9 ms·

Can someone give an actual moral reason why this is bad? Can you explain to me why where you geographically located needs to matter? Or why Americans should b

• Clanan 10y ago
  A few reasons which may or may not apply to this situation. I don't agree with all of them, but they're worth a discussion I suppose. * The "cheaper" country has fewer regulations. e.g. sweatshop labor that the local workforce can't compete with. * The organization profits from the local community, its regulations, and populace but doesn't "give back" through jobs, etc. * The notion of patriotism: as a community, we should put our interests first (and other countries will do the same). Obviously this is a waaaay bigger topic than can be addressed in a bullet point.
  • randcraw 10y ago
    Not to mention the sub-standard-vs-US working conditions HCL has in India. Outsourcing to a sweatshop is bad karma.
    • pm90 10y ago
      A lot of the wealth in the west was created in some rather dubious ways viz. colonies and slavery. I wonder whether that wealth would carry "bad karma" as well. The simple truth is that without laws explicitly forbidding businesses from engaging in such practices, the market WILL force them to engage in them. So we change the market using regulations to prevent such sort of a thing.
    • ashwinaj 10y ago
      Do you have any source of these sub standard working conditions? I did a quick google search on HCL offices: https://www.google.com/search?q=hcl+offices&client=ubuntu&hs=cKr&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCyauJ_7XSAhXHjlQKHcceDN8Q_AUICigD&biw=1368&bih=730 https://www.google.com/search?q=hcl+offices&client=ubuntu&hs... Or are you talking about work culture?
    • robert_foss 10y ago
      Sub-standard working conditions are a thing in the US too. A common thing. Worker rights are overall very weak in most industries across the US.
  • calvinbhai 10y ago
    Well, * The "cheaper" country has super cheap healthcare options, where employer is not required to subsidize the premiums. Could that be the reason why they dont lay off older employees in these "cheaper" countries with fewer regulations?
• WriteYourRep 10y ago
  Immoral is a difficult judgement to make. But it is asymmetrically advantageous to the business. The business can go anywhere to look for employees, an employee can't move to SE Asia and work at Foxconn. This is not outsourcing, its geographical arbitrage. Barriers to the current employees make this possible.
• tptacek 10y ago
  It is if nothing else a bad look for technology workers, who are in the business of eliminating jobs. If a business can shed 50% of its payroll through efficiencies from technology, we cheer. If it can shed 50% of its payroll through efficiencies in sourcing, we break out the pitchforks. That's a morally incoherent position.
  • shiven 10y ago
    If you think technology won't be vilified, wait until the robots start flipping burgers and pumping gas (or electricity) at >10% market penetration.
    • tedunangst 10y ago
      Wasn't gas pumping one of the very first businesses to "automate" (by making customers do it themselves)?
    • AstralStorm 10y ago
      Burgers already are done automatically at volume. Assembly is manual... Sometimes and partially.
• eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  You're asking an implicitly deontological question with an explicitly consequentialist answer. This kind of "outsourcing economy" has been tried, and we have observed mostly negative effects. It deskills the country which pays for the goods, creates trade imbalances that help to break down what's left of our international system, impoverishes the people who are disemployed, and exploits the people who are newly employed. Worse, the gains-from-trade that economists say ought to occur are allocated entirely to the owners of firms and equities, rather than being redistributed to the former workers to help smooth out economic transitions. >This weird entitlement around jobs in America is strange to me. That's because America's not willing to spend any resources on retraining workers or redistributing wealth away from the owning class, so "jobs" are the one thing people absolutely need to stay alive.
  • ythn 10y ago
    > You're asking an implicitly deontological question with an explicitly consequentialist answer. Found the philosopher
  • hyperliner 10y ago
    Loved your answer but adding some explanations for those of us not as smart as you: Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty") is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on rules. It is sometimes described as "duty-" or "obligation-" or "rule-" based ethics, because rules "bind you to your duty." Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.
    • eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      Gaaah, I should make some coffee. Big words come out when I don't drink enough caffeine to use small ones.
