1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

outsourcing to India your views

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by crashuk, Jan 24, 2006.

  1. crashuk

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Dec 7, 2005

    Posts: 2,691

    Well its the governments duty to keep its population happy, employed, safe thats why we have a government.
     
  2. crashuk

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Dec 7, 2005

    Posts: 2,691

  3. Jumpingmedic

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Oct 6, 2004

    Posts: 1,509

    Location: Behind you!

    I'd like to see the British minimum wage become a legal requirement for all employees... even the ones in India.

    See how much outsourcing they want to do then.
     
  4. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Dec 2, 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    oops
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2006
  5. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Dec 2, 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    No, corporations are obliged to make ever increasing profits in order to please the shareholders and therefore if they can't increase income (for whatever reason) then they have to reduce outcome, i.e. outsource to where labour is cheaper.

    We the consumers don't demand constantly cheaper prices, Tesco has to compete with Asda (for an off-topic example) so they reduce their sale prices to undercut each other, and that obviously leads to cutting prices to suppliers and so on down the chain. You could argue that it's our fault for shopping at Tesco, but you are assuming that everybody a) has enough time to research everything they buy to make sure it's ethical and non-outsourced, and visit ten shops to get them every week rather than one supermarket, and b) pay double (if not more) to buy those goods once they have sourced them. That might be the case for a few people, but that obviously isn't the case for the vast majority.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2006
  6. Borris

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 25, 2002

    Posts: 30,410

    If your job is going to be outsourced, it is because either 1) someone else can do it better, or, 2) someone else can do it cheaper.

    I don't hear complaints that your Adidas trainers are made in india - they used to be made in the UK, but now they're just cheaper.

    I don't hear complaints that your electronics are made in Korea - They used to be made in . . . (the theme is pretty much the same).

    The UK economy has a large grounding in services, so it's not surprising that some of this gets farmed out to cheaper producers.

    If you want to look up a theory that supports outsourcing, try competitive advantage. Sure, we can do call centres better - but we do other things better that make better use of our time - we're actually better off than we were.

    There never will be a situation where everything is outsourced - there would be no equilibrium, which is a central theme to supply / demand economics.

    [Edit]

    And, for the sake of our eyes, use punctuation and line breaks.

    [/Edit]
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2006
  7. Visage

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jan 13, 2005

    Posts: 10,708

    If BT used more expensive UK companies, and 5 years from now had to lay off hundreds of workers due to being undercut by other telcos who DO use outsourced labour, wouldnt that be even worse?
     
  8. Borris

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 25, 2002

    Posts: 30,410

    On the subject of the government actually intervening and banning outsourcing call centres - isn't that something that we've been trying to get away from since the end of the 1970's?

    I'm not willing to become embroiled in a privatisation / nationalisation debate, but I will go so far as to say that I believe in a non-interventionist government, especially insofar as they have no remit to involve themselves in the machinations of private commerce.

    And if the govt. chooses to save £1bn by oursourcing - It's about bloody time. Better that, than outourcing to a crappy US outfit (EDS, for example), that costs 10 times the price, with the outcoume possibly never materialising.
     
  9. JimmyEatWorms

    PermaBanned

    Joined: May 18, 2003

    Posts: 4,686

    Location: Londinium

    We used to be a manufacturing based economy. That was wiped out. Now we're supposed to be a service based economy. Now that is being slowly eroded. I can't believe people are saying "ah, it doesn't matter as it's only low value jobs that are going". They may be "low value" to you but what about the poor saps that are once again being dumped out of work in the name of increasing dividends for shareholders and no doubt massive bonuses for the men at the top that are never going to be affected by offshoring.

    I'm sure people were saying the same thing about manufacturing 30 years ago.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2006
  10. crashuk

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Dec 7, 2005

    Posts: 2,691

    "Just cheaper" well erm no there actually the same price if not more too buy.
    electronics are made in Korea well there has been a shift to china in this department and it isnt cheaper. Look at grundig, tvs made in europe are cheaper than sony made in taiwan, prices arnt getting cheaper its getting more expensive. Look at hansol monitors made in the uk are a lot cheaper and better quality than any other make.

    we're actually better off than we were ? erm no its an illusion, just because people can buy different types of luxury goods doesnt mean their better off, people in this country own banks money, in the short term yes spend spend spend is good for the economy but for the long term its damaging all the spending we did in the 90s has damage our pensions.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2006
  11. crashuk

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Dec 7, 2005

    Posts: 2,691

    They did say the same thing 30 years ago, ask your parents.
     
