Feb. 6th, 2011

thewayne: (Default)
A recent post on Slashdot, linked here, asked the question of whether or not it was ethical for someone who was out of work to help set up an off-shore IT support desk for a company. The responses are interesting, but this one in particular by Nidi62 I thought was excellent:

Personally, I dont see how this could be a question of ethics. It is, however, a question of economic nationalism. We are quickly removing ourselves from economic competitiveness. Most of our industry and manufacturing jobs have already left the country, to the point where we are primarily a service economy. And now even services are beginning to be exported as well. We consume more and more, but except for our agricultural industry and military-industrial complex, we really do not produce anything. Competitive advantage says that states will inevitably focus on those industries they are best suited to (stones/minerals/oil in Africa, manufacturing in China and SE Asia). It seems what we do best is consume. The problem is, manufacturing brings in money, consuming loses it. Even if these companies are based in America, their profits are not being recirculated into the US economy. The dividends are going into the stock market, and we all know what a mess and drain that is, and what wages and infrastructure/construction they contribute to is invested not in the US, but in whatever state their suppliers are located in. While this drives the costs down and increases profits, it gets to the point where more and more people in the US are unable to afford to purchase these goods. It's a cycle. People are forced to buy cheaper and cheaper goods, so companies reduce US jobs that cost more to drive down costs to keep or improve their profit margins. This causes more people to be able to afford less, meaning an increased demand for cheaper goods. If we want to improve our economic situation, we have to bring industry back to this country, to become competitive again. There is a reason why it's called "making money". The best way to make money is to make something. Until then, more and more of our money is going to go oversees or in corporate coffers, and states like China and Saudi Arabia will have more and more control over us.

So, the question isn't is it ethical to help your fellow employees get laid off. The question is it ethical for a company to bleed a state dry all in the name of profit? We said no when it came to states bleeding dry colonies. How is it any different now, except now it's companies doing the bleeding?


Another poster, bcrowell, also had an excellent point: (embedded URL by me)

... a lot of India's problems are caused by Malthusian issues, and no matter how many jobs you send there, it won't do jack for the vast majority of the population.

In fact, a lot of the world's problems have lack of birth control as their underlying cause. Global warming is an overpopulation issue. Poverty in places like Mexico and Egypt is an overpopulation issue. Deforestation is an overpopulation issue. Air pollution in the US is an overpopulation issue. India's inability to provide education at the same level as China is an overpopulation issue.


Whenever jobs are outsourced, the local economy is weakened because portions of employee wages are not being reinvested locally. Not good.
thewayne: (Default)
They are trying to trademark their names as "motivational lecturers", but their lawyer blew the initial application and it was refused because when you apply to trademark your name, YOU HAVE TO SIGN THE TRADEMARK APPLICATION. You'd think a lawyer would know that. Another reason for denying it: "The office also said Palin's application failed to show that her name had been used in commerce and could also be rejected on those grounds."

I think we'd better come up with a new way to refer to Sarah, such as SWAG: She Who Abandoned her Governorship, or perhaps The Governor Formerly Known as Palin. Though to paraphrase a comment on Slashdot, I think I'll use That Idiot From Alaska, or TIFA, if she starts trying to swat bloggers for writing unflattering things about her (not that I'm terribly concerned about it.)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-palin-trademark,0,5454977.story

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/04/us-palin-trademark-idUSTRE7135WI20110204?pageNumber=1

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/02/05/0013253/Sarah-Palin-Seeks-To-Trademark-Her-Name

August 2025

S M T W T F S
     12
34 56789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 13th, 2025 08:01 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios