quote:

---

"Q: I'm curious as to what kind of responses you have been getting. Do you use curse words at them?
A: I made an Indian woman cry and promise to quit her job in 60 seconds. You can do it too!"

MUMBAI: This is only a random (and printable) selection from the thousands of messages in cyberspace calling for a campaign to harass Indian call centre operators, to put an end to the offshoring of jobs.

The same person goes on to describe some more of his experiences while calling these call centres, an activity to which he promises to devote "one hour every day".
***
In the last few months, and particularly since the US presidential elections, people working in call centres in the country say that they are receiving more abusive and racist phone calls than ever before.

"Earlier, people would get abusive if we didn't answer their questions satisfactorily. Now, I get calls—on some days up to five a shift—from people who are calling only to abuse," says Shalini J, a 22-year-old engineering graduate who works in a major call centre in Malad.

---

Times of India reports

[ 17 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

Now that I've read the article I realise the nastiness is about jobs; in that case they should be calling their own government to complain.

[ 17 January 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

I'm really flustered right now, from a hatefully anti-worker (and anti-feminist woman - at least she claims to be a woman) babbler.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
(So at least conceptually, I wouldn't have a problem with someone doing the same thing to a call center that has taken away work that they used to do.)* (But only if there is an actual objective to it other than venting frustration. And there is no need for someone to demean and dehumanize another worker because that worker happens to be "foreign" or to gloat after "making that worker cry.)"

---

[ 19 January 2005: Message edited by: Negad ]

[ 20 January 2005: Message edited by: Negad ]

I would have to say that it's a really different thing to make phone calls to complain when you are speaking to someone who can actually make a difference in the situation than when you're just whining and being abusive/racist towards an employee (or more likely "associate"). I don't think that it's justified to harass the workers in a factory/call centre that replaced "yours", evem if you can show that there was a direct relation between your workplace closing and theirs opening.

quote:

---

I Honestly thought that was a conversation between two union officials/bosses. Becasue this is the kind of tactics they use to make workers of colour quit their jobs and then they repalce them with "better" people unless of course the job is cleaning after others which of course it would be consedered a perfect fit to have people of colour to clean up after "better" people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amy:

Are you thinking of any particular union?

---

[ 20 January 2005: Message edited by: Negad ]

So, when I'm on the phone with "customer support" with a firm I've patronized because they are "Canadian", and I get an inkling that they might be "off-shore", I do ask, "what part of Canada are you in ?".

Sometimes I get disingenious answers, sometimes not. But either way, I am polite and respectful, but inform that I chose the suplier because they were Canadian; and that though I wish them all the best, I am not going to be complicit in the deceit. Usually the conversation ends on very cordial terms; then i contact the supplier's head office.

[ 20 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

[ 20 January 2005: Message edited by: James ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barcode:
What a load of crap! Immigrants create jobs.
[/URL]

---

quote:

---

I have a hard time understanding why babblers who claim to be interested in the welfare of the poor cannot bring themselves to see that there may be some positive elements to the outsourcing phenomenon. India is one of the most desperately poor countries in the world: for an Indian IT worker, getting a job with IBM or Microsoft means enjoying a standard of living beyond the wildest dreams of their grandparents. This is real progress where it counts.

Why is the only contribution that the leftists can bring to this debate is a list of justifications for preventing the transfer of capital, employment and production to poor countries?

---

quote:

---

Give me a way to transfer wealth from the rich in developed countries rather than pitting working classes against each other, and then we'll talk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
Now that I've read the article I realise the nastiness is about jobs; in that case they should be calling their own government to complain.

---

I'm not sure that there's an effective role for government here, much as I'd like there to be one. At least not a role that would stand up under international trade laws.

Years ago lots of manufacturing moved offshore, once shipping costs came down enough that they were offset by the savings in labour.

Now telecom costs are such that it makes no difference to a company if the calls are answered across the street or on the other side of the world. Labour costs are obviously dramatically lower.

Of course it is never ok to be setting workers against one another, but that is precisely what global capitalism at the moment is doing and what the capitalists, when they think about it (at election time), are happy to do. Toss the people a red herring. The more red herrings, the merrier.

quote:

---

although it is never ok actually to be attacking someone who is just trying to survive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
I just happen to know far too many unemployed or struggling "low-wage" Canadians for me to ever consider doing busines with (explicitly or implicitly) anyone providing a product or service that I know could be done here. So, I'll makr small talk about the weather, kids, what have you, and I'll usually try to get a name; One that I pass on when I do talk to the canadian head office, and compliment on his/her professionalism, before explaining why I will not be taking any customer service advice from "overseas" So now, my friend, I bought from YOU, so YOU fix it.

