On 07 Jul 2004 15:37:33 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Gould, the fact that a search engine shows 807 links, does not mean those
links are correct.

The random examples I checked confirmed the $1/ hour typical wage.

No. I did not follow all 807 links.

The facts are that the average telephone worker in India earns much more (in
purchasing power), than the average worker in the US.

Have we shifted to relative purchasing power? I misunderstood our discussion to
be centered upon the truth or fiction of the statement that wages in Indian
call centers
are about $1 an hour US.



The problem is in the
exchange rate, and an isolationist policy or implementing a restrictive
tariff on all goods and services imported into the US will not correct this
problem or be of any benefit the US economy or it's work force.

I agree. It would be unrealistic to expect most corporations to avoid the race
to the bottom, wage wise. Sometimes being competitive means seeking out the
lowest common denominator and hanging on for dear life.

Those Indians will soon discover what most of the offshore boat building
countries have experienced in the last 15 or 20 years. As soon as the wages
rise a little bit, the corporations will bail out of India
as if the place had a contagious disease.
If some county 1000 miles away will work for 50-cents and hour rather than a
buck,
he whole kit and kaboodle will upsticks and move.

So is it your contention that corporations should voluntarily not seek
the best "bang for their investment buck", and should adopt a more
altruistic (To U.S. workers) business plan?

What about other foreign corporation who our corporations compete
with?

Greed is a part of human nature. The more you have, the more you want.
That's why liberalism is destined to fail. Liberals believe that
people will do the morally right thing, if given the chance. History
has pretty much proven that wrong. If left to the natural course of
commerce, there will always be those who take advantage of any given
situation to increase their net worth. Only through strong government
regulation (Socialism) do you stand any chance of mitigating this.
Since socialism ultimately leads to mediocrity, it's really not a
worthy solution.

No, the unfortunate truth is that the world market will have to
equalize on its own, and that could take 50 years. Not very comforting
for those of us in the inflated "1st world" countries. But as the rest
of the world catches up to our standard of living, there will be no
further incentive to more work offshore.

Dave

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:00:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


1) Your data does not change the basic idea behind what Gould said. Those
people are still paid a LOT less than comparable workers here.

Then the natural follow up question would be; do those workers feel
cheated that they're making less than we are (adjusted for inflation
and living standards)? If the answer is yes, then it's up to those
people to demand more. If I create a job, and offer it at $2.00 an
hour and someone applies for it, am I to be faulted? Business is run
by the principles of supply and demand. As long as someone is willing
to work for what you offer, then THAT rate is what that job will be
worth.


2) Their comparable purchasing power is not relevant to this discussion.
We're not talking about how bad we feel (or not) about their wages. The
point is that we're stuck with lousy service because American companies are
unwilling to pay what it takes to provide complete and proper support.

Sometimes the differences in costs are much greater than the
difference in service.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On 07 Jul 2004 14:58:09 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

PS - According to the CIA World Fact book, for someone in India to
earn as
much purchasing power as the average worker in the US, they must earn
$2900
per year.

That's $1.45 an hour, assuming the Indian workers do 5 (8-hr) days per
week
(not more) and get two weeks of unpaid vacation.

I provide 807 links that establish a typical pay rate of $1 per hour,
check a
few to verify, and you fault my research?

Here's a face-saving fig leaf for ya. A cut n paste from one article
that says
some wages in India can be as high as $2......
thereby ripping the heart out of my assertion that the Indian call
center
employees are working more cheaply than any American can afford to.
(Typical
liberal. Bemoans that no American can exist on $40 a week, when the
facts are
that a very industrious worker with a little seniority and a
willingness to
assume some management responsibility can eventually hope to rise to
$80 a
week. Instead of one corn dog a week, the industrious worker will be
able to
have a tank of gas, a six pack of beer, and a corn dog *every day*! Woo
hoo!
Watch those damn liberals, they refuse to see the upside potential)

************

Near-shore locations offer workers at wages lower than the US' though
not as
low as India's. According to Trammell Crow, typical hourly wages in US
dollars
are $2.50-$3 in Jamaica and $5-$7 in Canada compared to $7.50-$14 in
the US. In contrast, India's typical hourly wages in US dollars are
just $1-$2.

****************



So what exactly is your beef? Are you faulting the companies which are
taking advantage of these low wages? Or should you be faulting the
ignorant Indian (and other) workers who don't know that they should be
making much more?

Remember, no one is holding a gun to the heads of these workers. In
many cases, even thought their wages are lower than what WE are
accustomed to, they are far better than what they were making before.

Improvements in any third world country's standard of living will come
slowly. But it will come. The people have to realize what they have,
and fight to get more for it.

So why no complaints from the liebrals about liebral hollywood doing so
much offshore filming....backward places like Romania, Bulgaria, Canada
:-)



Dave

P. Fritz wrote:

So why no complaints from the liebrals about liebral hollywood doing so
much offshore filming....backward places like Romania, Bulgaria, Canada
:-)


Liebral? Even if it is a coined word, you dumbfoch Konservatrashers
can't spell. Sheesh.

You will not pay $1000 for a 60 gig disk drive! If you would, then the
manufacturers could build them here. Fully bundled labor cost in Malaysia
is probably in the $3-5 range, was $1.50 in the early 1990's. So, since the
consumer wants the $60 drive retail, the companies are forced to build
overseas. You think that a PR guy for a union pension fund, should make
$100k+? Then you can hire him, but if you could get the same thing for
$20k, would it not be provident to do so for the benefit of the pensioners,
and stockholders?

No, most folks wouldn't pay $1000 for a disk drive. That would amount to
several days' income for a typical American.

Ironically, when we build them overseas and sell them for $60, that price
represents several days' income for the people that built it.

The missing portion of this equation is executive compensation. UP Uranus
Widgets and Gidgets, (for example), traditonally grossed $500mm per year in
sales with a respectable 8% operating net of $40mm. The CEO earned $6mm per
year.

UP Uranus moved manufacturing from Oklahoma to Malaysia, and accounting and
customer service to New Delhi. The decrease in personnel cost improved the
company operating net from $40mm to $110mm, activating an "incentive" clause in
the CEO's contract that increased his pay from $6mm per year to $35mm.
The board of directors voted themselves fat bonuses, dividends went through the
roof, and the stock price advanced sharply. The CEO, the board, and the
stockholders were all delighted.

Somewhat less delighted were the ex-rank and file employees of UP Uranus. Many
had to rely on unemployment insurance, some were forced into an early and
underfunded retirement, and others settled for "underemployed" jobs at a
fraction of their former wages and lost homes, cars,
savings accounts, as a result.

Almost as undelighted were the taxpayers in Oklahoma. UP Uranus discovered that
by forming sub corporations in Malaysia
and India and registering these entities in certain Caribbean nations, there
would no longer be any US federal or local sate taxes paid on the proceeds.
Just when UP Uranus dumped thousands of involuntarily jobless people onto the
doorstep of society, UP Uranus engineered a way to avoid participating in the
social costs associated with the layoff.

That's what is defined as "smart business" by many people whose god is a
greenback
and holy writ is last quarter's financial statement. What the hell, let the
common people eat cake. If they get too desperate, they can sell one of their
Lexus......(surely every family has at least a couple of those, right?)

BUT.....we haven't finsihed casting all the villains in this little scenario.
Throw in another 200 million adults of consuming age and blind them all to any
portion of a purchase decision except price. Have them shop in a business that
is so powerful it collects almost 10-cents out of every retail dollar spent in
the US, and have that business inform its competing suppliers that it *expects*
them to offshore
as many jobs and reduce costs as much as possible so that the company's
200-million customers can buy a new toaster for $10, or a microwave oven for
$39.

Winners: The very rich and the very poor. (Most of the very poor being
overseas). Middle class consumers but only to a point. (Higher unemployment and
greater underemployment depresses wages for all,
meaing that it takes as long or longer to earn that $39 microwave as it did
when the
appliance cost a bit more).

Losers: The middle class overall. Skilled labor, white collar professionals,
and tax revenues. (Sales tax doesn't diminish much when the companies
reorganize offshore, so the portion of the tax burden paid by the consumer,
rather than the corporations, remains relatively high. Transfers the tax burden
to the little people).

Is this a "good" thing or a "bad" thing?
That's up to everybody to decide based on individual values and perspectives.
No doubt about it, however, it is a common scenario in contemporary times.

Greed is a part of human nature. The more you have, the more you want.
That's why liberalism is destined to fail. Liberals believe that
people will do the morally right thing, if given the chance.

Hoboy.....

Dave, liberals try to avoid stereotyping. I can't think of a single thing that
*all* liberals believe in common. Unlike some folks, I actually know and
associate with a lot of liberals. :-)

Don't tell me what liberals believe. Even if
Rush and Hannity have assured you that "liberals believe this and that" they
are usually (often deliberately) wrong.

