5 ms·

I hate the racist and nationalistic undertones whenever this is brought up. Why should Americans make more money than Indians for the same work? What is so int

• obrero 11y ago
  > racist and nationalistic undertones whenever this is brought up. Why should Americans make more money than Indians for the same work? Your idea that Indians (or perhaps Chinese) should be the only ones coming in sounds a bit racist to my ears actually. Why should it be Indians coming in, when so many Syrians are fleeing their homes, much due to the US invasion of Iraq (and undermining of Assad - so that now ISIS runs much of Syria). I don't see how India providing its citizens with free IIT educations, only to be brought to the US and work like coolies, chained to an H1-B visa, is some wonderful thing. We should be giving out citizenship, and that's it, the foreign worker programs are only used to screw over American workers. You have this racist attitude of wanting Indians, and excluding Syrians etc. You want them chained them chained as coolies to H1-B visas to exploit them. Then you accuse anyone opposed to your scheme to exploit people for a buck "racist" like you're some kind of humanitarian.
  • scintill76 11y ago
    Huh? Nowhere did the GP post say that Indians/Chinese are preferable over Syrians or anyone else. I assume Indians were only mentioned because they are mentioned in the article, and are the stereotypical target of outsourcing hate. I really don't get this response; the GP also expresses distaste, or at least skepticism, at treating Americans as entitled to higher pay (having "coolies").
  • aianus 11y ago
    > Your idea that Indians (or perhaps Chinese) should be the only ones coming in sounds a bit racist to my ears actually. I only mentioned Indians because the article was about Indians. > We should be giving out citizenship, and that's it, the foreign worker programs are only used to screw over American workers. Or the US could have work visas that aren't so closely linked to a specific employer. I agree the H1-B terms as they are now are ridiculous and exploitative.
• wahsd 11y ago
  Because Indians should create a great society for themselves, not simply essentially siphon off success that other societies have built up. The thing about this matter is that is a net negative for all parties involved, it's essentially akin to tearing others down instead of working to build one's own success.
  • cscurmudgeon 11y ago
    That is both illogical and racist :) What about the success that was siphoned off from Indians due to centuries of colonialism by European powers?
• maerF0x0 11y ago
  The claim is that an American has first dibs on a job over a foreigner, additionally there is an assumption that the local worker is better at the job. This is certainly true before the training, but unclear afterwards.
• jws 11y ago
  Mimicry can handle the ordinary events. I pay accountants to notice and handle the extraordinary. Long ago when I was in digital medical imaging we observed radiologists reading X-rays and figured we could make many times our engineer wages by just saying "Normal chest" and pressing the "advance" button. We'd be right almost all the time!
  • aianus 11y ago
    How do you know they don't have a couple American accountants still on staff for the extraordinary events?
    • kayfox 11y ago
      But the extrodinary includes issues discovered by those processing the data.
  • Terr_ 11y ago
    I like to joke about how I could set up shop beneath a volcano, and every day predict whether it will explode with over 99.99% accuracy. I simply say "No" every day.
• tomohawk 11y ago
  Why should the US Government facilitate the taking of an American citizen's job? Thats not why we pay our taxes. If a company wants to offshore jobs out the country, they shouldn't be helped by our own government to do it.
  • aianus 11y ago
    Like I said, because it will grow the real economy of the United States overall if menial labour is conducted elsewhere for cheap and the high-value high-margin labour is conducted in the U.S. Consider that as a result of 70 people at Toys 'R' Us losing their jobs, toys became marginally cheaper for hundreds of millions of Americans. Edit: not to mention the majority owners of Toys 'R' Us realizing the part of the savings that aren't passed on to consumers are undoubtedly American investors and pension plans.
    • 67726e 11y ago
      Yeah, it'll get a corporation and a few higher ups rich at the expense of the folks making a decent living on those jobs. I have an interest in seeing my fellow countrymen do well compared to those of another nation.
      • Asbostos 11y ago
        "I have an interest in seeing my fellow white people do well compared to those of a darker skin tone." This is the same kind of feeling with the same kind of effect. The only difference is the choice of how to classify people.
        • tedks 11y ago
          Do you really, genuinely think that if Russia was the destination du jour for outsourcing, there would be no contention?
          • Asbostos 11y ago
• jefurii 11y ago
  > I hate the racist and nationalistic undertones whenever this is brought up. I do too. There are two Indian families in my apartment complex who have a breadwinner here on a work visa. I like them and their kids are my son's best friends. I don't see them as the problem here. > Why should Americans make more money than Indians for the same work? I don't know about you, but I probably pay more for rent and a lot of other things here in the States than a corresponding tech worker in India does. I don't think that makes me better than someone in India, but it does mean that the almighty Free Market is certainly not my friend. If we could lower my expenses to the levels you see in India then I think I'd be okay with the Free Market. Updated: clarification.
• cryogospel 11y ago
  why should I be able to live in a better house than you just because my parents left me money when they died? Our ancestors built this nation. We current citizens are their heirs. Whatever benefits there are to having been born here, those benefits should accrue only to citizens. America is ours, we and our ancestors built it. If there are any benefits to living here, they belong to us, and not to foregners. Likewise, my nice house belongs to me and not to you, despite the fact that it was purchased with money willed to me by my parents.
  • IIAOPSW 11y ago
    >why should I be able to live in a better house than you just because my parents left me money when they died? you shouldn't.