[ 20 January 2005: Message edited by: James ]

---

1. The corporate "race to the bottom" through outsourcing, seeking out ever cheaper and cheaper labour is a "bad" thing.

2. It is even more annoying when the "outsourcing" is done in a "cover-up" manner, so that when I think I am talking to someone in New Brunswick when they are actually in Bombay.

3. And foremost, it is never acceptable to harass, berate, or torment an individual, wherever located, whose only "sin" is in trying to earn an honest living. Don't visit your annoyance or disapproval of the employer's labour and business practices on the "victim".

EDITED TO ADD: James you were posting your summary of the "consensus" here as I was posting. Thank you for doing so, it's exactly how I feel as well.

[ 20 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1391881,00.html

quote:

---

There will clearly be people thrown out of jobs who may struggle to acquire the new skills needed to move up the value chain into the skilled jobs of tomorrow. McKinsey says it is flexible economies such as the US that create new jobs the fastest, although of the workers displaced by offshoring in America over the past 20 years, almost a third had not found another job a year later. While on average the wages in the new jobs were the same as the old, only 25% of workers found higher-paid jobs while half took lower-paid jobs.

In places such as continental Europe, where labour markets are more rigid than in the US or Britain, adjusting to jobs lost through outsourcing could take much longer, warns McKinsey.

---

That's problem #1.

Problem #2 is that that analysis is written entirely in econo-speak -- ie, entirely in terms of large numbers and figures. It does not consider problems of quality-control, nor of human populations and cultures beyond their sheer numbers.

Early on in the article, we are reminded that many have in the past questioned the value of call-centre jobs in themselves, and that's true. Whenever a new job classification like this emerges, we should immediately be asking what it replaces and whether that is an entirely good thing.

And when we say that labour markets are "rigid," what do we mean? In human terms, eg, do we mean that, gee, we just can't imagine why that fifty-year-old is finding it so difficult to retrain himself on his own dime?

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
In my opinion, Negad, the problem is that the Indian workers aren't really getting their wealth back because they now have the chance to do jobs previously done by Canadian or US workers. What the Indian workers are getting is the crumbs of a much vaster profit the owners of the call center businesses reap by pitting workers in one part of the world against workers in another.

[ 20 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

---

quote:

---

I don’t know what is this with western “activists” that they think they have everything figured out and they know what is best for everyone. Don’t you think in finding solutions for the world only by yourselves un-consciously or consciously (doesn’t really make any difference in the outcome)you may find solutions that would protect your privileges and only patronize those already severely wounded by in-justice? Don’t you think the fact that you are in the position to make these decisions by itself is a huge power and privilege that people in India or X, Y so not have?

---

I can't speak for all western "activists," but the only thing I know for sure is that I am quite far from having "everything figured out." I learn something new every day and I usually revisit and revise something old I learned before as well. I also agree that it is difficult to fully understand the position of the workers in India unless one has talked to them directly. It will certainly be impossible to find any sort of "solution" without doing so. As an individual there's only so much I can do in this regard, but most of what I try to do is read and share what I can with others and discuss. For example that's why I posted the article from TIMES OF INDIA here on this site, to read and discuss it with other people.

I do believe from what I have learned so far that a big part of the "problem" with the world today is a global capitalist system of production. And I believe we as a human race will need to free ourselves of it in order to transcend the evils it can wreak. As this is kind of a longer term project, I think in the shorter term what we can try to do is exercise control over production. I believe control is often easier to achieve at the local level so I try to focus my work and my expenditure on the local economy I am in as much as possible.

[ 20 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:
[rattling sound]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:

I can't speak for all western "activists," but the only thing I know for sure is that I am quite far from having "everything figured out." I learn something new every day and I usually revisit and revise something old I learned before as well.
..... For example that's why I posted the article from TIMES OF INDIA here on this site, to read and discuss it with other people.

I do believe from what I have learned so far that a big part of the "problem" with the world today is a global capitalist system of production....

