficient data' is just a small part of what it means to be human.
We can accept that and carry on, or we can strive to be better and desist.
posted by nthdegx at 4:14 PM on January 11, 2004
We can accept that and carry on, or we can strive to be better and desist.
posted by nthdegx at 4:14 PM on January 11, 2004
please don't sentence us to a star trek universe. you're not borg, are you? :)
posted by poopy at 5:08 PM on January 11, 2004
posted by poopy at 5:08 PM on January 11, 2004
OK, I didn't mean to come over all Jean-Luc Piccard (oooooh, Gaaaaaaawd), but you take my point.
posted by nthdegx at 5:45 PM on January 11, 2004
posted by nthdegx at 5:45 PM on January 11, 2004
If I start a company and I employ the person who lives down the street, am I doing so at the expense of a person in another country?
To exactly the same degree that hiring a foreigner is at the expense of a local job.
Do you object when a foreign firm opens up a plant in the US? Was it immoral for Honda to open a plant in Ohio and Mercedes to open a plant in South Carolina? Is it wrong for GM and Ford to operate plants in Europe?
This sort of local thinking is racst to the extent that implicit in it is the notion that Americans (or Brits or Germans or whatever) deserve good jobs but Indians don't.
I'd imagine some of the people crying foul engage in those very same practices-- patronizing community establishments for the benefit of the community
My community is the human race. Why draw the line any smaller than that, if not wider?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:25 PM on January 11, 2004
To exactly the same degree that hiring a foreigner is at the expense of a local job.
Do you object when a foreign firm opens up a plant in the US? Was it immoral for Honda to open a plant in Ohio and Mercedes to open a plant in South Carolina? Is it wrong for GM and Ford to operate plants in Europe?
This sort of local thinking is racst to the extent that implicit in it is the notion that Americans (or Brits or Germans or whatever) deserve good jobs but Indians don't.
I'd imagine some of the people crying foul engage in those very same practices-- patronizing community establishments for the benefit of the community
My community is the human race. Why draw the line any smaller than that, if not wider?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:25 PM on January 11, 2004
I guess Ghandi was a racist for entreating Indians to not wear imported British textiles then. Damn him.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:52 PM on January 11, 2004
posted by Space Coyote at 8:52 PM on January 11, 2004
His name was Gandhi, he wasn't racist, but a nationalist, and you're STILL missing the point here, which is, why is racism "bad" but nationalism "okay"? Or, another way, why aren't you logically consistent with your views on discrimination? Either discrimination is bad, or discrimination is good...you can't be choosing one or the other when it's most convenient.
posted by BlueTrain at 8:58 PM on January 11, 2004
posted by BlueTrain at 8:58 PM on January 11, 2004
Bluetrain: I was quite clear that , in my mind, at least, works in the US and Canada are assured a decent minimum level of treatment from their employers, and that workers in whichever country looked best to the bottom line of the company doing the outsourcing often don't have this guarantee.
Charges of racism, and nationalism for that matter, since I'm not an American, are quite ridiculous.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:10 PM on January 11, 2004
Charges of racism, and nationalism for that matter, since I'm not an American, are quite ridiculous.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:10 PM on January 11, 2004
Nike: at the forefront of global equality.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:11 PM on January 11, 2004
posted by Space Coyote at 9:11 PM on January 11, 2004
Honda and Mercedes and GM and Ford run plants overseas so they can better sell cars there; they don't ship cars home!
And did ROU just imply that not doing business with companies that fire humans and hire monkeys would be racist?!?!
posted by nicwolff at 9:40 PM on January 11, 2004
And did ROU just imply that not doing business with companies that fire humans and hire monkeys would be racist?!?!
posted by nicwolff at 9:40 PM on January 11, 2004
Either discrimination is bad, or discrimination is good...you can't be choosing one or the other when it's most convenient.
False.
Discrimination of the blatant sorts exemplified by the skin-colour segregation of racism are plainly bad.
Discrimination of the blatant sorts exemplified by the genetic segregation of siblings versus marital possibilities are plainly good.
Discrimination can be both good and bad.
Discrimination towards supporting my own tribe are good for me, because they are good for my tribe.
I'm better off when my neighbour Bob is better off. If he loses his job because I choose someone halfway around the world, I am also harmed. It's self-interest, not racism. It's daft to suggest otherwise!
posted by five fresh fish at 9:42 PM on January 11, 2004
False.
Discrimination of the blatant sorts exemplified by the skin-colour segregation of racism are plainly bad.
Discrimination of the blatant sorts exemplified by the genetic segregation of siblings versus marital possibilities are plainly good.
Discrimination can be both good and bad.
Discrimination towards supporting my own tribe are good for me, because they are good for my tribe.
I'm better off when my neighbour Bob is better off. If he loses his job because I choose someone halfway around the world, I am also harmed. It's self-interest, not racism. It's daft to suggest otherwise!
posted by five fresh fish at 9:42 PM on January 11, 2004
I guess Ghandi was a racist for entreating Indians to not wear imported British textiles then
Sure, to some small degree at least. Doing so assumes that Indians are more deserving of decent-for-the-time jobs than Brits.
His name was Gandhi, he wasn't racist, but a nationalist
Seems a distinction that makes no difference to me, except that decent respectable people can be nationalists. It's all us-versus-*T*H*E*M* thinking with a far too narrow version of "US."
And did ROU just imply that not doing business with companies that fire humans and hire monkeys would be racist?!?!
I don't think so. Right now I'll draw the "US" line around the human race. Should they pop up later, I'd be happy to extend the "US" line around machine intelligences, uplifted simians, actual no-shit aliens, what have you.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:49 PM on January 11, 2004
Sure, to some small degree at least. Doing so assumes that Indians are more deserving of decent-for-the-time jobs than Brits.
His name was Gandhi, he wasn't racist, but a nationalist
Seems a distinction that makes no difference to me, except that decent respectable people can be nationalists. It's all us-versus-*T*H*E*M* thinking with a far too narrow version of "US."
And did ROU just imply that not doing business with companies that fire humans and hire monkeys would be racist?!?!
I don't think so. Right now I'll draw the "US" line around the human race. Should they pop up later, I'd be happy to extend the "US" line around machine intelligences, uplifted simians, actual no-shit aliens, what have you.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:49 PM on January 11, 2004
I guess Ghandi was a racist for entreating Indians to not wear imported British textiles then
Sure, to some small degree at least.
I call it resisting direct economic imperialism. Am I racist if I dodge a bullet shot by someone from another race?
posted by scarabic at 10:52 PM on January 11, 2004
Sure, to some small degree at least.
I call it resisting direct economic imperialism. Am I racist if I dodge a bullet shot by someone from another race?
posted by scarabic at 10:52 PM on January 11, 2004
Places like Walmarts are just too THX 1138 meets Thomas Kinkade for me. If you like the corner store, you shop at the corner store--the hardware store on Queen Anne has the Ace logo but it's run by the same people who ran it as a general store--which it more or less still is--for the last 50 or 60 years. The Fremont Gardens on Leary Way has night scented stock in pots in the spring--you couldn't even buy the seeds for night scented stock at any of the aircraft hangar sized Lowe's or Flower World. I never eat the global fast food ever. Not that I care for their fries, but Dicks actually has college scholarship program for its employees. I'll grab a bite there if I'm on the run. I get coffee at the espresso carts and local cafes, never Starbucks. Even with records, I try to stay local--Easy Street before Tower. I can't stand malls or megastores. I prefer garage sales and flea markets. So sue me.
posted by y2karl at 11:12 PM on January 11, 2004
posted by y2karl at 11:12 PM on January 11, 2004
It is not racist to assume that a job in the US or Canada does more good than a job in Burma or Bolivia. When American multinationals move jobs to (economically or politically) illiberal 3rd-world countries, those jobs produce dramatically fewer collateral social benefits: the wages are held to no minimum standards, there are often NO labor laws, and people are intimidated or killed if they organize. "Free Trade," as it exists today, is not about spreading around capital and economic growth, it is about corporate imperialism. People get all excited talking about the capital flowing into the countries. What they never mention is that all the profits take the ferry back to el Gabacho, and never lead to the subsequent investment and economic growth. This neoliberal experminet has failed dramatically every time.
People like myself and (i'm being presumptuous here) amberglow could probably be labeled Free-traders if we were being asked to sign on to a viable and just free-trade regime. Rushmc's thesis in this thread is like saying that because I don't want to wear bycicle pants I am a nudist. rushmc, you are one of the smartest people on mefi, IMHO, but can't you see that free-trade as it works now IS RACIST. And colonialist. And all sorts of other nasty isms. Don't call me a termite-lover just because I won't burn down my house. With minimum wage, democratic regulation and mechanisms of redress, labor protections, and whatnot, the global market could begin to move towards the visions that already haunts rushmc and many others.
