|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: David Mandelzys on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 08:30 PM CDT |
"I guess I don't quite understand your point. I don't see what's wrong with what Yaacov said."
Hi Sarrofest,
I took what Yaacov said, to mean that it's wrong to protect jobs from being exported to developing countries with cheaper labour since the people in those countries have the same right to meaningful employement as we do.
I find nothing wrong with that reasoning if the reason for protecting Canadian labour was simply because Canadians feel they are more worthy of the jobs than Fillipinos. However, I don't think that is the reason why we should protect Canadian jobs from outsourcing and so I don't find protecting Candian labour unethical.
The reason I stuck with the Indian example was because it shows more clearly how outsourcing doesn't benifit the country recieving employement, as opposed to in Canada where we still have a way to go before our living standards get eroded.
"Indian programmers are underpaid, by our standards. But so are Filipino programmers; they may be even _more_ underpaid, and if they're not then they're probably not going to be a threat to the Indians."
But that's the point, if multinationals can switch places and labour can't, then multinationals control the wage markets, eroding higher wages (and other benefits) in places where citizens fought for them, and not allowing developing countries to move up the ladder.
"Yes, India has a thriving tech sector with many underpaid workers. Does this mean they deserve a monopoly on tech education in the region somehow? "
No it doesn't (not sure I understand....). India has 1 billion people and a decent sized domestic market. What I'm saying is that India, like Canada, should control access to that domestic market on the condition that those who want access should provide benefits to India, such as secure employment opportunities and a tax base to fund Indian social programs.
The Phillipines should do the same thing, although I do agree that many developing countries will need help. Liberalizing their developing economies on mass, and letting them do our jobs with less benefits is not the help they need.
"Of course you and the OP are right: North American firms might take advantage of India's neighbours and offsource labour from India to cheaper places. But I don't see how that can be regarded as unjustifiable, if the initial offsourcing from the North America/Europe to India is accepted as justifiable."
The initial outsourcing isn't beneficial for the majority either (justifiable depending on what your goals are). The continuing offsourcing is exactly what happens to mobile industries under current free trade agreements. It's not good that Canadian manufacturing jobs that pay decently and have good benefits go to Mexico without the same pay and benefits, likewise, it wouldn't be good if after they went from Mexico to El Salvador with workers and the host country getting even less.
Does that clarify at all, or not really?[ Parent ]
|
| |
|