  12. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,210

    Location: Plymouth

    No it isn't. We have a government to act out our will in what should be a non-discriminatory manner, to try and ensure economic conditions are favourable and allocate taxes to various departments.

    Nowhere is it in the government's mandate to keep people happy and employed, apart from the fact that failure to do so will tend to lead to someone else being elected.
     
  13. crashuk

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Dec 7, 2005

    Posts: 2,691

    hope iran develop a emp bomb and detonate it in various cities in the uk.
     
  14. crashuk

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Dec 7, 2005

    Posts: 2,691

    "government to act out our will " no sorry the goverment isnt for that, the goverment is there to protect us, keep us happy, give us jobs, its there to look after our best interests.
     
  15. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,210

    Location: Plymouth

    You're missing the huge, huge thing of capitalism. The consumer (en masse at any rate) controls the fate of the company, not the shareholders. If consumers stop using a company because they make decisions they don't agree with (eg outsourcing) then if this affects the bottom line to a greater extent than potential savings, it won't be done. Simple as.

    Power comes from money in a market economy, and consumers have plenty of choice when it comes to spending their money. If they fail to exercise it in a way you find acceptable, that's your problem, not that of the captialist system.

    But it is our choice. If I choose to shop at Waitrose rather than tesco, my bill is going to be higher but the ethics may well be better (certainly the way they treat their staff is).

    Again, you blame the market for the actions of consumers. It might suit your views, but it is a flawed logic.
     
  16. Borris

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 25, 2002

    Posts: 30,410

    "Shareholders" is not such a dirty word. They tend to be the pension funds that are looking after the money for our old age.

    Our manufacturing economy, might I remind you, was crap. We were consistently underpriced by overseas producers, despite trade barriers.

    Economies are dynamic, and that includes unemployment - Workforces must adapt too, and there will always be a float, as workers re-train / relocate / retrench (which I believe the currently fashionable term). The important indicator is the long-term unemployed, which is currently not a problem, and hasn't been for some time.

    If you can produce evidence that those who were previously call centre employees have not then found alternative employment after 6 months, I will stand corrected. As it is, the magnitude of the problem is negligible.


    Hansol is Korean.

    You'll have to back that up with at least a smattering of evidence or theorising, regarding 90's spending and pensions.



    And try this. If you spoke like you write, you would probably faint from lack of oxygen.

    Ok then . . .

    /walks away, slowly.
     
  17. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,210

    Location: Plymouth

    Source for this view?

    No, it's there to get re-elected. That is the aim of every politician and government. In order to do so they have to either act in a way the public approves of, or appear to do so.

    http://www.dadalos.org/int/Demokratie/Demokratie/Grundkurs1/material/typen.htm

    The state is not there to provide jobs (unless you are looking for a socialist or communist system), although there can be jobs provided by the civil service, that doesn't have much to do with the government itself, and is instead a beauracy that follows in the government's wake.
     
  18. crashuk

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Dec 7, 2005

    Posts: 2,691

    opps sorry about the hansol bit, i always thought they were british.
     
  19. JimmyEatWorms

    PermaBanned

    Joined: May 18, 2003

    Posts: 4,686

    Location: Londinium

    And do you think shedding thousands upon thousand of jobs in ensuring favourable economic conditions?
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2006
  20. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,210

    Location: Plymouth

    Depends entirely on the surrounding circumstances.

    If those people aren't doing anything that adds value to the economy (such as many of the ever increasing hordes of civil servants or many of the people that used to work in factories doing work that is unproductive) then I would say it certainly can do. The increased competativeness of the companies can drive things forward in a positive manner, and that increased competativeness can also produce more jobs in the long term with higher value.

    I refer you to my ideas earlier. Would you oppose automated computer systems for the same reason you oppose jobs being outsourced?