So are all the Mexican workers whose maquiladora jobs are now going to China racists (and for further evidence that our current configuration of free trade is anathema to liberal democracy, chew on the fact that this massive job flight has directly followed measures of regulation and democratization in the Mexican economy)?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:53 PM on January 11, 2004
People like myself and (i'm being presumptuous here) amberglow could probably be labeled Free-traders if we were being asked to sign on to a viable and just free-trade regime. Rushmc's thesis in this thread is like saying that because I don't want to wear bycicle pants I am a nudist. rushmc, you are one of the smartest people on mefi, IMHO, but can't you see that free-trade as it works now IS RACIST. And colonialist. And all sorts of other nasty isms. Don't call me a termite-lover just because I won't burn down my house. With minimum wage, democratic regulation and mechanisms of redress, labor protections, and whatnot, the global market could begin to move towards the visions that already haunts rushmc and many others.
So are all the Mexican workers whose maquiladora jobs are now going to China racists (and for further evidence that our current configuration of free trade is anathema to liberal democracy, chew on the fact that this massive job flight has directly followed measures of regulation and democratization in the Mexican economy)?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:53 PM on January 11, 2004
Precisely. I'm deeply bummed (and I just woke up) and totally mystified that otherwise smart people like rushmc and Andrew would so vociferously argue to the contrary, apparently in all sincerity. I need to think about this some more. Interesting (and other than the truly dumb epithet of 'racist' being bandied about) quote reasonable discussion. Thanks.
It's like a bizarro world where everyone is wearing Nikes™ and walking lockstep. Without any reasonable expectation of worker conditions or a universal minimum wage, I fail to understand how anybody can sanely and rationally argue that racism is at the crux of an argument against the exporting of jobs. Is everyone who boycotts Nike™ a hate-mongering xenophobe resisting the product on the basis that it's made by people that aren't friendly caucasoids? That's a patently absurd notion and I'm surprised anyone has bothered to argue it this long.
At worst it's nationalist (or "new internationalist" if you're a fan of protectionist policies on a global scale) and not racist, which is a word that gets--as Stav mentioned--bandied about here much too often and with a little too much vigor. Racism is descriminating against someone based solely upon race, not nationality or ethnicity. So unless you think amberglow believes the white race is superior (or that some others are inherently inferior), it's a baseless argument. As far as I can tell, he has yet to protest against any non-caucasoids that worked at Earthlink inside of the U.S. borders, so I'll have to maintain my conclusion that the label of racist is spurious at best.
posted by The God Complex at 12:11 AM on January 12, 2004
It's like a bizarro world where everyone is wearing Nikes™ and walking lockstep. Without any reasonable expectation of worker conditions or a universal minimum wage, I fail to understand how anybody can sanely and rationally argue that racism is at the crux of an argument against the exporting of jobs. Is everyone who boycotts Nike™ a hate-mongering xenophobe resisting the product on the basis that it's made by people that aren't friendly caucasoids? That's a patently absurd notion and I'm surprised anyone has bothered to argue it this long.
At worst it's nationalist (or "new internationalist" if you're a fan of protectionist policies on a global scale) and not racist, which is a word that gets--as Stav mentioned--bandied about here much too often and with a little too much vigor. Racism is descriminating against someone based solely upon race, not nationality or ethnicity. So unless you think amberglow believes the white race is superior (or that some others are inherently inferior), it's a baseless argument. As far as I can tell, he has yet to protest against any non-caucasoids that worked at Earthlink inside of the U.S. borders, so I'll have to maintain my conclusion that the label of racist is spurious at best.
posted by The God Complex at 12:11 AM on January 12, 2004
the FCC frowns on spurious emissions, because they tend to be preceded by spurious trigger pulses. fortunately, spurious regression of fractionally differenced processes prevents *too* great a mess. i just like saying spurious.
posted by quonsar at 12:54 AM on January 12, 2004
posted by quonsar at 12:54 AM on January 12, 2004
can't you see that free-trade as it works now IS RACIST.
As I've said above, the original issue that I objected to has now been derailed in about six different directions by various commenters, and I'm not interested in (and probably not qualified to) comment in depth on each branch, however interesting they might be. I will say, though, that while I don't think that I would characterize free trade as it works now as "racist," I would certainly admit that it has many problems and imbalances. But Rome wasn't built in a day, and I think some of the intermediary steps between where we have been and where we need to be will be painful and problematic. Again, though, this is far removed from my original comments.
On topic, I think tribal or nationalistic thinking is a regressive, short-sighted, and unrealistic limitation on the necessary international economic and social development that one ought to promote, and that it does often encourage darker, less defensible attitudes, including those which allow us to blithely destroy nations on the other side of the world on the thinnest of pretexts because so many are content to view them as "them" and see "them" as inherently and obviously of less value and importance than "us."
Do I attribute these latter biases to amberglow? Absolutely not. But I think his casual promotion of the basic prejudice can reinforce the existing attitudes in others, so I challenged it. I also disagree with much (but not all) of the economic theory he uses to justify his admitted bias, but again, that's a separate discussion that is certainly beyond the scope of BlueTrain's question and thread.
posted by rushmc at 12:55 AM on January 12, 2004
As I've said above, the original issue that I objected to has now been derailed in about six different directions by various commenters, and I'm not interested in (and probably not qualified to) comment in depth on each branch, however interesting they might be. I will say, though, that while I don't think that I would characterize free trade as it works now as "racist," I would certainly admit that it has many problems and imbalances. But Rome wasn't built in a day, and I think some of the intermediary steps between where we have been and where we need to be will be painful and problematic. Again, though, this is far removed from my original comments.
On topic, I think tribal or nationalistic thinking is a regressive, short-sighted, and unrealistic limitation on the necessary international economic and social development that one ought to promote, and that it does often encourage darker, less defensible attitudes, including those which allow us to blithely destroy nations on the other side of the world on the thinnest of pretexts because so many are content to view them as "them" and see "them" as inherently and obviously of less value and importance than "us."
Do I attribute these latter biases to amberglow? Absolutely not. But I think his casual promotion of the basic prejudice can reinforce the existing attitudes in others, so I challenged it. I also disagree with much (but not all) of the economic theory he uses to justify his admitted bias, but again, that's a separate discussion that is certainly beyond the scope of BlueTrain's question and thread.
posted by rushmc at 12:55 AM on January 12, 2004
ooo! rushmc! dissolve my spurious polygons, you animal!
posted by quonsar at 1:07 AM on January 12, 2004
posted by quonsar at 1:07 AM on January 12, 2004
Others -- in particular Iggy, TGC and Space Coyote -- have said better what I was going to say, so that's that for me, I guess.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:49 AM on January 12, 2004
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:49 AM on January 12, 2004
It is not racist to assume that a job in the US or Canada does more good than a job in Burma or Bolivia. When American multinationals move jobs to (economically or politically) illiberal 3rd-world countries, those jobs produce dramatically fewer collateral social benefits: the wages are held to no minimum standards, there are often NO labor laws, and people are intimidated or killed if they organize.
That's certainly arguable. On the other hand, even crappy factory jobs in third-world countries might (or might not) get them on a faster path to full-on industrial liberalism than the realistic alternative of them staying subsistence farmers would.
But the poster in question wasn't talking about sneakers from sweatshops but about tech support in India. I don't think Indian tech-support workers are shot if they try to organize or work in sweatshop conditions. Since they're all human beings, I'm happy to think that Indians "deserve" decent white-collar jobs just like Americans and Canadians and Brits do.
I notice that there's an awful lot of complaining about moving tech-support and call-center jobs to India, but much less about moving them to Ireland, where you can also hire people for less than in the US. Why do you think that is, Leon?
Racism is descriminating against someone based solely upon race, not nationality or ethnicity.
So it's bad evil racism if I refuse to hire blacks, but good defensible nationalism if I refuse to hire Turks? Or is it bad evil racism if I refuse to hire Turks in America, but good defensible nationalism if I refuse to hire Turks in Turks?
They're both coming from the same dark, tribal, exclusionary part of the human psyche.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:38 AM on January 12, 2004
That's certainly arguable. On the other hand, even crappy factory jobs in third-world countries might (or might not) get them on a faster path to full-on industrial liberalism than the realistic alternative of them staying subsistence farmers would.