      • dallamaneni 10y ago
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  I am a software developer at a major American university. I do good work because I am immersed in the culture of higher education, which is nothing at all like private industry. Both faculty and administrators are significantly different in their needs and ways of doing things than in the private sector. They have always been and always will be. "Running the college like a business" is an oft-repeated punchline used to describe people that just don't understand the system and are bound to fail. My point is that software development requires both the creator and the customer to share an appropriate context in order to produce the desired results without error or miscommunication. You can't simply plug in development like a USB stick and expect the same results every time. One caveat: our college town is in a very rural area, and housing costs outside of town are dirt cheap. I cannot imagine the financial burden to support staff in a horrendously expensive city like San Francisco. Because of this, we can afford a larger headcount, and provide an excellent service.
• beisner 10y ago
  Of course, tribalism is the primary motivator here, but I think there are a couple other economic and moral arguments to be made against unbridled globalism. From an economic perspective, much of international economic growth is based on confidence rather than rational analysis of economic situations. Credit markets underpin everything we do, and we have seen what happens when a lack of confidence undermines an entire global credit system (e.g. It causes a global economic crisis). A steady outflow of jobs from a currently wealthy country could potentially undermine consumer confidence in that country, which would in turn decrease consume spending and the tolerance for risk in that country, which could prompt a credit shrink in the short- to medium-term, meaning that in aggregate, everyone might be worse off. Now, in the long-term, things would generally even out, but it stands to reason that achieving that globalization without such a rock to confidence in wealthy countries (perhaps in a slower or government-assisted way) immediate negative effects might be mitigated and the ride might be smoother for everyone. On the moral side of things, one could make the argument that it's morally inconsistent to allow manufacturing and services to move to countries where labor laws and political/societal conditions are sufficiently transgressive in the eyes of the public. This is kind of a tricky idea to pick apart and is a bit fuzzy but I'll try to give an example. Consider a company that makes shoes in a country with strong labor protections for children and low corruption in government. If that company were to move operations to a country where children are regularly exploited to drive down manufacturing costs (and the company makes use of this cultural/societal condition), a resident of the former country could make a strong moral case that this company should not be allowed to continue selling its goods in that country, because the supply chain is tainted. This is a very common situation (Nestle, for instance, is notorious for these kinds of ethical violations). Once again, in the long term increased industrial economic activity in a region will generally cause it to become wealthier and improve labor protections, but in the short- to medium-term it is not unreasonable to oppose the transfer of manufacturing and service operations to places where workers are not entitled to rights that people in a wealthier/more-protected country might consider fundamental. This is unlikely to be the case for offshoring IT jobs to Bangalore (although one could potentially find gripes with systemic corruption in India), but is more common in textile-exporting countries in South-East Asia. I'm right there with you in thinking that one human being is no more entitled to a job than another just by the section of ground he happened to be born on, but we live in a complicated world that is in a suboptimal configuration, and unbridled globalization might not be the most effective way to achieve more equity universally.
• dominotw 10y ago
  >moral reason why this is bad? Article didn't seem to suggest this is an issue of morality. Where did you make that connection?
  • mannykannot 10y ago
    Just because the article did not mention it, it does not follow that there is no moral dimension here.
• employee8000 10y ago
  It's this type of thinking that plays right into the hands of a Trump. His message is "America First" and it obviously resonated with enough people.
  • AstralStorm 10y ago
    The real question is if you interpret it as country interest or people interest first. If remains to be seen which side will happen. People have to finally learn that it is not the message that is important, but the result.
• BearGoesChirp 10y ago
  >Can someone give an actual moral reason why this is bad? Because the work conditions in other countries are driven by practices we see as immoral. A developer job in India isn't likely a job that is considered immoral, but what they demand for compensation is largely drive by all the other jobs and the wages for those jobs, many of which are at least illegal in the US (below minimum wage, illegal work conditions, many regulation violations). For an exact example, the minimum wage in India is a little over 2 dollars per day. If I could hire people in the US for that price, I could definitely lower the price I would need to be compensated to achieve a certain quality of life. But people would argue me hiring people for $2 a day would be immoral. Yet the developer in India can do that, and as such, commands a lower price. By paying them, these such practices are supported. (Now to be exact, I don't mean to suggest that every developer has an army of minimum wage workers at their beck and call. Instead, their entire lower cost of liven is driven by many things we consider immoral.) It is like paying a supplier who is violating both laws and morals to give you a cheaper price for the product. You could try to say that technically you aren't violating the law and just buying the cheapest product, but many would not consider such actions to be moral.