---

robbi_dee, I appreciate your attempt to learn. There is also one point to remember that you are reading the discussions and analysis of a group of people who share a lot of the same experiences and privileges as you and it is important to keep in mind that by itself may not give one a board perspective about issues specially when it comes to social justice. I also understand that each person can only do so much and usually it would be locally but it is the question of what are the options locally and who would a certain act is going to serve and admitting it and not presenting it as something else. It may not be intentionally however we never the less have a responsibility to figure it out for ourselves and be honest about it with ourselves and others. Let say if I shop from Walmart because it is cheaper and then claim that I am shopping there because I don't want workers to loose their jobs then I am putting my responsibilities on some one else's shoulder and if I am trying to analyse it and promote it as a progressive act as if I am doing it for workers at Walmart without knowing the consequences of it for workers then I am not doing any good to the workers and social justice movement. This analysis may make me feel good and remove my guilt for doing so however it may promote a culture that may not be actually the best contribution to a movement towards social justice. Perhaps I should be cautious about my actions and whether it is really well balanced and well informed enough to present it as an act of pro-worker. I don't have to take part in any social justice movement if I don't want to however promoting something as a socially just act without balancing it properly and seeing it from all perspectives is not acceptable either. That is when we end up with a system as presently exists.
If you are acting at the best interest of you local community then state it as such and very clearly and try not to argue that this is in fact the best for Indian workers as well, we don’t know that, do we? No-one in social justice movement specially those as conscious as most people on this site would want to think that they are involved in an act that is in fact may be greatly hurting people in other parts of the world however that is not a justification for making it look like as we are doing it for them or we are doing them a favour. Lets remember that G.W.B always claimed that he was doing a lot of good for people of Afghanistan or Iraq by bombing them and invading those countries and his people always called the dead of civilian “clatral damage”. This is not at all an attack on you this is just another perspective that I don’t want to be left out.

[ 20 January 2005: Message edited by: Negad ]

quote:

---

clitoral damage

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:

Ok this one made me laugh. I wanna see GWB say that in a press conference

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barcode:
For that to happen, wealth must be created.
That's why foreigners are investing their
money in Canada and the USA. The solution
isn't wealth redistribution...the solution
is wealth creation. Wealth redistribution
does little to solve the problem of poverty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

I'm not retreating, mind, Oliver.

---

[Sighs. Wearily mounts his trusty steed and draws his notched sword.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
Look, Oliver: we explained our objections in full, I think. And you didn't get it. Economists never do, for some reason, because they don't talk about class anymore. Give me a way to transfer wealth from the rich in developed countries rather than pitting working classes against each other, and then we'll talk.

---

And in the meantime, you’re willing to let half the world’s population rot in grinding poverty? Be serious.

Yes, you’ve explained your objections. And I’ve answered them (do I really have to go over the Stolper-Samuelson theorem and its implications for trade policy with you again?), and cited chapter and verse, theory and evidence. There’s no theory that I know of that explains how poor countries would be better off if rich countries refused to buy their goods and refused to hire their workers. There’s no evidence that I know of that suggests that poor countries that are cut off from international goods and capital markets end up better off than those that were not.

If there really was a credible theory that explained how poor country workers could be made better off while rich country owners of capital were worse off, you’d have heard about it by now – economists would be shouting it from the rooftops, elated to be finally bearers of news that would make us popular.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
Negad's claims result in the absurdity that one cannot comment on global effects of economic policy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
So if I'm reading you correctly, it seems to you are claiming that we have to talk to Indian workers and accept their point of view before we can pronounce on the overall consequences of offshoring for India. Am I misreading you?

---

I presume that is acceptable outsourcing? It was certainly acceptable to my sister, who was able to pay off her student loan as a result.

quote:

---

If there really was a credible theory that explained how poor country workers could be made better off while rich country owners of capital were worse off, you’d have heard about it by now – economists would be shouting it from the rooftops, elated to be finally bearers of news that would make us popular.

---

quote:

---

but what if the rich people just paid the poor people more for their labour. Would that work?

---

Don't you think we'd all be better off if we could make the truly rich share more of their wealth, rather than just pitting one group of workers against another for the same lousy jobs?

[ 22 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

I think that this is called the race to the bottom, and it is indeed what outsourcing is about, even when it occurs within one country. (Ha! "outsourcing within one country"! )

They did an audit to see how all the plants were doing and guess which one was found to be unprofitable and just shut down, laying off everyone?