But the poster in question wasn't talking about sneakers from sweatshops but about tech support in India. I don't think Indian tech-support workers are shot if they try to organize or work in sweatshop conditions. Since they're all human beings, I'm happy to think that Indians "deserve" decent white-collar jobs just like Americans and Canadians and Brits do.
I notice that there's an awful lot of complaining about moving tech-support and call-center jobs to India, but much less about moving them to Ireland, where you can also hire people for less than in the US. Why do you think that is, Leon?
Racism is descriminating against someone based solely upon race, not nationality or ethnicity.
So it's bad evil racism if I refuse to hire blacks, but good defensible nationalism if I refuse to hire Turks? Or is it bad evil racism if I refuse to hire Turks in America, but good defensible nationalism if I refuse to hire Turks in Turks?
They're both coming from the same dark, tribal, exclusionary part of the human psyche.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:38 AM on January 12, 2004
Turks in Turkey. Dammit. If I refuse to hire Turks in Turks, all that means is that I'm not a pornographer.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:39 AM on January 12, 2004
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:39 AM on January 12, 2004
Or is it bad evil racism if I refuse to hire Turks in America, but good defensible nationalism if I refuse to hire Turks in Turks?
Thank you! Someone else understands the original question. This isn't about racism. The word was incorrectly used somewhere above and now everyone is focusing on it instead of analyzing ROU_Xenophobe's question above.
Choosing another service provider because your current service provider has moved their operation overseas is a form of discrimination. It discriminates against those overseas who could do the job just as well (Again, the underlying assumption is that quality does not decline). It's called nationalism, which is why I've mentioned the term half a dozen times. For some reason, it is morally acceptable to be nationalist but unacceptable to be a racist. Why? When they are both forms of discrimination, why is one okay, but the other is not?
posted by BlueTrain at 6:57 AM on January 12, 2004
Thank you! Someone else understands the original question. This isn't about racism. The word was incorrectly used somewhere above and now everyone is focusing on it instead of analyzing ROU_Xenophobe's question above.
Choosing another service provider because your current service provider has moved their operation overseas is a form of discrimination. It discriminates against those overseas who could do the job just as well (Again, the underlying assumption is that quality does not decline). It's called nationalism, which is why I've mentioned the term half a dozen times. For some reason, it is morally acceptable to be nationalist but unacceptable to be a racist. Why? When they are both forms of discrimination, why is one okay, but the other is not?
posted by BlueTrain at 6:57 AM on January 12, 2004
"Damn foreigner" is racist? I didn't even know recockulous and her boyfriend were black.
Also, we're quibbling propriety over someone with a username like 'recockulous'? Talk about reductio ad absurdum. ;-P
posted by mischief at 8:53 AM on January 12, 2004
Also, we're quibbling propriety over someone with a username like 'recockulous'? Talk about reductio ad absurdum. ;-P
posted by mischief at 8:53 AM on January 12, 2004
The word was incorrectly used somewhere above and now everyone is focusing on it instead of analyzing ROU_Xenophobe's question above.
I dispute everyone. :)
But ROU has framed the question well.
posted by rushmc at 8:55 AM on January 12, 2004
I dispute everyone. :)
But ROU has framed the question well.
posted by rushmc at 8:55 AM on January 12, 2004
I would be just as upset whether the jobs were going to a white, european country or not. It's the fact THAT they're going--not where or which country they're going to. And you're assuming that service hasn't gone down, when evidence points to the contrary--see the original AskMe thread (especially the company that's now moving their help jobs back to the US after massive complaints.) Friends who have called for help have told me service has declined too, but according to rush's rules, since I didn't mention it in the original, it's not on the table, so I haven't mentioned it. I also use a mac, and call this a racist/nationalist/biased statement if you wish, but mac penetration is much less in every other country on earth, and not even high here. When I used to call for help, I got someone who actually uses macs everyday and often had the same model machine I did at home. They weren't reading from a script, and that's why I chose mindspring back in 96 originally--they were recommended as being mac-savvy.
I'm switching providers anyway--I'm decided. I don't feel bad or guilty about it, and as of now, am making the jobs issue an important part of the equation when shopping for goods and services (along with the gay thing mentioned above, and whether a company supports causes i detest, and quality, and price, etc).
posted by amberglow at 9:09 AM on January 12, 2004
I'm switching providers anyway--I'm decided. I don't feel bad or guilty about it, and as of now, am making the jobs issue an important part of the equation when shopping for goods and services (along with the gay thing mentioned above, and whether a company supports causes i detest, and quality, and price, etc).
posted by amberglow at 9:09 AM on January 12, 2004
I wish they were moving to jobs to Ireland. Everyone loves those wee Irish with the wonderful brogue!
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:23 AM on January 12, 2004
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:23 AM on January 12, 2004
It discriminates against those overseas who could do the job just as well (Again, the underlying assumption is that quality does not decline).
For me it is discrimination against the exploitative and near-sighted shitholes who choose their labor force based on who has the fewest rights (though, admittedly, India is much less cut and dry). I, for one, could much more easilly accept the India thing were it not in the broader context of abjectly neoliberal policies, which (apparently you need to be reminded) has a track record of ruining the lives and political and ecological environments of the people you seem so keen to protect from my discrimination.
Were African slaves brought to the US better off because they weren't subsistence farming?
As for why racism is bad and discrimination isn't (always), I think that was very clearly addressed earlier. Does anyone disagree that it is wholly appropriate to discriminate in your future spouse selection based on whether or not someone is a sister or cousin? What about to discriminate between fossil fuels and renewable energy?
I wish that conservatives could have the same defeated attitude about abortion that so many liberals here seem to have about international justice and equittable free trade.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 9:58 AM on January 12, 2004
For me it is discrimination against the exploitative and near-sighted shitholes who choose their labor force based on who has the fewest rights (though, admittedly, India is much less cut and dry). I, for one, could much more easilly accept the India thing were it not in the broader context of abjectly neoliberal policies, which (apparently you need to be reminded) has a track record of ruining the lives and political and ecological environments of the people you seem so keen to protect from my discrimination.
Were African slaves brought to the US better off because they weren't subsistence farming?
As for why racism is bad and discrimination isn't (always), I think that was very clearly addressed earlier. Does anyone disagree that it is wholly appropriate to discriminate in your future spouse selection based on whether or not someone is a sister or cousin? What about to discriminate between fossil fuels and renewable energy?
I wish that conservatives could have the same defeated attitude about abortion that so many liberals here seem to have about international justice and equittable free trade.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 9:58 AM on January 12, 2004
Once again:
Nationalism is not discrimination on the basis of nationality. Discrimination on the basis of nationality is a form of racism, given that the term "race" can be used as a casual interchange for nationality, and that some nations are comprised of particular ethnicities. It's a woolly use of the term, admittedly, and xenophobia is more exact.
I'm not saying racism is the case here, but if one is to assert that discrimination is taking place on the basis of nationality, then that *is* an accusation of racism, and *not* nationalism.
posted by nthdegx at 10:40 AM on January 12, 2004
Nationalism is not discrimination on the basis of nationality. Discrimination on the basis of nationality is a form of racism, given that the term "race" can be used as a casual interchange for nationality, and that some nations are comprised of particular ethnicities. It's a woolly use of the term, admittedly, and xenophobia is more exact.
I'm not saying racism is the case here, but if one is to assert that discrimination is taking place on the basis of nationality, then that *is* an accusation of racism, and *not* nationalism.
posted by nthdegx at 10:40 AM on January 12, 2004
Ignatius, perhaps a history lesson would help you understand this conversation.
amberglow said:
No one should get an advantage getting in just because their parents or grandparents went to that school.
But amberglow does feel that being a worker in America, as opposed to wherever Earthlink decides to outsource, deserves an advantage, simply because of where they work.
The problem, inherently, is that he approves of discrimination when it comes to employment but opposes discrimination when it comes to admission into college, even though the foreign worker can't help but being born in a different country and even though a student can't help but being born into a specific family.
rushmc and I completely agree on the question and its validity, but strongly disagree with its answer. I have already stated, in this thread, that I approve of choosing American over foreign when quality is not an issue. I approve of discrimination in general because these choices cannot be made based on free market principles, because a truly free market cannot, and will not exist.
Along the same lines, the legacy system and race-based points are good forms of discretion because we aren't numbers on paper but very complex and multi-faceted people who deserve scrutiny and analysis. GPA and SAT's should not be the only criteria for determining candidacy.
On a side note, I truly hope, Ignatius J. Reilly, that you aren't calling me conservative, because that's an ad hominem and you know it.
On preview: nthdegx, dictionary.com mentions that nationalism is "The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals."