In example: You state that liberals believe people will do the morally right
thing if given the chance. Horseflies. Nobody is that naive. Some liberals
believe that one of the challenges in life is to figure out how to do the
morally right thing as often as possible while (as you say) the dominant force
in human nature is self serving greed.

If left to the natural course of
commerce, there will always be those who take advantage of any given
situation to increase their net worth.

There is a *natural* course to commerce?
This natural course, or commerce itself, should be the supreme principle upon
which our social fabric is founded? It's all about money, property, and net
worth?


Only through strong government
regulation (Socialism) do you stand any chance of mitigating this.

Here's the hilarious aspect of your statement. Many of the countries where the
US coroporations are relocating manufacturing, accounting, engineering,
customer service, etc, are able to pay workers such itsy-bitsy salaries because
they are *more* socialized than the US!
(But not usually socialistic). Our industry fat cats eschew any suggestion that
we adopt public housing, health care, education, transportation, or subsidize
cultural events in this county while they trip over themselves to take
advantage of low wages made possible by other countries where government
subsidies and support make high individual wages unnecessary.

Socialism is not "strong government regulation of the market". Socialism is an
economic model where a country's natural resources, physical infrastructure,
public agencies and utilities are owned in common by the population. (As
opposed to pure communism, where there is no private property of *any* kind). I
know only two liberals who are socialists. Next failing argument, please?




No, the unfortunate truth is that the world market will have to
equalize on its own, and that could take 50 years. Not very comforting
for those of us in the inflated "1st world" countries. But as the rest
of the world catches up to our standard of living, there will be no
further incentive to more work offshore.

We agree, to a degree. The "world economy" will bring up much of the rest of
the world at the direct expense of the American economy. The winners are the
very rich in the United States, and the very poor overseas. The losers are the
middle class, which will disappear as people willing to live in a home that
allocates 100 sq ft per resident, eat two sparse meals a day instead of three
big ones, walk a few miles to work or take a (god forbid!) bus displace the
middle class American workers doing those jobs now.

The 2030's will not look that much different than the 1930's in America. I'll
be dead (or close) by then, but I lament what unrestrained greed is doing to
the world my children are inheriting.

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:27:43 +0000, Gould 0738 wrote:

We agree, to a degree. The "world economy" will bring up much of the rest
of the world at the direct expense of the American economy. The winners
are the very rich in the United States, and the very poor overseas. The
losers are the middle class, which will disappear as people willing to
live in a home that allocates 100 sq ft per resident, eat two sparse meals
a day instead of three big ones, walk a few miles to work or take a (god
forbid!) bus displace the middle class American workers doing those jobs
now.

The 2030's will not look that much different than the 1930's in America.
I'll be dead (or close) by then, but I lament what unrestrained greed is
doing to the world my children are inheriting.

Add in the predicted oil shortages and there is a recipe for disaster.
The broad scope of these policies could cause severe and violent social
unrest. After several generations of being comfortable haves, I don't
think we'll be as docile have nots as our thirties forefathers.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:27:43 +0000, Gould 0738 wrote:

We agree, to a degree. The "world economy" will bring up much of the
rest
of the world at the direct expense of the American economy. The winners
are the very rich in the United States, and the very poor overseas. The
losers are the middle class, which will disappear as people willing to
live in a home that allocates 100 sq ft per resident, eat two sparse
meals
a day instead of three big ones, walk a few miles to work or take a (god
forbid!) bus displace the middle class American workers doing those jobs
now.

The 2030's will not look that much different than the 1930's in America.
I'll be dead (or close) by then, but I lament what unrestrained greed is
doing to the world my children are inheriting.

Add in the predicted oil shortages and there is a recipe for disaster.
The broad scope of these policies could cause severe and violent social
unrest. After several generations of being comfortable haves, I don't
think we'll be as docile have nots as our thirties forefathers.

.....and people wonder why Bush will probably NOT sunset the assault weapon
ban......

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
P. Fritz wrote:

So why no complaints from the liebrals about liebral hollywood doing
so
much offshore filming....backward places like Romania, Bulgaria, Canada
:-)


Liebral? Even if it is a coined word, you dumbfoch Konservatrashers
can't spell. Sheesh.

Sheesh, look at the spelling in your post. And why no complaints about
offshore filming?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
You will not pay $1000 for a 60 gig disk drive! If you would, then the
manufacturers could build them here. Fully bundled labor cost in
Malaysia
is probably in the $3-5 range, was $1.50 in the early 1990's. So, since
the
consumer wants the $60 drive retail, the companies are forced to build
overseas. You think that a PR guy for a union pension fund, should make
$100k+? Then you can hire him, but if you could get the same thing for
$20k, would it not be provident to do so for the benefit of the
pensioners,
and stockholders?