[ 22 January 2005: Message edited by: Bacchus ]

quote:

---

He seems to want to make more and more people "truly poor"

---

But they're not, abnormal. Someone decides: the jobs that used to be here are over there now. Plop.

And in a few years, abnormal, the same people could decide to re-plop those jobs. China is looking awfully attractive.

quote:

---

I just don't think it's ethical to tell people in India or where ever that they're not entitled to a job.

---

Has anyone on this thread actually argued this? The person making the phone calls may well feel this way, although I think it's also possible that the author took a few liberties in how he framed anonymous comments he found on the internet. In any case, I haven't exactly seen people jumping to the phone caller's defense here.

quote:

---

Doesn't matter that the job pays more than they could otherwise imagine but they can't have it because the greedy people in North America say they can't.

---

This appears to be some new definition of "greed" that I hadn't previously been aware of. I hadn't realized that not wanting to lose your job and your pension and your ability to support your own family was a "greedy" feeling to have.

quote:

---

By the way, the greed people aren't the owners, they're the lefties that want everyone to give everything to them.

---

That's baiting. Cut it out.

[ 22 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

to be polite, heifer dust. The jobs go where it makes sense to put them. As has been posted elsewhere, a lot of call center jobs end up in Canada. Lets get rid of those.

A lot of manufacturing jobs end up in the far east. True. Let's not buy from them. Easy. First step, throw out your computer [if you actually look at the mother board I suspect you'll find the chip labels to be a map of the third world].

I can go on.

EDIT: And thank you Mandos, for eloquently and patiently summing up again the nub of the opinions most of the rest of us have been expressing.

[ 22 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

The jobs go where it makes sense to put them. As has been posted elsewhere, a lot of call center jobs end up in Canada. Lets get rid of those.

---

abnormal, be in no doubt: those jobs WILL go. "We" won't "get rid" of them, but they will go.

quote:

---

no one here believes that the poor should remain poor

---

and in the US:

The US and Canadian economies are generating jobs at a rate faster than population growth. Anecdotal evidence aside (and it should be noted that the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'), there's little or no reason to believe that the outsourcing phenomenon has had any measurable effect on North American labour markets.

[ 22 January 2005: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]

[ 22 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

But they're not being used that way, are they.

---

Perhaps not - but neither is protectionism. Why not take the energies that are directed at promoting an anti-free-trade agenda and redirect them at policies that are actually designed for attaining the stated policy goal?

If you insist on advocating policies that penalise the poorest of the world's poor, you have to expect people to start questioning your motives. I've not done this (and I won't), but there are those who will. And have - in this thread, even.

FWIW, I've been pretty consistent here in my support for inheritance taxes and the GAI. And I would also support training and income support for people who lose their jobs to free trade. But since the biggest winners to free trade are poor-country workers, there's simply no way that progressives should be working to close borders to the flow of goods and capital.

[ 22 January 2005: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]

Almost all of the solutions given (GAI, etc) are palliatives that are completely unviable in the very climate that produces free-trade. The problem is at the root: the insecurity of jobs and income. Can you give me a solution for free trade that will leave the jobs in North America secure? Then why would I play a shell game? Why would I rob Peter to pay Paul?

[ 22 January 2005: Message edited by: Mandos ]

I mean, people are poor enough in India that you would likely have to put the entirety of the American work force on some form of giant handout program to support their incomes. Is this realistic?

[ 22 January 2005: Message edited by: Mandos ]

quote:

---

Perhaps not - but neither is protectionism. Why not take the energies that are directed at promoting an anti-free-trade agenda and redirect them at policies that are actually designed for attaining the stated policy goal?

If you insist on advocating policies that penalise the poorest of the world's poor, you have to expect people to start questioning your motives. I've not done this (and I won't), but there are those who will. And have - in this thread, even.

FWIW, I've been pretty consistent here in my support for inheritance taxes and the GAI. And I would also support training and income support for people who lose their jobs to free trade. But since the biggest winners to free trade are poor-country workers, there's simply no way that progressives should be working

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:
The US and Canadian economies are generating jobs at a rate faster than population growth. Anecdotal evidence aside (and it should be noted that the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'), there's little or no reason to believe that the outsourcing phenomenon has had any measurable effect on North American labour markets.