I feel that this definition implies choosing your nation over others, which is a form of discrimination. I understand that you disagree.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:49 AM on January 12, 2004
amberglow said:
No one should get an advantage getting in just because their parents or grandparents went to that school.
But amberglow does feel that being a worker in America, as opposed to wherever Earthlink decides to outsource, deserves an advantage, simply because of where they work.
The problem, inherently, is that he approves of discrimination when it comes to employment but opposes discrimination when it comes to admission into college, even though the foreign worker can't help but being born in a different country and even though a student can't help but being born into a specific family.
rushmc and I completely agree on the question and its validity, but strongly disagree with its answer. I have already stated, in this thread, that I approve of choosing American over foreign when quality is not an issue. I approve of discrimination in general because these choices cannot be made based on free market principles, because a truly free market cannot, and will not exist.
Along the same lines, the legacy system and race-based points are good forms of discretion because we aren't numbers on paper but very complex and multi-faceted people who deserve scrutiny and analysis. GPA and SAT's should not be the only criteria for determining candidacy.
On a side note, I truly hope, Ignatius J. Reilly, that you aren't calling me conservative, because that's an ad hominem and you know it.
On preview: nthdegx, dictionary.com mentions that nationalism is "The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals."
I feel that this definition implies choosing your nation over others, which is a form of discrimination. I understand that you disagree.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:49 AM on January 12, 2004
I didn't call anyone a conservative. Label yourself to your heart's desire.
So what you're saying is that the only issue here is whether or not amberglow thinks that some kinds of discrimination are OK and others aren't? OK then. As long as people aren't calling me racist because I prefer that workers have rights.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:05 AM on January 12, 2004
So what you're saying is that the only issue here is whether or not amberglow thinks that some kinds of discrimination are OK and others aren't? OK then. As long as people aren't calling me racist because I prefer that workers have rights.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:05 AM on January 12, 2004
The problem, inherently, is that he approves of discrimination when it comes to employment but opposes discrimination when it comes to admission into college, even though the foreign worker can't help but being born in a different country and even though a student can't help but being born into a specific family.
This is not a problem.
Discrimination is not an either-or thing. We all discriminate against eating bright-red mushrooms found in the forest, in preference for eating nice brown mushrooms found in the grocery store. Discrimination can be good.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that supporting jobs in one's own country is a form of good discrimination, and that assigning post-secondary privilege on the basis of skin colour or parental connection is a form of bad discrimination.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:32 AM on January 12, 2004
This is not a problem.
Discrimination is not an either-or thing. We all discriminate against eating bright-red mushrooms found in the forest, in preference for eating nice brown mushrooms found in the grocery store. Discrimination can be good.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that supporting jobs in one's own country is a form of good discrimination, and that assigning post-secondary privilege on the basis of skin colour or parental connection is a form of bad discrimination.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:32 AM on January 12, 2004
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that supporting jobs in one's own country is a form of good discrimination
But that assumes that people in your country are somehow more deserving of employment than people elsewhere, that people "like" you deserve jobs that people "not like" you don't. And that's bad discrimination.
Which is all a red herring anyway. Everyone knows that when someone refers to something as "discrimination," it can be assumed that it is on some irrelevant or unfair characteristic, such as skin color or nationality or whether they're your cousin . It's all basic ape-level us-versus-them tribalism, and it should be replaced with the simple notion that we're all us, that each and every "them" is something that people made up.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:59 PM on January 12, 2004
But that assumes that people in your country are somehow more deserving of employment than people elsewhere, that people "like" you deserve jobs that people "not like" you don't. And that's bad discrimination.
Which is all a red herring anyway. Everyone knows that when someone refers to something as "discrimination," it can be assumed that it is on some irrelevant or unfair characteristic, such as skin color or nationality or whether they're your cousin . It's all basic ape-level us-versus-them tribalism, and it should be replaced with the simple notion that we're all us, that each and every "them" is something that people made up.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:59 PM on January 12, 2004
So what do you propose those of us humans who happen to live within the borders of the US do when they've exported all the decent jobs to cheaper labor markets? Suck it up and flip burgers? Emigrate? Or just starve and be happy for our brethren elsewhere?
Incidentally, I'm glad andrew cooke has dropped out of this discussion. He was really undermining his own position with bullying demands that his opponents "admit to being morally in the wrong."
posted by languagehat at 1:05 PM on January 12, 2004
Incidentally, I'm glad andrew cooke has dropped out of this discussion. He was really undermining his own position with bullying demands that his opponents "admit to being morally in the wrong."
posted by languagehat at 1:05 PM on January 12, 2004
If you guys are looking for consistency in me, you probably won't find it--I cobble together my views as I go along like most people do, with some developing (like this new job protectionist thing) and some falling by the wayside, and others strengthening. Life does that for ya : >
And please answer languagehat's questions for us (which have come up before). What happens when all the jobs are gone? There hasn't been job creation in this country for 3 years and counting--millions of them have been lost, and I fear that if Bush is reelected millions more will be.
posted by amberglow at 1:37 PM on January 12, 2004
And please answer languagehat's questions for us (which have come up before). What happens when all the jobs are gone? There hasn't been job creation in this country for 3 years and counting--millions of them have been lost, and I fear that if Bush is reelected millions more will be.
posted by amberglow at 1:37 PM on January 12, 2004
Wow. So much to read here. Amberglow, for what it's worth, I struggle with this issue as well. In the end, I think the one angle that is often overlooked (maybe it was not above, I did not read all) is that we, as people trying to build societies on a planet, have of connection and share responsibility with our neighbors, town, region, country and so on up the line: contributions are made looking out for those on the other side of the planet AND fence -- and for the moment, I sense, you are worried more at the scale of the fence. In the end, the complete globalization of all goods and services can not be good for any society. Do I expect that we in New England give up pepper and coffee? No. But we must have some sense of connection to our economy within our region as well as with-out -- for economics, whether we like it or not, enables societies to achieve greatness. Does that make any sense?
posted by Dick Paris at 2:19 PM on January 12, 2004
posted by Dick Paris at 2:19 PM on January 12, 2004
But that assumes that people in your country are somehow more deserving of employment than people elsewhere...
No. It assumes that helping my neighbour helps me. It is vested self-interest.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:22 PM on January 12, 2004
No. It assumes that helping my neighbour helps me. It is vested self-interest.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:22 PM on January 12, 2004
So what do you propose those of us humans who happen to live within the borders of the US do when they've exported all the decent jobs to cheaper labor markets?
That's not going to happen, and it's asinine to think that it would. It didn't happen when people moved from the farms to the mills, it didn't happen when the mills closed and people moved to the steeltowns and Great-Lakes industrial centers, it didn't happen when the steeltowns closed and we started buying cars from Japan, and there's no reason to think that it's going to happen now.
It didn't happen to Britain when the US and Germany started industrializing and taking their "rightful" jobs, it didn't happen to the US when Europe and Japan recovered from WW2 and started "stealing" our jobs, and there's precisely squat reason to think that it would happen now that India and China are finally industrializing.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:32 PM on January 12, 2004
That's not going to happen, and it's asinine to think that it would. It didn't happen when people moved from the farms to the mills, it didn't happen when the mills closed and people moved to the steeltowns and Great-Lakes industrial centers, it didn't happen when the steeltowns closed and we started buying cars from Japan, and there's no reason to think that it's going to happen now.
It didn't happen to Britain when the US and Germany started industrializing and taking their "rightful" jobs, it didn't happen to the US when Europe and Japan recovered from WW2 and started "stealing" our jobs, and there's precisely squat reason to think that it would happen now that India and China are finally industrializing.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:32 PM on January 12, 2004
No. It assumes that helping my neighbour helps me. It is vested self-interest
Well, I think you're wrong -- that your self-interest is better served by letting production happen where it's maximally efficient, but that's not really relevant.
Even if it were, so? Why is it good and moral for you to act in your "vested self interest" but bad and immoral for others to do so, beside that obvious fact that you (like me) are obviously the center the world revolves around.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:40 PM on January 12, 2004
Well, I think you're wrong -- that your self-interest is better served by letting production happen where it's maximally efficient, but that's not really relevant.
Even if it were, so? Why is it good and moral for you to act in your "vested self interest" but bad and immoral for others to do so, beside that obvious fact that you (like me) are obviously the center the world revolves around.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:40 PM on January 12, 2004
So it's bad evil racism if I refuse to hire blacks, but good defensible nationalism if I refuse to hire Turks?
If you can point me to any comment I made that would in any way support that logically-vapid conclusion, I'd be delighted to buy you a pint of your local tavern's finest ale. If not, I think we can probably skip over the tired, illogical rhetoric.