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • curiousDog 11y ago
    Hilarious. I'd expect this argument to be made by a 5 yr old. You do realize these jobs are being handed out by your "brothers and sisters" then right? Toys r us's management made these decisions. And your "ancestors" created a capitalistic, meritocratic society. You either be the best and survive or you perish. No hand outs.
  • NhanH 11y ago
    I take it that you also claim personal responsibility for any and all the sins that your ancestors and elder Americans have done?
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • Asbostos 11y ago
    This is a valuable point, though I don't agree with it. Inheritance is really more like giving gifts to people you like. That's part of freedom. Some people give their inheritance to charity or friends instead of their children. So really if you get a gift because somebody likes you, that's because you're lucky, likable, or whatever reason they had. It's not a fundamental right though. The idea of personal property is completely off the topic. Of course your house is yours, but it's not automatically your children's when you die. That's a choice you're free to make. As for "we built America". You mean "People of Earth built America" It wasn't done in isolation. It depended on international trade and influx of valuable workers from other countries. You could equally argue that America belongs to Italians because there lots of Italian people helped build it.
• mc32 11y ago
  Simply, in a perfect world without bad governments, this would be true. Buy we live in world where if I lose my job in the U.S. I will not get any support from the Indian government. If I am stranded in some jail in some undeveloped country on trumped up charges I can't go to the Indian embassy for assistance, etc. It also affords us better environmental oversight, better roads, infrastructure, etc. That's to say nation states are selfish and are at the service of its people. That's how we've got things set up. That's why Bangladeshis aren't allowed to work in India, or why any state adopts tariffs, etc. All selfish self interest. That is why. It's also not racist, unless you use the old definition of race meaning nationality. If these were going to the English or to the Russians, you'd see similar backlash.
• dxbydt 11y ago
  >If this is possible you don't have a real job and the Indian will be shortly be replaced in turn by a piece of software. This is actually possible for a LOT of jobs that Americans do, modulo edge cases. Most of what nurse practitioners do, for instance, can very easily be replicated by a random forest. Try telling the nurse practitioners they don't have a real job. Hell, by that metric, most of crud isn't a real job either. In fact, the whole point of "work experience" is that the newhire with zero work experience mimics the more experienced worker until he passes the Turing test ie. the Boss, given the work output, can no longer distinguish if the work was performed by the newhire or the oldhand. Its turtles/strike/mimicry all the way down.
• thoman23 11y ago
  Ah, yes, the old "train everyone to be a doctor, lawyer, or CEO" mindset (actually, 2 of those 3 are at risk these days too!). Here's the thing. Not everyone in this country can be a CEO. The WALL-E premise of everyone living the fat life (pun intended) while the robots do the work is not viable. The truth is that this country is made up of people with a broad spectrum of capabilities and talents. Furthermore, these people are not fungible resources that can easily relocate to whatever third world country that has now usurped their former job functions. We have already seen large parts of this country's population essentially permanently displaced with the mass outsourcing of manufacturing. These were good paying, stable blue-collar jobs that people who were not born to be CEOs could rely on, live a good life, and raise families. Now look at the former manufacturing cities. They did not all magically retrain to be knowledge workers. Instead, entire communities were laid to waste. Now extend what happened to manufacturing to skilled labor under your "every job to the cheapest bidder" philosophy. What happens? Maybe plastic crap at Toys-R-Us is 3 cents cheaper. But eventually a large enough percentage of this country is displaced to where society itself becomes unstable. When this destabilization eats away at enough of foundations of our society, even the wealthy will be affected. Government's job is (supposed to be) to take the longview on what is good for a healthy American society, not to facilitate multi-national corporations in their quest to cut every cost they can.
  • NhanH 11y ago
    What I don't understand in all the "jobs are moving oversea" discussion is that the opponent seems to be advocating for economic inefficiencies (creating/keeping jobs in the States at all costs, comparative advantage be damned) as a mean for keeping a healthy society. Shouldn't the correct and proper solution be some appropriate measurements like basic income or better social welfare in general? Jobs are a mean to create wealth (and by extensions, welfare) for a society. I don't understand the reason for trying to reduce the wealth being created in some notion of keep "jobs", and if the inland American economy can not generate enough wealth for some reasons, then we have bigger problems to deal with. Essentially, this is a wealth redistribution issue, and should be treated as such, focusing on creating "jobs" seems to be the wrong idea to go at it.
• bickfordb 11y ago
  I find fault that these consulting companies (such as Tata) essentially cheat the H1B system and block actually exceptional workers from coming to the US.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• Terr_ 11y ago
  > Why should Americans make more money than Indians for the same work? Because America is not India. All those American workers have bills to pay in America, where the bills are higher the same way their wages are higher.
  • aianus 11y ago
    > All those American workers have bills to pay in America, where the bills are higher the same way their wages are higher. Of course they are, because the standard of living is much higher in America. If you prefer, I can rephrase the question as "Why should Americans enjoy a higher standard of living than Indians doing the same work?"
    • Terr_ 11y ago
      Now you aren't actually talking about workers at all, it's just a retread of "Why is America currently in a wealthier position than India?"
      • aianus 11y ago
        More like, why is it morally correct that America should interfere in the free market to maintain its lead over poor foreigners?
        • Terr_ 11y ago
          So you also believe that the Indian government is acting immorally when they enact environmental laws? Preventing foreign capital from setting up toxin-dumping industries is also "interfering in the free market" too, you know. "The free market" is neither (A) a natural state between different nations with different legal codes nor (B) intrinsically moral.
          • grinnbearit 11y ago
            I believe aianus used "free market" here to mean free access to labour. I'm more interested in your views on "to maintain its lead over poor foreigners"