3 ms·

(I have edited to flesh these out a bit more, but have stopped since there is a reply) I've kinda waffled in my opinion of outsourcing through the years, but o

by Groxx 3y ago

(I have edited to flesh these out a bit more, but have stopped since there is a reply) I've kinda waffled in my opinion of outsourcing through the years, but one issue I keep coming back to is that you can trivially view it as massive, intentional wage suppression. "It's cheaper to live there" yeah, I wonder why that might be. The numerous unbelievably wealthy global companies all doing this in the same very specific areas surely have the area's best interests at heart, and want to raise its standard of living, so it must be something else. "No education required" because they don't have enough to fund education or provide alternatives that could let them fight back on this exploitation. And it also provides leverage for suppressing wages elsewhere, because companies can always just offshore work that their peons are demanding fair wages for. --- And, yes, it also brings a lot of outside wealth into those areas. At high human cost, but still. idk. I do find myself leaning more and more towards it being almost universally a bad thing though. Particularly when they keep saying it's a highly exploitative thing, when they manage to bust through to international news.

KptMarchewa 3y ago
It's almost exactly a good thing though. >"It's cheaper to live there" yeah, I wonder why that might be. It's incoherent reply - if a job does not require high qualifications, besides language knowledge, going for cheapest place is the obvious thing. >The numerous unbelievably wealthy global companies all doing this in the same very specific areas surely have the area's best interests at heart, and want to raise its standard of living, so it must be something else. They are all paying more than local alternatives, thereby increasing local wages. > "No education required" because they don't have enough to fund education 3 dollars per hour is more than Polish minimum wage 10 years ago, and we funded education with much, much less. But I guess no foreign company should invest here? It would leave us in a way better place for sure. >And it also provides leverage for suppressing wages elsewhere, because companies can always just offshore work that their peons are demanding fair wages for. Once the same propaganda you're spewing was playing for Asia. It turned out globalization really made them comparatively rich. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/global-income-distribution.jpg https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/... Now it's time for Africa. The same argument is now even more incoherent - where's the cheaper place? >And, yes, it also brings a lot of outside wealth into those areas. At high human cost, but still. At the cost of... work.
- Groxx 3y ago
  Pretty much all this summarizes as "yes, it's valuable work to the individual". Broadly I agree - a lot of it is clearly a pretty big positive. But that doesn't make it not exploitative. For the same reasons that wealthy places don't generally allow child labor and have worker safety and environmental protections... but outsourced stuff frequently does not. The companies outsourcing are clearly aware of this, but most do or allow things that are blatantly illegal where they're headquartered. Not all of them! There are clear benefits to colocating labor (manufacturing in particular) and some legitimately seem to be spending the money and effort to make sure it's being done ethically. A strong majority very clearly does not though, and outsourced moderation seems to consistently fall into the uncaring category.
  - KptMarchewa 3y ago
    > Pretty much all this summarizes as "yes, it's valuable work to the individual". Individuals are making up the societies. Few dozen of people working relatively high income, are lifting whole countries up - that's how globalization have worked. >But that doesn't make it not exploitative. For the same reasons that wealthy places don't generally allow child labor and have worker safety and environmental protections... but outsourced stuff frequently does not. The companies outsourcing are clearly aware of this, but most do or allow things that are blatantly illegal where they're headquartered. Now you're not actually accusing them of anything, but _comparing_ to other potential bad things. Those jobs aren't pleasant - as is working 12 hour shift in an ironworks - but they are damn better than subsistence farming and dying when there's draught one year. And after those bad jobs, come progressively better ones.
    - Groxx 3y ago
      No, I'm rather explicitly accusing them. >most do or allow things that are blatantly illegal where they're headquartered. Much of this would not be possible on a fair playing field. It happens because the companies outsourcing wield immensely disproportionate power, so they can get away with it. If "maybe we shouldn't let them kill people and dump the trash in their water supply" means slowing things down, I suspect it would be a net benefit, even after losing most of the positives it brings in. I recognize it's complex and opinions differ, of course. Not claiming I alone am right or that my opinion won't change.
baron816 3y ago
> The numerous unbelievably wealthy global companies all doing this in the same very specific areas surely have the area's best interests at heart, and want to raise its standard of living, so it must be something else. That’s the point of capitalism—-it works if you have only your own interests at heart. Wealthy Global Company A enters a market and makes huge profits. Wealth Global Company B (and maybe C, D, E, F, etc) sees they’re making those profits, and enters that market too. Workers then have choices of where they can work and can demand higher wages and better conditions. > it also provides leverage for suppressing wages elsewhere Country A has average wages of $40/hr, and Country B has average wages of $0.40/hr. If companies in Country A move some jobs to Country B and wages in Country A fall to $39/hr and wages in Country B rise to $1.40/hr, but prices also fall in Country A to make up for the fall in lost wages, is the world really worse off? > At high human cost What’s the human cost of not having available jobs? It means children don’t get schooling or vaccines. No access to social mobility. If you get sick from easily curable diseases, you’ll likely just die. No chance of retirement—you just work in the fields until you die. If you want to see the benefits of “outsourcing” these types of low skill jobs, look at Bangladesh. The country has gone from one of the poorest places on Earth, to closing in on middle income status in about two decades.
- majewsky 3y ago
  > but prices also fall in Country A to make up for the fall in lost wages I feel like the problem is that this part is usually skipped over.
- wizofaus 3y ago
  > If companies in Country A move some jobs to Country B [...] is the world really worse off? If the only change is salaries then no. My only objection to offshoring is when the conditions the workers are expected to endure are clearly far below what we'd consider minimally reasonable in developed countries - my basic rule is that "would people still hypothetically buy your product if they had walk through your factory first and observe those conditions first hand?". And no I don't think it's really enough to say "well at least it's better than subsistence farming" - in that case the conditions aren't (by and large) being imposed on them by others. It's a good thing corporations from developed economies are able to offer new employment opportunities in poorer countries, but for the sake of our own humanity, we still need to treat employees with the same basic decency as we would if they were in our own country.