  • pm90 10y ago
    Many many many American business already source products from countries with dubious regulations, worker protections etc. The crusade against blood diamonds was only the most visible and successful effort against this. Just take a look at all the Textiles imported from Bangladesh, Seafood from Vietnam, Canned fruits/veggies/everything from Thailand...do you think workers in those countries have the same kind of worker protections as US workers? I'm not trying to pass judgement here, simply trying to point out that a lot of what we take for granted is already built on the back of people working in bad conditions. (Not even starting to talk about Foxconn and stuff here...)
    • BearGoesChirp 10y ago
      >Many many many American business already source products from countries with dubious regulations, worker protections etc. That we as a society tolerate this is something I've wondered about for a long time. If I buy something cheap made by child labor, people just say I'm price savvy. If I use child labor, and not just the kid working for a little pocket money, people see me as a monster. Yet by funding it I support it comparable to engaging directly in the action.
• mc32 10y ago
  Not sure about a moral reason, but the political reason is that I cannot walk into the Indian unemployment office and get benefits, or I can't just get off the plane and get a job. So long as we have countries as political units, this will be the reason. Countries are by and large semi-closed systems in terms of economics, do it would make sense we protect our own economy, just like the majority of big economies do. It's odd that people complain about US "protectionism" but on the other hand complain about US imperialism while also ignoring how protectionist and nationalist a place like India is.
  • kamaal 10y ago
    >>So long as we have countries as political units, this will be the reason. Countries are by and large semi-closed systems in terms of economics, do it would make sense we protect our own economy, just like the majority of big economies do. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news to you. But US itself pursued globalization policies to cut the influence of USSR during the cold war. Globalization was a US political project gone crazy during the internet years. In fact no one reaped more benefits at the world stage than US. Even as we speaking now. US has more to benefit from H1-B and other Visa systems. You don't really want all these highly trained brains from India to go to other places. >>how protectionist and nationalist a place like India is. India has let in far more foreign business in the recent past than US ever will. If you are a US business making insane tens of billions worth profits selling stuff in India. Its really not a lot to ask the company in question to hire a few Indians to run their operations in India.
    • mc32 10y ago
      Sorry but globalization not only benefitted the US but everyone. Even places like Haiti and fidji have benefitted from globalization, including most notably east Asia with the foremost exemplars of Japan and China. Remember India when she was part of the non aligned axis and how "well" she was doing? That's right, globalization has helped more people around the world than anything else but people try to pretend only the US benefitted from this policy. However, the US did underwrite most of the costs of making this happen.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• jefurii 10y ago
  When it's your job getting outsourced you'll suddenly find that you care about this issue.
  • scarface74 10y ago
    I don't care if by some fluke my job gets out sourced and it would be a fluke if they could find someone working remotely with my architectural and soft skills. My financial stability doesn't come from my job, it comes from my skill set and my network that allows me to relatively quickly get another job. I work hard to keep my skill set from being easily commoditizable.
• istorical 10y ago
  I find it baffling that you'd assume morality is at all involved in this for those who subscribe to the more nationalist / anti-immigrant / anti-outsourcing ideas. It's about money. If I'm an American developer, I want as few developers to be available so that my wages rise. If I'm BigCo, I want as few competitors selling the same products so that my prices can rise. What's hard to understand about why people would support these types of movements? It's as simple as "I want more money and I don't really care about other people who's lives I'm not experiencing."
  • kamaal 10y ago
    >>If I'm an American developer, I want as few developers to be available so that my wages rise. The door for this has closed quite a while ago. These days with a laptop and a internet connection there are a lot of things you can learn and do. Basically we lowered the barrier to entry big time. In fact many of us have a job today because of this low barrier to entry. Now to expect the door be shut right behind us is in a way morally wrong. Nor the way how things work.
    • scarface74 10y ago
      If you are in your career for more than 5-10 years and the only thing that you can offer to a potential company is the ability to Sling code, why shouldn't your job be outsourced? Being able to sling code is a commodity. It took me a while, but I think I've developed enough architectural and soft skills to not be lumped in the pool of easily outsource code slingers.
      • AstralStorm 10y ago
        So now you'd be outsourced to a manager, analyst and a "code slinger" in India? (and your manager too) It is always a question of price and achievable quality. One works against the other, partly.