Or is it bad evil racism if I refuse to hire Turks in America, but good defensible nationalism if I refuse to hire Turks in Turks?
First of all, I'd suggest that trying to turn this into an issue of "good" and "bad" (or "evil") is hopeless. If, however, I were to remove the labels, then I'd obviously agree with the sentiment since it's exactly what I said: racism is discrimination based solely on race, not international borders. The discrimination against the Turks in Turkey wouldn't have a thing to do with their race; rather, it would be a discrimination based upon their nationality.
My point, then--for the second time--is that amberglow is not being "racist" in any traditional sense of the term.
Discrimination on the basis of nationality is a form of racism, given that the term "race" can be used as a casual interchange for nationality, and that some nations are comprised of particular ethnicities. It's a woolly use of the term, admittedly
Yes, it is a woolly use of the term and one that should probably be avoided lest everything degenerate into a semantics orgy where nothing has an exact meaning. Even if a nation was comprised of a particular ethnicity, you'd then be talking about that--an ethnicity--and not a race. If you want to accuse someone of being ethnist, you're again talking about something different than racism because it enters the realm of culture and not just biology. The Jewish, for example, contain both a distinct ethnic group and a distinct racial group, but membership of the racial group is not necessary to be considered a Jew, even if it is a characteristic held by many. Equally, one could be of the same race but remove themselves from the spiritual aspect of the community, opting instead for a secular existence.
I suppose my point would be that there are a variety of ways to discriminate against someone, chief among them being racial differences or beliefs (religious or otherwise). Discriminating against someone (and I'm not talking about institutional racism but personal beliefs) based simply on biological make-up is the lowest of the low because it requires no assessment of humanity, only an out-of-hand dismissal. Discriminating against someone based on the beliefs he or she holds is a different animal, though, as is what you mean by discrimination. I might choose not to associate myself with people who believe in the death penalty because I find it morally abhorrent; there is obviously more basis for this discrimination than, say, the colour of someone's skin, or hair, or eyes.
All of this is terribly off-topic, since it has been in no way shown that amberglow actually has a problem with these people and not the exportation of jobs to a foreign market. Again, I maintain simply that no logically-sound argument can be made that this in any way correlates to the traditional--and, might I add, accepted--definition of racism.
But that assumes that people in your country are somehow more deserving of employment than people elsewhere, that people "like" you deserve jobs that people "not like" you don't. And that's bad discrimination.
No, it assumes that most of us understand that there is either zero or very little regulation on transnational corporations who take advantage of lax labour laws in struggling economies in order to produce high-cost items for first-world markets at low value and with little thought for the workers. Good working conditions is something people in the first-world had to scrape and claw to achieve in first world countries (just read some of the accounts of the factories in New York or other major metropolises in America's infancy) because the business-owners did absolutely everything in their power to exploit them. Without any sort of protection, it's hard to understand how it benefits anyone to let it happen everywhere else in the name of equality.
We send our companies overseas to take advantage of people and sell us cheap products or services and that is your equality? If there was any deceny (there really isn't), the United States, by far one of the worst perpetrators, would actually work with the United Nations (novel concept, that) to achieve some sort of positive working conditions before they let their companies--sorry, the "transnationals"--take advantage of these other nations.
I notice that there's an awful lot of complaining about moving tech-support and call-center jobs to India, but much less about moving them to Ireland, where you can also hire people for less than in the US. Why do you think that is, Leon?
How much less? For pennies a day? What are the labour laws like in Ireland?
posted by The God Complex at 2:44 PM on January 12, 2004
If you can point me to any comment I made that would in any way support that logically-vapid conclusion, I'd be delighted to buy you a pint of your local tavern's finest ale. If not, I think we can probably skip over the tired, illogical rhetoric.
Or is it bad evil racism if I refuse to hire Turks in America, but good defensible nationalism if I refuse to hire Turks in Turks?
First of all, I'd suggest that trying to turn this into an issue of "good" and "bad" (or "evil") is hopeless. If, however, I were to remove the labels, then I'd obviously agree with the sentiment since it's exactly what I said: racism is discrimination based solely on race, not international borders. The discrimination against the Turks in Turkey wouldn't have a thing to do with their race; rather, it would be a discrimination based upon their nationality.
My point, then--for the second time--is that amberglow is not being "racist" in any traditional sense of the term.
Discrimination on the basis of nationality is a form of racism, given that the term "race" can be used as a casual interchange for nationality, and that some nations are comprised of particular ethnicities. It's a woolly use of the term, admittedly
Yes, it is a woolly use of the term and one that should probably be avoided lest everything degenerate into a semantics orgy where nothing has an exact meaning. Even if a nation was comprised of a particular ethnicity, you'd then be talking about that--an ethnicity--and not a race. If you want to accuse someone of being ethnist, you're again talking about something different than racism because it enters the realm of culture and not just biology. The Jewish, for example, contain both a distinct ethnic group and a distinct racial group, but membership of the racial group is not necessary to be considered a Jew, even if it is a characteristic held by many. Equally, one could be of the same race but remove themselves from the spiritual aspect of the community, opting instead for a secular existence.
I suppose my point would be that there are a variety of ways to discriminate against someone, chief among them being racial differences or beliefs (religious or otherwise). Discriminating against someone (and I'm not talking about institutional racism but personal beliefs) based simply on biological make-up is the lowest of the low because it requires no assessment of humanity, only an out-of-hand dismissal. Discriminating against someone based on the beliefs he or she holds is a different animal, though, as is what you mean by discrimination. I might choose not to associate myself with people who believe in the death penalty because I find it morally abhorrent; there is obviously more basis for this discrimination than, say, the colour of someone's skin, or hair, or eyes.
All of this is terribly off-topic, since it has been in no way shown that amberglow actually has a problem with these people and not the exportation of jobs to a foreign market. Again, I maintain simply that no logically-sound argument can be made that this in any way correlates to the traditional--and, might I add, accepted--definition of racism.
But that assumes that people in your country are somehow more deserving of employment than people elsewhere, that people "like" you deserve jobs that people "not like" you don't. And that's bad discrimination.
No, it assumes that most of us understand that there is either zero or very little regulation on transnational corporations who take advantage of lax labour laws in struggling economies in order to produce high-cost items for first-world markets at low value and with little thought for the workers. Good working conditions is something people in the first-world had to scrape and claw to achieve in first world countries (just read some of the accounts of the factories in New York or other major metropolises in America's infancy) because the business-owners did absolutely everything in their power to exploit them. Without any sort of protection, it's hard to understand how it benefits anyone to let it happen everywhere else in the name of equality.
We send our companies overseas to take advantage of people and sell us cheap products or services and that is your equality? If there was any deceny (there really isn't), the United States, by far one of the worst perpetrators, would actually work with the United Nations (novel concept, that) to achieve some sort of positive working conditions before they let their companies--sorry, the "transnationals"--take advantage of these other nations.
I notice that there's an awful lot of complaining about moving tech-support and call-center jobs to India, but much less about moving them to Ireland, where you can also hire people for less than in the US. Why do you think that is, Leon?
How much less? For pennies a day? What are the labour laws like in Ireland?
posted by The God Complex at 2:44 PM on January 12, 2004
As long as people aren't calling me racist because I prefer that workers have rights.
No one is, I assure you!
That's not going to happen, and it's asinine to think that it would. It didn't happen when people moved from the farms to the mills, it didn't happen when the mills closed and people moved to the steeltowns and Great-Lakes industrial centers, it didn't happen when the steeltowns closed and we started buying cars from Japan, and there's no reason to think that it's going to happen now.
It didn't happen to Britain when the US and Germany started industrializing and taking their "rightful" jobs, it didn't happen to the US when Europe and Japan recovered from WW2 and started "stealing" our jobs, and there's precisely squat reason to think that it would happen now that India and China are finally industrializing.
Exactly. Growing pains != death throes.
Well, I think you're wrong -- that your self-interest is better served by letting production happen where it's maximally efficient, but that's not really relevant.
Even if it were, so? Why is it good and moral for you to act in your "vested self interest" but bad and immoral for others to do so, beside that obvious fact that you (like me) are obviously the center the world revolves around.
Perfectly stated again.
posted by rushmc at 2:59 PM on January 12, 2004
No one is, I assure you!
That's not going to happen, and it's asinine to think that it would. It didn't happen when people moved from the farms to the mills, it didn't happen when the mills closed and people moved to the steeltowns and Great-Lakes industrial centers, it didn't happen when the steeltowns closed and we started buying cars from Japan, and there's no reason to think that it's going to happen now.
