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.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

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.

When I went to web sites of those involved in hiring the people involved in
the call center support they stated that the average telephone support
person earns $2 to $3 an hour, not $1 or less. Your links stating $1 were
articles talking about the problem of outsourcing, and accurate facts were
not important to the discussion.





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.

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

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......

On 08 Jul 2004 16:27:43 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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. :-)

I've studied the root philosophies which guide and form the idealogies
of both liberals and conservatives. The basic philosophical
differences between liberals and conservatives, based on my own
research, is this:

Liberals tend to believe that people are basically good. If left to
their own devices, under optimal conditions, they will do the right
thing. Any "bad" things which occur in the world are a result of
"circumstances", or "environment". Criminals are victims of poor
upbringing, or a bad childhood etc.. Improve the social environment,
and most of the problems will go away.

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in intrinsic evil. We all
have it to some degree, some obviously more than others. If left to
their own devices, some people would kill their neighbor if they could
rationalize a good reason and were reasonably certain that they could
get away with it. People with a lesser "degree" of evil might just be
content to rip them off. People's "bad sides" are kept in check by
only a rigid moral and social code of laws. People like Saddam
Hussein, Adolf Hitler, and Jeffrey Dahmer, are examples of truly evil
people.

Of course there are corollaries and other parts which add to it, but
those are the basic roots.



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.

My views transcend anything those guys say. Those guys are arguing
politics and the results of particular ideologies. I'm talking about
the roots of them. Perhaps you should do your own research. Maybe you
will find out that you are not as much of a liberal as you think.....


In example: You state that liberals believe people will do the morally right
thing if given the chance. Horseflies. Nobody is that naive.

You'd be surprised. Yet it is this naive idealism which identified
liberals, and underscore just why a true liberal view in unrealistic.


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.

That's basically the same thing.

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?

Yea, it's called free market enterprise. The market decides it's own
path.

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?

That all depends on what your priorities are and how practical you
are.



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!

That may have something to do with why those wages are so low. Most
socialist country's citizens are forced to get by with much less since
their governments tax them so highly.


(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.

Like I said, it's all about their priorities. Or to put it another
way: Those who have the gold, make the rules.

And where do those governments get the money to provide those
subsidies to their citizens?

Socialism is not "strong government regulation of the market".

That certainly IS one aspect of it. Socialism tries to (unnaturally)
equalize everyone (From those based on means, to those based on
needs), and by doing so, disrupts the natural scale by which a
person's skills are normally set, based on demand.

Socialism is an
economic model where a country's natural resources, physical infrastructure,
public agencies and utilities are owned in common by the population.

In theory that is so, but in current practice, those things are
controlled by a government, which may not be amiable to the desires of
the people. It's the ideal system to indoctrinate and oppress people.
Feed them just enough, give them basic care, and tell them that
they're fat dumb and happy, and eventually they will be. After all,
that's the strategy that the democratic party has used for decades.

Socialism would be ideal if the mean lifestyle average was somewhere
in the 6 figure salary range. But that has not historically been the
case in the countries that have tried it. Disposable income is
practically unheard of, and very little discretionary spending is
spent on truly frivolous items, such as boats, campers, big screen
TV's etc.

(As opposed to pure communism, where there is no private property of *any* kind).

But in practice there are very little differences. In both systems the
government retains primary control. The will of the people is seldom
considered.

I know only two liberals who are socialists. Next failing argument, please?

Socialism is the end result of extreme liberalism, where Fascism is
the end result of extreme conservatism. Perhaps you and your friends
are merely moderate liberals.


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.

As well as the rich in other countries. The U.S. is not the sole
habitat for riches.


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.

That is the ugly truth that we are faced with. On that point we are in
total agreement. Our differences may have more to do on how we solve
it. I really don't see any solution to this problem that doesn't
involve isolationism, uncertain and potentially costly tariffs, or
trying to roll back the clock. The ultimate solution may likely be the
one where the market equalizes naturally.

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.

One thing you may not be considering. The U.S. is currently the number
one consumer of manufactured goods. If the population loses its
ability to purchase, then a very large market risks total collapse.
That would not be good for either business or government. So there
should be an incentive to make sure our population retains its ability
to consume.

Of course, if up and coming economies like China, overtake and replace
us as the ultimate consumer, we may just be cast aside, as will many
of the "1st world" countries, who's economies have also imploded.


Dave