Sick of jobs going overseas? | Hacker News Reader

Sick of jobs going overseas?

davidmoyle.wordpress.com

Jobs don't "go overseas".

Individuals who happen to live in other countries simply provide more value in their work than individuals in this one.

So I try to keep the value of my work as high as I can.

They provide more "value" because they are as good, but work in countries that don't have the same laws and also have a lower cost of living.

The basic argument is one of our own consumer practices. Not weather others do a good job.

Very true. It's called geographical or regulatory arbitrage.

Things like high cost of health insurance, car insurance, etc., are all results of laws and regulations, but add to the employer's bottom line.

So let's take Taiwan electronics manufacturing as an example here. They absolutely dominate in quality and skill at producing electronics, most of the high grade lcd panels in the world are produced there.

You are suggesting that Americans buy panels manufactured in the US. I have no idea what the benefit to this would be. Worse panels at a higher price? What does this solve? It would create unsustainable and irrational employment.

The way to solve economic downturn is not to close your borders like you suggest. That is the self-centered and naive way of thinking. The way to improve your economic situation is through innovation and wealth creation.

> provide more value

Like forgoing health care, worker protections, basic sanitation, you know -- having a very low standard of living.

When standard of living starts to rise in one country (or in the relevant segment of it), it risks losing those same jobs to offshoring itself. E.g. India -> Vietnam.

That's a blanket statement and isn't always true. The media loves to proliferate facts like "these workers only make <insert seemingly low wage here>" without adding content such as the purchasing power of such a wage.

I agree with your second statement.

you can't expect less developed economies to meet the standards of ours. Its not as if some "sweatshops" avoid healthcare provisions, sanitation. They exist in economies where it doesn't make sense to provide this, if they were to have full benefits as we have it wouldn't scale with their cost and they would either go out of business or not be able to employ as many people, thus some people would be unemployed while some would enjoy great benefits, which seems even more "unfair"

> you can't expect less developed economies to meet the standards of ours

If a wealthy multinational corporation can afford to build a factory overseas, it can afford to implement health and safety regulations that protect the workers. It's not like a country has to be ultra-rich to provide a safe, clean workplace.

As for actual sweatshops, let's not pretend they are bestowing some great benefit upon the poor who they ruthlessly exploit. They use people up and spit them out.

In this country people fought long and hard for the workplace rights we have today. The higher-wage jobs depend on the lower-wage jobs like an ecosystem. Shift away the foundation and everything collapses. Offshoring is like economic global warming.

> If a wealthy multinational corporation can afford to build a factory overseas, it can afford to implement health and safety regulations that protect the workers. It's not like a country has to be ultra-rich to provide a safe, clean workplace.

They could afford to, but think about the labor problems that would result in such a market with some jobs that pay way way more than others (in terms of benefits and working conditions). Corruption run rampant, unrest, etc. Its just not viable to put the standards of a more developed economy on a lesser developed one.

> As for actual sweatshops, let's not pretend they are bestowing some great benefit upon the poor who they ruthlessly exploit. They use people up and spit them out.

The people wouldn't take the jobs if they didn't derive a greater economic benefit from such a job than other alternatives they have. In most cases this isn't slave labor.

I want better for all these people, but it has to happen sensibly, and in a way that is economically viable.

What you're saying is that the workers in other countries demand lower wages for a given amount of work.

>When standard of living starts to rise in one country (or in the relevant segment of it), it risks losing those same jobs to offshoring itself. E.g. India -> Vietnam.

But the original country (e.g. India) tends to maintain a permanently higher standard of living than when things started.

> tends to maintain a permanently higher standard of living than when things started.

I am sure you have insufficient data to establish anything approaching "permanent".

No, it's the combination of value vs. cost, not just "better value". So what you should also be considering is lowering your acceptable wage since value you can provide probably isn't infinite.

The article starts its ramble complaining about tech jobs, then claims tech jobs go overseas due to "stricter labor laws and environmental protection laws." I doubt India's competitive advantages revolve around child engineers dumping wasteful piles of Java into the Ganges.

Our declining currency will mitigate how many jobs go overseas as we go forward, anyway.

The example I gave was based on conversation started revolving around tech.However, the stuff people buy in Walmart made in China with cheap labor would apply. When people vote for labor laws that make a product expensive to manufacture then go buy one made in a country where they don't follow the same laws, they are not being true to their stated values in my opinion. Even if unintentionally.

I agree with what you're saying in here, although I think you say it here better than in the blog post.

>When people vote for labor laws that make a product expensive to manufacture then go buy one made in a country where they don't follow the same laws, they are not being true to their stated values in my opinion.

How many people base their vote on a candidate's position on labor laws?

You also tend to overstate countries' ability to control cost of living expenses. I don't think that I can agree with the conclusion that outsourcing has occurred primarily because of the laws in the US... I mean, really?

Take a look at the economic principal of dividing labor up by who can do each task best and how that helps everyone overall.

In other news: unemployment is still well below historical averages in the United States - as long as you're not a mill worker.

Geez...the guy goes to India once in his life and people never stop complaining.

No.

Why is it that racism is super untrendy, but this kind of nationalistic prejudice against foreigners is trendy? Why are Americans more deserving of a given job, just because they are American, and even if they will do an equally good job at a higher price?

Who's prejudice? All I said is consumers are setting a double standard. The people complaining about jobs leaving the country are helping them leave.

I was replying to the title. And anyway, if people were being racist you wouldn't say "look, a double standard" you'd say "look, racists". Somehow this kind of prejudice is more legitimate.

> Why are Americans more deserving of a given job, just because they are American

Why do CEOs deserve to pocket the difference, increasing the divide between rich and poor and eroding what's left of the middle class? If one human is as deserving as another then you shouldn't mind when I redistribute your ill-gotten wealth to myself.

"Deserving" is a red herring. People "deserve" to be happy and the whole nine yards.

There are practical reasons why you would want to keep up the economic infrastructure around the area where you live. The standard of living you enjoy depends on the standard of living of people around you. The majority of crimes are crimes of poverty. When other people are desperate and you're well-to-do you become a target.

EVERY country does this. Lets not pretend that it's just evil America.

192 wrongs makes a right?

Understanding the world lets you make a better solution.

195

http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/numbercountries.ht...

and to the other guy: I didn't mean to blame America in particular, i actually think America tends to be less prejudiced

I used the conservative number. There are 192 in the UN.

I respect separatist movements and would be willing to add them to the list. America was founded by separatist radicals.

gogo xenophobia

Reply on news.ycombinator.com