It didn't happen to Britain when the US and Germany started industrializing and taking their "rightful" jobs, it didn't happen to the US when Europe and Japan recovered from WW2 and started "stealing" our jobs, and there's precisely squat reason to think that it would happen now that India and China are finally industrializing.
Exactly. Growing pains != death throes.
Well, I think you're wrong -- that your self-interest is better served by letting production happen where it's maximally efficient, but that's not really relevant.
Even if it were, so? Why is it good and moral for you to act in your "vested self interest" but bad and immoral for others to do so, beside that obvious fact that you (like me) are obviously the center the world revolves around.
Perfectly stated again.
posted by rushmc at 2:59 PM on January 12, 2004
How many of you 'exporting jobs helps 3rd-world workers, by golly! they oughta be thankin' us!' people have actually seen the conditions inside 'special export zones' in, say, the Phillippines, or talked to people who work there?
This is a serious question, not rhetorical. I believe you are clever enough to understand why I ask.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:21 PM on January 12, 2004
This is a serious question, not rhetorical. I believe you are clever enough to understand why I ask.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:21 PM on January 12, 2004
No, it assumes that most of us understand that there is either zero or very little regulation on transnational corporations who take advantage of lax labour laws in struggling economies in order to produce high-cost items for first-world markets at low value and with little thought for the workers
I really don't think that describes Indian tech support, which was the subject in question.
Sweatshops are a different beast.
How much less? For pennies a day? What are the labour laws like in Ireland?
Coders and tech support people in India work for pennies a day? That's news to me.
How many of you 'exporting jobs helps 3rd-world workers, by golly! they oughta be thankin' us!' people have actually seen the conditions inside 'special export zones' in, say, the Phillippines, or talked to people who work there?
I haven't, but then I'm pretty sure they're not doing tech support or coding there. Again, I thought we were talking about the evil of exporting good jobs, not about actual maltreatment in low-level manufacturing jobs that only the oppressed would take.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:39 PM on January 12, 2004
I really don't think that describes Indian tech support, which was the subject in question.
Sweatshops are a different beast.
How much less? For pennies a day? What are the labour laws like in Ireland?
Coders and tech support people in India work for pennies a day? That's news to me.
How many of you 'exporting jobs helps 3rd-world workers, by golly! they oughta be thankin' us!' people have actually seen the conditions inside 'special export zones' in, say, the Phillippines, or talked to people who work there?
I haven't, but then I'm pretty sure they're not doing tech support or coding there. Again, I thought we were talking about the evil of exporting good jobs, not about actual maltreatment in low-level manufacturing jobs that only the oppressed would take.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:39 PM on January 12, 2004
I haven't, but then I'm pretty sure they're not doing tech support or coding there.
Not doing tech support or coding in the Phillippines? Zip goes your credibility!
ps. I Love You [virus]
posted by y2karl at 3:49 PM on January 12, 2004
Not doing tech support or coding in the Phillippines? Zip goes your credibility!
ps. I Love You [virus]
posted by y2karl at 3:49 PM on January 12, 2004
So is outsourcing helping the people who get the jobs, hurting the people who lose the jobs, or about maximizing efficiency?
posted by amberglow at 3:50 PM on January 12, 2004
posted by amberglow at 3:50 PM on January 12, 2004
Why is it good and moral for you to act in your "vested self interest" but bad and immoral for others to do so
I'm quite sure I never said it was bad and immoral for others to act in their best self-interest.
If you firmly believe that it is in your best interest to have unemployed American tech workers and employed Indian tech workers, then you'd best sign up for Earthlink.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:36 PM on January 12, 2004
I'm quite sure I never said it was bad and immoral for others to act in their best self-interest.
If you firmly believe that it is in your best interest to have unemployed American tech workers and employed Indian tech workers, then you'd best sign up for Earthlink.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:36 PM on January 12, 2004
So is outsourcing helping the people who get the jobs, hurting the people who lose the jobs, or about maximizing efficiency?
Obviously all the above.
But it hurts 'our' people, helps 'those' people and ultimately, perhaps crucially, benefits the evil capitalistic company who cares less who they help or hurt. Their eyes are only on the balance sheets. When they don't pass the savings (if any) to the consumer of their products it is just 'business as usual' which in many cases is reprehensible.
I don't claim to know if access costs are going up or down, though I expect down, and I expect that U.S. labor costs for tech support are rising, so I see outsourcing in this case to benefit the company or keep costs stable.
If the company passed the savings (if any) along to it's consumers would that make outsourcing more palatable, if so why?
Are the drinks at the local gay bar equal on price to the drinks at the local chain bar? If so this argument is a non-sequiter, you're going for the atmosphere, which really isn't the same as 'supporting' your local gay bar.
Assume that the 'sole reason' for outsourcing is to prevent a price rise, does your nationalism (not a bad thing) force you to switch to a more expensive company who doesn't outsource?
It is not just a case of 'us' and 'them' it is a case of 'us' them' and 'I' (or 'you') and where you want (or can afford) to make your position.
posted by DBAPaul at 5:23 PM on January 12, 2004
Obviously all the above.
But it hurts 'our' people, helps 'those' people and ultimately, perhaps crucially, benefits the evil capitalistic company who cares less who they help or hurt. Their eyes are only on the balance sheets. When they don't pass the savings (if any) to the consumer of their products it is just 'business as usual' which in many cases is reprehensible.
I don't claim to know if access costs are going up or down, though I expect down, and I expect that U.S. labor costs for tech support are rising, so I see outsourcing in this case to benefit the company or keep costs stable.
If the company passed the savings (if any) along to it's consumers would that make outsourcing more palatable, if so why?
Are the drinks at the local gay bar equal on price to the drinks at the local chain bar? If so this argument is a non-sequiter, you're going for the atmosphere, which really isn't the same as 'supporting' your local gay bar.
Assume that the 'sole reason' for outsourcing is to prevent a price rise, does your nationalism (not a bad thing) force you to switch to a more expensive company who doesn't outsource?
It is not just a case of 'us' and 'them' it is a case of 'us' them' and 'I' (or 'you') and where you want (or can afford) to make your position.
posted by DBAPaul at 5:23 PM on January 12, 2004
Well, lower prices would make it more palatable I guess due to being primed for that--cheap clothing and cheap hard goods, etc, but after all this I still wouldn't do it (i would've before)--there's been no price cuts announced tho, nor will there be. In fact, I've been seeing reports everywhere of people dropping earthlink as a result of this. Maybe this is the straw that's breaking the camel's back? Mindspring was the anti-AOL back when I joined--a factor in my choice.
I support gay businesses for the atmosphere and the company of like-minded folks, and to support gay-owned places, small as it may be, given the long history of straight-owned gay establishments. I know the owners and managers and workers and know the money I spend is going right to them and not to someone who only sees gays as pink dollar signs. I could support any bar if it's just for the drinks, like I could support any isp if it's just for the connection. Other factors are always in play, in every decision we make.
Right now, I would switch even if it ended up being more expensive--three days ago, no. I've never had to switch isps ever (pre-96 I surfed at work only) and am learning there are great deals, and many choices. I'm thankful I can afford DSL to begin with, and am worried that my job (and those of everyone I know) will go too.
posted by amberglow at 5:37 PM on January 12, 2004
I support gay businesses for the atmosphere and the company of like-minded folks, and to support gay-owned places, small as it may be, given the long history of straight-owned gay establishments. I know the owners and managers and workers and know the money I spend is going right to them and not to someone who only sees gays as pink dollar signs. I could support any bar if it's just for the drinks, like I could support any isp if it's just for the connection. Other factors are always in play, in every decision we make.
Right now, I would switch even if it ended up being more expensive--three days ago, no. I've never had to switch isps ever (pre-96 I surfed at work only) and am learning there are great deals, and many choices. I'm thankful I can afford DSL to begin with, and am worried that my job (and those of everyone I know) will go too.
posted by amberglow at 5:37 PM on January 12, 2004
So is outsourcing helping the people who get the jobs, hurting the people who lose the jobs, or about maximizing efficiency?
best.damn.question.yet.
its like this IMO
"ok, we need to fire 85% of the workforce in order to save our jobs...which is to administer and manage what is left of the company"
posted by clavdivs at 5:58 PM on January 12, 2004
best.damn.question.yet.
its like this IMO
"ok, we need to fire 85% of the workforce in order to save our jobs...which is to administer and manage what is left of the company"
posted by clavdivs at 5:58 PM on January 12, 2004
I know clav--it's biting the hand that feeds, in my opinion.
posted by amberglow at 6:42 PM on January 12, 2004
posted by amberglow at 6:42 PM on January 12, 2004
My workplace recently outsourced maintenance of an important, high-customer visibility codebase to an onshore/offshore firm. A handful of their folks stay in the US as liasons, and the remainder are based in one of the technology development centers in India. This has been going on for about 2 1/2 years, with the first 6 months making up most of the transition time.