        • scarface74 10y ago
          Realistically, do you see management and architects being outsourced to India en masse?
• RestlessMind 10y ago
  Because of tribalism. You care for your own community and in return, your community cares for you. US govt (a proxy for US community) cares for US citizens and US citizens have a mechanism to ensure that it continues to care for them. Indian govt (a proxy for Indian community) doesn't care about US citizens and they do not have any mechanism to make it care. So until we all truly believe in "global community" and have mechanisms to ensure that there is a legitimate proxy for global community to care for everyone, its better to stick to your own community. p.s. Even US might be a very big entity to have any sense of cohesion (and hence the polarization we see). Probably, we need smaller regional entities having bulk of the duties/responsibilities/powers, with federal govt performing only a minimal set of functions. But thats a separate political debate.
  • ashwinaj 10y ago
    > US govt (a proxy for US community) cares for US citizens and US citizens On paper. But it seems like over decades it's become "US govt supporting businesses" which is ok as long as business leaders are somewhat altruistic, which is clearly not the case.
    • RestlessMind 10y ago
      Originally coming from a developing country, the amount and quality of services offered by various levels of US Govt is astonishing compared to what I used to get from my country of origin. [eg. reliable public infrastructure like good roads, 24hr electricity, clean air, clean water; libraries; national parks; heck even travel protection programs like STEP while traveling abroad]. If you think all that amounts to nothing, or just amounts to "supporting businesses", try spending 5-6 years as a resident (not tourist) in some developing country.
      • ashwinaj 10y ago
        I did high school and college in India, so I understand your sentiment. Unlike developing countries which are now investing in their infrastructure/people, the US on the contrary is not investing in them as they used to (eg., education, technical training etc.). From what I was told by old timers, companies actually had training programs for their employees. Minus a handful of companies no company provides these kinds of benefits. All companies at the end of the day look at their bottom line and see employees as a liability rather than an asset and this eventually hurts the middle class.
• geebee 10y ago
  I might be able to give you an actual moral reason. Let me start with the concept of free participation in labor markets. I think there's a strong moral case to be made that people should be free to choose what they wish to study, and how and where they wish to work, in response to market signals. Nobody owes you a job, nobody owes you an employee. If you aren't paying enough to entice people to work for you, you need to pay more or improve working conditions. If you aren't able to entice people to pay you what you want, you need to improve your skills, accept worse working conditions, or change fields. We tend to frame this in economic terms - it's best when workers are free to choose higher value jobs, but sure, I see it as a moral issue. Telling people that they must work as software developers in the valley as a condition of living and working in the US is a moral issue. If that person would prefer to open a sandwich shop, sell real estate, write novels, or clean teeth, that's that person's business. To me, if they prefer to do this over writing software for Facebook - or UCSF - that is a sign that the market is working just fine. Economically, I don't like the idea that corporations would gain control over the immigration system to coerce would-be immigrants into certain jobs. But morally, absolutely, it's a violation of basic human rights and dignity to tell them they aren't allowed to quit their jobs and do something else in response to their personal interests and market signals. I've framed this in terms of immigrant rights, but yes, of course, it absolutely hurts US citizens and permanent residents who currently work as software developers or other IT role, when the government creates a parallel immigration system, run and controlled by corporations specifically designed to bring in workers from overseas who are allowed to work as IT specialists but not in other fields. And again, yes, I think there's a moral case to be made that it is wrong to single out IT workers for this sort of marketplace disadvantage. I don't really think American IT workers are asking for special government protections. They're just asking for the ordinary protections that cover every other field - that the conditions for coming to the US as an IT worker be the same as a drywall installer or dental hygienist. Immigrants come to the US and decide what to study and what professions to pursue. Some may go into IT, some will go into other fields. So far, I see no problem at all. But a system controlled by corporations that can be used to force would-be immigrants to work in IT or software development as a condition of living in the US, that can be revoked by the corporation and result in deportation for the worker? Sure, I can make a moral case against that quite easily.
• openmosix 10y ago
  I've kept saying this to everyone who supports closing/limiting H1B (or other immigration forms): if companies cannot hire here (at a reasonable price), they will hire there. Moving an IT department is easier than ever. Startups are now doing it too - I know many having a R&D location in India, China, East Europe. All these new policies against immigration will accelerate the process of "hiring there".