---

[ 22 January 2005: Message edited by: blueskyboris ]

Doc, that's certainly possible, but I seem to recall some recent story about a study (yeah, I know, world's least plausible reference; I'll see if I can do better - it's an important point) where someone found that females who lived with a partner had participation rates that weren't correlated with their partners' incomes. If women really were working in order to keep total household incomes at a certain level, you'd expect that correlation to be negative. I'll get back to you on that.

[ 22 January 2005: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]

I am quite sure of that, 'Oliver'. Your 'charts argument' earlier in this thread that does not state the value of the wages of the jobs is an indicator of the quality of what you consider a 'serious argument'.

[ 23 January 2005: Message edited by: blueskyboris ]

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2005/01/does-lou-dobbs-consider-trade-with.html

It's not the post that's good, it's the comments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:
I used to work for a steel corporation and was one of 3 plants under a overall umbrella corp.
My plant was CAW organized and altho that meant some workers got away with murder, it also meant a impressive safety record as well as well established time stats for production and shipping and were reliable. The other 2 plants were non-unionized with a absolutely awful safety problems and using temp help a lot who, when they got the most workplace accidents' were not counted as staff for accident stats since they werent real staff members (or even considered real people). The difference was that our workers go between 20-30/hour, the other plants 10-20 with the temps getting 7/hour.

They did an audit to see how all the plants were doing and guess which one was found to be unprofitable and just shut down, laying off everyone?

[ 22 January 2005: Message edited by: Bacchus ]

---

If workers of colour and aboriginals are pushed out of unionized work places or not hired to begin with then as a result they have to work in non-unionized places and for the most part on the jobs that white folks won't like to do. How do unions treat non-unionized workers? Do they treat them as if they are part of the problem? absolutely. do they treat them in a demeaning manner? absolutely. If a person who works on a low paying job that they can't survive and have to work over time or on two jobs what do unions call them? greedy and anti-union, servants of capitalism,... . However like most people on this forum they also have to have a job in order to survive if that can't be in a unionized environment then it has to be somewhere else. Would they want to work in a unionized work environment and be paid the same and also be treated as an equal within the union? absolutely.

However what they receive from unions (if and when they are allowed there) is resentment, expectation to not exercise their rights against racism and accept the resentment and the consequent treatment that comes with it, as a show of unity. Then as a show of unity refuse to do non-unionized jobs, the deamdn from them is:

You are not allowed on unionized jobs and are not suppose to do un-unionized jobs, mmmmmmmm can someone offer a solution for that? or is it expected from them to make a “little” scarifies and do not survive because we are in the midst of a "revolution" and this action is the only thing that stalls the "revolution".

Which "revolution"? we are living in a era that G.W.Bush get %52 of the votes, who is voting for the liberals and pcs, the very best that we can get at this time is NDP.

I think the whole issue of outsourcing of jobs is exactly the same. Wealth of a country is taken away for years, they are begin oppressed under the gun and that is the very reason that many are here to begin with and the only relief that people can get is from an act that is catering to the capitalism.

Well, how about all workers in north America refuse to work in any plant untill such a time that capitalists stop exploiting other countries or untill such a time that unions stop exploiting people of colour?

Lets allow ourselves to see the world through the eyes of those who are most negatively impacted by this system and find a solution that they can survive as well instead of expecting that they act according to the plan of a group privileged activists.

I am also very aware of the fact that people who are the most under pressure from system are the people who would rise up and topple the system. However I do not believe that situation should be created for that purpose by a group of people their biggest scarifies is to not shop from GAP or buy their fancy car from a company that mostly benefit their local economy. That would mean they have choices, wouldn’t it? What do you say to those who do not have a choice but to work on a crapy job just to survive? Rise up, topple the system so that another group of privileged, power seeking folks such as union bosses can take over the power and push you around, better yet use you to settle the power struggle amongst themselves.

I don't beleive that people are going to willfully play the role is given to them in this little theatre that is authored by those most privliged. I don't think capitalism can be toppled as long as there is racism and everything is viewed in seperate compartmetns.

[ 23 January 2005: Message edited by: Negad ]

I was tempted to, but didn't, ask why anyone hear should believe that his government was being honest, especially when looking at Canada's record (both domestic and foreign) over the decade that he was in cabinet.