The onshore crew are pretty good folks, and take their jobs seriously. They delegate work to the larger group of folks back in India, who are a mixed bag -- there are some really talented folks along with a handful of real idiots -- pretty much like any random group of corporate coders.
At the time these folks showed up, my job was among those being being outsourced. I was to train them to do what I do, stand by to support them as they settled into the role, and then my future was uncertain. For several months after the offshore group assumed full responsibilities, I continued as before, as the department I am in (which I had previously been punted to in a baffling reorg, taking on work that had nothing to do with what I was doing in the previous 6 years) had no particular use for my talents. Most of the folks I worked with were in approximately the same boat, replaced and facing an uncertain future.
Jobs were cut.
No, I take that back. Contractors who had been filling the role of high-level full time employees for several years, at exhorbitant rates, were cut. Jobs, actually, were not. Instead, a group of people who had been stuck doing heinous gruntwork got the chance to take on important roles in various interesting software development projects. I got handed a job -- a challenging one -- at a much higher level, somewhat closer to what I'd done prior to the baffling reorganization that put me in an entry-level job doing work I didn't even know how to do in a language I'd never written a line of.
The bottom line improved.
No, I take that back, too. Actually, the bottom line itself didn't change much. Any cost savings derived from kicking this code maintenance work overseas was plowed right back into getting more interesting and revenue-generating things done. Meanwhile the overseas folks have been doing a really quite respectable job, probably better than we did here in the US.
Now the offshore service company is getting project work, taking on some of the responsibilities those formerly almost-displaced workers were given. At the moment, there's enough to go around for everyone, but I would assume that eventually they will have the lions share of project work. Most likely, those re-displaced people will get even more interesting, higher level work. The offshore guys are doing pretty much nothing but floating our boat.
That's my story. I'm a US worker in the IT field, and my job has been outsourced. And I'm all the better off for it.
posted by majick at 7:59 PM on January 12, 2004
The onshore crew are pretty good folks, and take their jobs seriously. They delegate work to the larger group of folks back in India, who are a mixed bag -- there are some really talented folks along with a handful of real idiots -- pretty much like any random group of corporate coders.
At the time these folks showed up, my job was among those being being outsourced. I was to train them to do what I do, stand by to support them as they settled into the role, and then my future was uncertain. For several months after the offshore group assumed full responsibilities, I continued as before, as the department I am in (which I had previously been punted to in a baffling reorg, taking on work that had nothing to do with what I was doing in the previous 6 years) had no particular use for my talents. Most of the folks I worked with were in approximately the same boat, replaced and facing an uncertain future.
Jobs were cut.
No, I take that back. Contractors who had been filling the role of high-level full time employees for several years, at exhorbitant rates, were cut. Jobs, actually, were not. Instead, a group of people who had been stuck doing heinous gruntwork got the chance to take on important roles in various interesting software development projects. I got handed a job -- a challenging one -- at a much higher level, somewhat closer to what I'd done prior to the baffling reorganization that put me in an entry-level job doing work I didn't even know how to do in a language I'd never written a line of.
The bottom line improved.
No, I take that back, too. Actually, the bottom line itself didn't change much. Any cost savings derived from kicking this code maintenance work overseas was plowed right back into getting more interesting and revenue-generating things done. Meanwhile the overseas folks have been doing a really quite respectable job, probably better than we did here in the US.
Now the offshore service company is getting project work, taking on some of the responsibilities those formerly almost-displaced workers were given. At the moment, there's enough to go around for everyone, but I would assume that eventually they will have the lions share of project work. Most likely, those re-displaced people will get even more interesting, higher level work. The offshore guys are doing pretty much nothing but floating our boat.
That's my story. I'm a US worker in the IT field, and my job has been outsourced. And I'm all the better off for it.
posted by majick at 7:59 PM on January 12, 2004
Good for you, but your old job was outsourced, and the company kept you on--how often does that happen?
posted by amberglow at 8:05 PM on January 12, 2004
posted by amberglow at 8:05 PM on January 12, 2004
It should be happening at every well-managed, ethical company.
Feel free to avoid doing business with companies that are not well managed nor ethical. That would be a good idea anyways, outsourcing or not.
posted by majick at 8:15 PM on January 12, 2004
Feel free to avoid doing business with companies that are not well managed nor ethical. That would be a good idea anyways, outsourcing or not.
posted by majick at 8:15 PM on January 12, 2004
It really should be, and we should all be so lucky. But companies wouldn't do it--they then wouldn't have any savings to show their stockholders/board/etc.
posted by amberglow at 8:23 PM on January 12, 2004
posted by amberglow at 8:23 PM on January 12, 2004
You're not paying attention, amberglow...the savings were redirected back into new products, which presumably will generate more revenue down the road, not split evenly amongst the board of thieves directors. It is absurd to think that a company can invest all of its profits in personnel...there is the larger issue to consider of what it is that they will be doing to earn their keep. Despite what many people seem to feel, corporations do NOT exist to provide employment; that is merely a convenient and important side effect of their pursuit of their main function. I am as concerned about holding coporations accountable for their behavior where it is illegal or unethical as anyone, but your seemingly knee-jerk assumption that they all necessarily wear black hats is very telling of yet another bias.
posted by rushmc at 9:22 PM on January 12, 2004
posted by rushmc at 9:22 PM on January 12, 2004
Prove to me that majick's experience is not an aberration, and I'll re-examine this bias. What am I not paying attention to? I'm talking about corps that outsource--what are you getting at and what beliefs are you ascribing to me now? Who has said corps should invest all of their profits in personnel? Where? When? Any other biases you think I have that you want to point out? I'll be here...
posted by amberglow at 9:40 PM on January 12, 2004
posted by amberglow at 9:40 PM on January 12, 2004
You're not paying attention, amberglow...the savings were redirected back into new products, which presumably will generate more revenue down the road, not split evenly amongst the board of thieves directors.
How often does that happen? That is like citing the time that your buddy was in a fender bender and it actually reset his dislocated shoulder as evidence that car crashes are good.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:08 PM on January 12, 2004
How often does that happen? That is like citing the time that your buddy was in a fender bender and it actually reset his dislocated shoulder as evidence that car crashes are good.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:08 PM on January 12, 2004
The company I worked for in Sydney for a few years (Australia's biggest homegrown IT development and consulting company at the time in terms of size) outsourced the development work on their core products, the absolutely not-to-be-trifled-with two apps that 100% of their huge and conservative corporate client base used, back in 1998, to an Indian firm. It was an unmitigated disaster, and the company has still not recovered. The Indian company went under after legal action, if I remember correctly, and literally hundreds of people lost their jobs in Australia as a result of the backlash when the truth was revealed and the panic hit, and there was no new-technology product line to deliver, 5 years after it had been promised to the client base.
(I wasn't one of them - I quit when things got ugly, which was in retrospect probably not the right thing to have done, but my team had delivered my product to the market. Unfortunately it was shitcanned immediately afterwards in the management maelstrom. Thus my leaving in a huff. C'est la vie.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:38 PM on January 12, 2004
(I wasn't one of them - I quit when things got ugly, which was in retrospect probably not the right thing to have done, but my team had delivered my product to the market. Unfortunately it was shitcanned immediately afterwards in the management maelstrom. Thus my leaving in a huff. C'est la vie.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:38 PM on January 12, 2004
Prove to me that majick's experience is not an aberration ...
My job is in the process of being outsourced, so I'll get back to you on that in a few months... A subject close to my heart.
However, bear in mind that the situation in the European Union may differ from that in the US. Both at a national and a European level, legislation means that pay and the majority of terms and conditions (with some exceptions) cannot be reduced. If you lose your job immediately after the outsourcing takes place, depending on the circumstances, you also have a strong case for unfair dismissal... (I read about working conditions in the US and shudder).
So it could be a good thing, as the new company seems to have more in the way of interesting work than the old one. And I have to add that the trade union which the majority of us belong to has done some good work for us as well.
posted by plep at 12:25 AM on January 13, 2004
My job is in the process of being outsourced, so I'll get back to you on that in a few months... A subject close to my heart.
However, bear in mind that the situation in the European Union may differ from that in the US. Both at a national and a European level, legislation means that pay and the majority of terms and conditions (with some exceptions) cannot be reduced. If you lose your job immediately after the outsourcing takes place, depending on the circumstances, you also have a strong case for unfair dismissal... (I read about working conditions in the US and shudder).