No, most folks wouldn't pay $1000 for a disk drive. That would amount to
several days' income for a typical American.

Ironically, when we build them overseas and sell them for $60, that price
represents several days' income for the people that built it.

The missing portion of this equation is executive compensation. UP Uranus
Widgets and Gidgets, (for example), traditonally grossed $500mm per year
in
sales with a respectable 8% operating net of $40mm. The CEO earned $6mm
per
year.

UP Uranus moved manufacturing from Oklahoma to Malaysia, and accounting
and
customer service to New Delhi. The decrease in personnel cost improved the
company operating net from $40mm to $110mm, activating an "incentive"
clause in
the CEO's contract that increased his pay from $6mm per year to $35mm.
The board of directors voted themselves fat bonuses, dividends went
through the
roof, and the stock price advanced sharply. The CEO, the board, and the
stockholders were all delighted.

Somewhat less delighted were the ex-rank and file employees of UP Uranus.
Many
had to rely on unemployment insurance, some were forced into an early and
underfunded retirement, and others settled for "underemployed" jobs at a
fraction of their former wages and lost homes, cars,
savings accounts, as a result.

Almost as undelighted were the taxpayers in Oklahoma. UP Uranus discovered
that
by forming sub corporations in Malaysia
and India and registering these entities in certain Caribbean nations,
there
would no longer be any US federal or local sate taxes paid on the
proceeds.
Just when UP Uranus dumped thousands of involuntarily jobless people onto
the
doorstep of society, UP Uranus engineered a way to avoid participating in
the
social costs associated with the layoff.

That's what is defined as "smart business" by many people whose god is a
greenback
and holy writ is last quarter's financial statement. What the hell, let
the
common people eat cake. If they get too desperate, they can sell one of
their
Lexus......(surely every family has at least a couple of those, right?)

BUT.....we haven't finsihed casting all the villains in this little
scenario.
Throw in another 200 million adults of consuming age and blind them all to
any
portion of a purchase decision except price. Have them shop in a business
that
is so powerful it collects almost 10-cents out of every retail dollar
spent in
the US, and have that business inform its competing suppliers that it
*expects*
them to offshore
as many jobs and reduce costs as much as possible so that the company's
200-million customers can buy a new toaster for $10, or a microwave oven
for
$39.

Winners: The very rich and the very poor. (Most of the very poor being
overseas). Middle class consumers but only to a point. (Higher
unemployment and
greater underemployment depresses wages for all,
meaing that it takes as long or longer to earn that $39 microwave as it
did
when the
appliance cost a bit more).

Losers: The middle class overall. Skilled labor, white collar
professionals,
and tax revenues. (Sales tax doesn't diminish much when the companies
reorganize offshore, so the portion of the tax burden paid by the
consumer,
rather than the corporations, remains relatively high. Transfers the tax
burden
to the little people).

Is this a "good" thing or a "bad" thing?
That's up to everybody to decide based on individual values and
perspectives.
No doubt about it, however, it is a common scenario in contemporary times.



Part of the problem has been the astronomical inflation of wages in the USA
in the last 25 years. Middle class wages. 1980 a good engineering job paid
about $23k a year. A car cost $2-4K and the burger flipper was making $2 an
hour. Now the burger flipper is making $9 an hour and the employed engineer
is making $100k a year for the same position and the same car is $25-40k.
What is that inflation wise? About 10% a year. A lot brought on by the
overspending of the government giving away lots of money to the downtrodden.
War on Poverty. Did we win the war? Still people complaining about the
downtrodden. Look at the Carter Presidential years. 17%+ inflation. We
have priced ourselves out of the market in a lot of areas. The rust belt,
had huge unemployment because of a couple of reasons. Iron ore ran short,
and the foundries did not upgrade to produce steel with scrap and some ore
more efficently. And the labor unions forced huge wage increases via
strikes. Sure, it is nice to be a high school dropout, or even a graduate
and earn $80k a year. average public traded companies CEO's in 1962 made
about $130k. 10x the average workers salary. Now same CEO's are making
$1mm. maybe 15x the average workers salary. Sure, there are the Martha
Stewarts, et al. But a small percentage of the CEO's. And we probably had
a similar % ripping off the stockholders in 1964. We are in for hard times,
but maybe we come back into line with the rest of the world in terms of pay.