But in any case, there seems to be operating in some quarters an assumption that we in the rich countries can actually make substantial progress in addressing world poverty at no cost to ourselves. We can't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by andrewtgsadler:
I was tempted to, but didn't, ask why anyone hear should believe that his government was being honest, especially when looking at Canada's record (both domestic and foreign) over the decade that he was in cabinet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Negad:

Where was he? was he speaking somewehre locally or were you in a UN conf or soemthing? If you have access to UN can we go with you. Some of these politians can use little caht and some advise from us.
Really, who is Canada Amb in UN now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
See, I'm willing to accept a decline in the standard of living of the average Western worker. By that I mean, less gas guzzling cars, etc. What I don't want to do is make some people insecure about the basic aspects of their future, like keeping their home and ensuring an education for their kids, etc, etc. I also don't want the burden to fall disproportionately on the average western worker, which is what is happening.

---

The cost of labour is made cheap by making workers insecure. So making some people temporarily a little wealthier by reducing the security of labour (in terms of people being able to provide a good future for the kids, etc) elsewhere is simply part of the game of pitting them against each other. As the investor class laughs its way to the bank.

What people failed to realize is that it is just as easy to use those theorems to show that in actual fact the wage of the Western worker will inexorably fall to that of Third World status.

Why is it that anyone who recognizes that the First World has exploited the Third World would persist in targeting, as some sort of solution, those workers in the First World who did not cause the impoverishment of others in the first place and have absolutely no power to change it now?

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
What puzzles me:

Why is it that anyone who recognizes that the First World has exploited the Third World would persist in targeting, as some sort of solution, those workers in the First World who did not cause the impoverishment of others in the first place and have absolutely no power to change it now?

This is beginning to look perverse to me.

---

As far as I can see no one (edited to add on this thread) is targeting workers is developed countries. I also don't see any implementable plan for the current situation.

I find analysis that are being offered only address half of the problem and that by itself is a problem. I am trying to see that in practice what does think globally and act locally looks like.

If anythign in specific put you at un-ease I will be ahppy to discuss it with you.

Side track:
I also have to mention something, if this was a facilitated meeting then as soon as a person start feeling uncomfortable and feel things are geting to be perversed then the agenda item would changes therefore not all perspectives can be heard and discussed.
I do agree if some one violate other people's rights things has to be stopped but not becasue some one is not feeling comfortable with certain point of views. This is something Ithougt to brign to yoru attention if you liek to be vigilant about next time you are sittign in a meeting.

Edited to add: mo-one on this thread is targeting workers in developed countries

[ 23 January 2005: Message edited by: Negad ]

When you say that "no one is targeting workers in developed countries," I must disagree. The people they work for certainly are targeting them, if they can see any way at all of making production less labour-intensive, because that's how owners and shareholders make more profit.

To capitalists and economists, the very term "labour-intensive" has become something approaching an obscenity. I find it so puzzling that those of us who have nothing to bring to the marketplace BUT our labour would let them get away with that.

Many, many kinds of work are not well done unless considerable regard is given to making and keeping them labour-intensive. In its early stages, Western civilization understood that principle very well, and some of its progress, I believe, should be credited to that understanding.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

When you say that "no one is targeting workers in developed countries,"

---

And don't worry about editing things out of earlier posts. A lot of people do, once they've changed their minds, but I don't. I often say things I'm sorry for later, but I correct them later and let the earlier stuff stand. I think that it is more useful for anyone who reads us to see how minds actually do move through these conversations we have.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Negad, welcome to babble, and I should have said that sooner.

And don't worry about editing things out of earlier posts. A lot of people do, once they've changed their minds, but I don't. I often say things I'm sorry for later, but I correct them later and let the earlier stuff stand. I think that it is more useful for anyone who reads us to see how minds actually do move through these conversations we have.

Your honest opinions will always be welcome here.

---

I didn't edit my opinion I only edited to mean what I meant to begin with. there was a concern ealier that I understood that people on this site are targeting the workers in develoepd countries and I was responsign to that and late afte you mentined it I realized that it can be totally msiinterpreted.

This thread has gone over 100 posts, now, and taking into account also the images OC uploaded, it's going to download very slowly for those babblers who don't have high-speed connections. I'm going to close it for length but would encourage you all to pick up this conversation on a new thread if you would like.

[ 23 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]