So it could be a good thing, as the new company seems to have more in the way of interesting work than the old one. And I have to add that the trade union which the majority of us belong to has done some good work for us as well.
posted by plep at 12:25 AM on January 13, 2004
Am I better off when my neighbour Bob is employed, or when Sanjeet in India is employed?
posted by five fresh fish at 2:02 AM on January 13, 2004
posted by five fresh fish at 2:02 AM on January 13, 2004
Who has said corps should invest all of their profits in personnel?
It just seems to me that your excessive focus on employment reveals a bottom-up perspective that misses a lot of the top-down realities of capitalism. Have you ever owned your own business? Hired any employees? The media has trained many of us to look obsessively at "jobs, jobs, jobs," but jobs are a byproduct of general economic health and cannot be legitimately generated just by hoping and wishing. If one wants to see the creation of more jobs, one should support efforts to improve the economy as a whole rather than pleading simplistically and ineffectually for "more jobs" (see: Clinton, not Bush): as the water level rises, so do the boats.
Don't get so testy...we're just talkin' here! :)
posted by rushmc at 9:10 AM on January 13, 2004
It just seems to me that your excessive focus on employment reveals a bottom-up perspective that misses a lot of the top-down realities of capitalism. Have you ever owned your own business? Hired any employees? The media has trained many of us to look obsessively at "jobs, jobs, jobs," but jobs are a byproduct of general economic health and cannot be legitimately generated just by hoping and wishing. If one wants to see the creation of more jobs, one should support efforts to improve the economy as a whole rather than pleading simplistically and ineffectually for "more jobs" (see: Clinton, not Bush): as the water level rises, so do the boats.
Don't get so testy...we're just talkin' here! :)
posted by rushmc at 9:10 AM on January 13, 2004
My experience may well be an aberration -- I don't have much evidence of it one way or the other -- but I parade it around to make a point: The mere act of outsourcing IT work is not necessarily an indicator of the ethics or values of the management of a company. In my case, it did plenty of people some good: both Bob and Sanjeet have jobs, and in fact 10 to 20 Bobs have nicer jobs than before.
Maybe there's a little bit of net loss to the local economy by exporting a portion of the labor (don't ask me, economic theory is not my strong point, but that seems intuitive to me) and canning some of the folks who were milking the company, but far less than if the whole thing were just chucked over the ocean and all those Bobs hit the unemployment line.
So it's not particularly useful to brand every outsourcing company with a scarlet letter, because in and of itself doing so has no ethical value attached. Indian programmers don't lay people off, managers do.
posted by majick at 9:13 AM on January 13, 2004
Maybe there's a little bit of net loss to the local economy by exporting a portion of the labor (don't ask me, economic theory is not my strong point, but that seems intuitive to me) and canning some of the folks who were milking the company, but far less than if the whole thing were just chucked over the ocean and all those Bobs hit the unemployment line.
So it's not particularly useful to brand every outsourcing company with a scarlet letter, because in and of itself doing so has no ethical value attached. Indian programmers don't lay people off, managers do.
posted by majick at 9:13 AM on January 13, 2004
There has been talk of legislation to remove the tax breaks corps get if they outsource, and other penalties, but already people are lobbying hard to make sure it doesn't happen. (that was the source of Carly Fiorina's remark recently.)
and rush, no one is "hoping and wishing" and while your loaded language may be fun for you to type ("pleading simplistically and ineffectually" ???), it reads as condescending and derogatory--maybe your biases are showing? It's because I'm in the position of employee and not employer that it hits me where I live. I've been attacked here for taking practical action against a company doing something I disagree with. You can insult and deride all you want if it makes you feel like a big man, but it's not persuading anyone either.
posted by amberglow at 10:31 AM on January 13, 2004
and rush, no one is "hoping and wishing" and while your loaded language may be fun for you to type ("pleading simplistically and ineffectually" ???), it reads as condescending and derogatory--maybe your biases are showing? It's because I'm in the position of employee and not employer that it hits me where I live. I've been attacked here for taking practical action against a company doing something I disagree with. You can insult and deride all you want if it makes you feel like a big man, but it's not persuading anyone either.
posted by amberglow at 10:31 AM on January 13, 2004
I'm going to assume that the lack of further argument on the matter indicates that everyone agrees with me that at least amberglow isn't a racist, even if they disagree with the soundness of his economic policy support. With that potentially disastrous assumption made, I'll let the rest of you hash out the unhashable details of economics and maintain my peace of mind.
posted by The God Complex at 12:10 PM on January 13, 2004
posted by The God Complex at 12:10 PM on January 13, 2004
Contractors who had been filling the role of high-level full time employees for several years, at exhorbitant rates, were cut. Jobs, actually, were not.
Come on, the contractors were paid by the company via their agents to work at that company. They lost their 'assignments' and this is is good?
I wouldn't assume that there was an assignment waiting around the corner for these displaced contractors (that weren't already outsourced).
posted by DBAPaul at 12:38 PM on January 13, 2004
Come on, the contractors were paid by the company via their agents to work at that company. They lost their 'assignments' and this is is good?
I wouldn't assume that there was an assignment waiting around the corner for these displaced contractors (that weren't already outsourced).
posted by DBAPaul at 12:38 PM on January 13, 2004
(that weren't already outsourced).
assignments that is.
posted by DBAPaul at 12:41 PM on January 13, 2004
assignments that is.
posted by DBAPaul at 12:41 PM on January 13, 2004
Okay, I'm done here. If amberglow of all people feels he must act like an asshole rather than have a conversation, there's no hope for any further participation. I must say that I expected better of you.
Have fun.
posted by rushmc at 1:26 PM on January 13, 2004
Have fun.
posted by rushmc at 1:26 PM on January 13, 2004
DBAPaul: Most, nearly all, of those contractors were offered the company's customary pay for their positions and the opportunity to become employees. Few accepted, and the positions primarily went to folks -- like me -- who wondered why the hell we were paying J. Random Contractor $225/hour (plus OT) to do jobs they were willing to do for salary. The staff was padded heavily with contractors as an artifact of the late 90s IT labor crunch and a budgeting scheme that penalized managers for having enough full time employees (while not counting contractors at all) to do the work. Now both problems are solved and good riddance to them.
And frankly, if they didn't have gigs lined up, perhaps they could consider living off some of the savings from making 3 to 5 times the income of the salaried employees doing similar work. Contracting is feast/famine, contractor prices reflect that, and sticking around for 3 or 4 years at "feast" rates doesn't bring them closer to my heart nor justify feasting.
posted by majick at 2:40 PM on January 13, 2004
And frankly, if they didn't have gigs lined up, perhaps they could consider living off some of the savings from making 3 to 5 times the income of the salaried employees doing similar work. Contracting is feast/famine, contractor prices reflect that, and sticking around for 3 or 4 years at "feast" rates doesn't bring them closer to my heart nor justify feasting.
posted by majick at 2:40 PM on January 13, 2004
rush> You (and other people) have been insisting for the vast majority of this conversation that amberglow is racist, jingoistic, and several other things, which has been shown time and again to be a quite unfair misnomer.
Not a single person has apologized, or even given a, "You know, maybe I did read into it wrong, sorry about that."
And he's been rather politely fielding it off and trying (futilely) to explain his feelings on the matter. He gets momentarily aggressive (which I would've done way back when this all began, if I were him), and "you expected better of him"?
I'd say that I expected better of you, but my expectations of several people here have decreased sharply.
posted by precocious at 4:09 PM on January 13, 2004
Not a single person has apologized, or even given a, "You know, maybe I did read into it wrong, sorry about that."
And he's been rather politely fielding it off and trying (futilely) to explain his feelings on the matter. He gets momentarily aggressive (which I would've done way back when this all began, if I were him), and "you expected better of him"?
I'd say that I expected better of you, but my expectations of several people here have decreased sharply.
posted by precocious at 4:09 PM on January 13, 2004
What precocious said, and then some.
Wow, late to this thread and rather wish I never found it -- but I need to weigh in for amberglow here... he is being unfairly pummeled about.
One might disagree with his position, and that's fine, but amberglow a racist? Give me a break.
posted by madamjujujive at 3:48 PM on January 14, 2004
Wow, late to this thread and rather wish I never found it -- but I need to weigh in for amberglow here... he is being unfairly pummeled about.
One might disagree with his position, and that's fine, but amberglow a racist? Give me a break.
posted by madamjujujive at 3:48 PM on January 14, 2004
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by konolia at 1:26 PM on January 10, 2004