by Groxx 3y ago

KptMarchewa 3y ago

It's almost exactly a good thing though. >"It's cheaper to live there" yeah, I wonder why that might be. It's incoherent reply - if a job does not require high qualifications, besides language knowledge, going for cheapest place is the obvious thing. >The numerous unbelievably wealthy global companies all doing this in the same very specific areas surely have the area's best interests at heart, and want to raise its standard of living, so it must be something else. They are all paying more than local alternatives, thereby increasing local wages. > "No education required" because they don't have enough to fund education 3 dollars per hour is more than Polish minimum wage 10 years ago, and we funded education with much, much less. But I guess no foreign company should invest here? It would leave us in a way better place for sure. >And it also provides leverage for suppressing wages elsewhere, because companies can always just offshore work that their peons are demanding fair wages for. Once the same propaganda you're spewing was playing for Asia. It turned out globalization really made them comparatively rich. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/global-income-distribution.jpg https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/... Now it's time for Africa. The same argument is now even more incoherent - where's the cheaper place? >And, yes, it also brings a lot of outside wealth into those areas. At high human cost, but still. At the cost of... work.

Groxx 3y ago
Pretty much all this summarizes as "yes, it's valuable work to the individual". Broadly I agree - a lot of it is clearly a pretty big positive. But that doesn't make it not exploitative. For the same reasons that wealthy places don't generally allow child labor and have worker safety and environmental protections... but outsourced stuff frequently does not. The companies outsourcing are clearly aware of this, but most do or allow things that are blatantly illegal where they're headquartered. Not all of them! There are clear benefits to colocating labor (manufacturing in particular) and some legitimately seem to be spending the money and effort to make sure it's being done ethically. A strong majority very clearly does not though, and outsourced moderation seems to consistently fall into the uncaring category.
- KptMarchewa 3y ago
  > Pretty much all this summarizes as "yes, it's valuable work to the individual". Individuals are making up the societies. Few dozen of people working relatively high income, are lifting whole countries up - that's how globalization have worked. >But that doesn't make it not exploitative. For the same reasons that wealthy places don't generally allow child labor and have worker safety and environmental protections... but outsourced stuff frequently does not. The companies outsourcing are clearly aware of this, but most do or allow things that are blatantly illegal where they're headquartered. Now you're not actually accusing them of anything, but _comparing_ to other potential bad things. Those jobs aren't pleasant - as is working 12 hour shift in an ironworks - but they are damn better than subsistence farming and dying when there's draught one year. And after those bad jobs, come progressively better ones.
  - Groxx 3y ago
    No, I'm rather explicitly accusing them. >most do or allow things that are blatantly illegal where they're headquartered. Much of this would not be possible on a fair playing field. It happens because the companies outsourcing wield immensely disproportionate power, so they can get away with it. If "maybe we shouldn't let them kill people and dump the trash in their water supply" means slowing things down, I suspect it would be a net benefit, even after losing most of the positives it brings in. I recognize it's complex and opinions differ, of course. Not claiming I alone am right or that my opinion won't change.

baron816 3y ago

> The numerous unbelievably wealthy global companies all doing this in the same very specific areas surely have the area's best interests at heart, and want to raise its standard of living, so it must be something else. That’s the point of capitalism—-it works if you have only your own interests at heart. Wealthy Global Company A enters a market and makes huge profits. Wealth Global Company B (and maybe C, D, E, F, etc) sees they’re making those profits, and enters that market too. Workers then have choices of where they can work and can demand higher wages and better conditions. > it also provides leverage for suppressing wages elsewhere Country A has average wages of $40/hr, and Country B has average wages of $0.40/hr. If companies in Country A move some jobs to Country B and wages in Country A fall to $39/hr and wages in Country B rise to $1.40/hr, but prices also fall in Country A to make up for the fall in lost wages, is the world really worse off? > At high human cost What’s the human cost of not having available jobs? It means children don’t get schooling or vaccines. No access to social mobility. If you get sick from easily curable diseases, you’ll likely just die. No chance of retirement—you just work in the fields until you die. If you want to see the benefits of “outsourcing” these types of low skill jobs, look at Bangladesh. The country has gone from one of the poorest places on Earth, to closing in on middle income status in about two decades.

majewsky 3y ago
> but prices also fall in Country A to make up for the fall in lost wages I feel like the problem is that this part is usually skipped over.
wizofaus 3y ago
> If companies in Country A move some jobs to Country B [...] is the world really worse off? If the only change is salaries then no. My only objection to offshoring is when the conditions the workers are expected to endure are clearly far below what we'd consider minimally reasonable in developed countries - my basic rule is that "would people still hypothetically buy your product if they had walk through your factory first and observe those conditions first hand?". And no I don't think it's really enough to say "well at least it's better than subsistence farming" - in that case the conditions aren't (by and large) being imposed on them by others. It's a good thing corporations from developed economies are able to offer new employment opportunities in poorer countries, but for the sake of our own humanity, we still need to treat employees with the same basic decency as we would if they were in our own country.