What jobs won't be outsourced?

[Biff_Loman]

I'm 24, and I need to find a career. One I won't hate. I'm not afraid of schooling - I already have a bachelor of history and a bachelor of education (that's a total of five years of university so far) - and am not the least bit interested in the career options open to me now. Another bachelor's degree is not out of the question, and believe me, I'm willing to learn almost anything, even though my background is all artsy.

Of course, there's one problem. Outsourcing. I have no confidence whatsoever for the future.

I see absolutely no reason for the current trend in outsourcing to slow or stop. In fact, I see no salient reason why any white collar jobs that could be done remotely via telecommunication will remain in the "first world" in the long term.

My father thinks that, eventually, things will reach a balance: standards of living will improve in places like India, wages will increase, and the Western world will become competitive once again. This is all fine and good, except 1) one needs to work in the meantime, and 2) all those jobs will waltz over to whoever develops next (Africa?), leaving us, India, Brazil, and Eastern Europe all equally screwed. Oh, and 3) A.I. computer programs will take over many white collar jobs in the coming decades - I am convinced of this. Maybe the trick is to become a capitalist, and be the guy who owns the computer (actually, this isn't so stupid).

I was thinking of law, but apparently entry-level legal research positions are being outsourced now, too. I'm not saying that I've thrown out the idea completely, but I'm trying to generate the most realistic options.

I could always try to run a small business, but I am at a complete loss as to what product or service I might provide. I would love to farm - my father is a farmer - which is, honestly, not a bad occupation for an INTP. I'm serious. However, small farmers are going the way of the dodo in the Western world; time is running out.

So, the key is to provide a service which NECESSITATES one's presence. Maybe I could be a mortician or something, and work with corpses. <shrug>

Let me know what you think.

[Groty]

Hmmm...

Outsourcing is gonna pop just link the internet bubble of the 90's. The Business News folks don't say it, but trust me...

I would have to say skip any field that has some kind of Union associated with it, at some level.

Entry level professional positions are also going over there. So don't go for accounting, law, programming and stuff.

Fields in the Health Sciences are supposed to be growing.

I think that almost anything that has to do with Weapon Systems development and engineering will grow as well. So if you like to blow things up...

Disposable Income continues to decrease, so consumers are less likely to pay someone else to provide services that they can do themselves, which effects opening a small business.

I think the best growth potential is in the Sins Industry. Start a Brewhaus. Maybe import cigars. Or amateur porn.

Damn, I'm depressing.

[booyalab]

Chin up biff_loman! Once every conceivable job is outsourced to India and their economy is booming, they'll start outsourcing jobs over here! Of course, you'll get paid $5 an hour but it won't matter since you don't have to pay rent for a cardboard box mansion.

[Boneca]

Haha, I have a similar problem. I study ecology, which is great fun, but the job market isn't exactly promising.
Then I also have a bit of computer experience. But about every simple computer job here has been outsourced to Ireland, Scotland, the Benelux countries and now recently Eastern Europe.

My solution has been to move. Since they don't have Swedish-speakers in those countries, they're desperate to get young people to more there - many companies even pay your trip over!
I've already worked in call centres in Ireland for a few years, and I'm toying around with the idea to move to Holland now. Not that I really want to, but I'd rather do that than bum around here with no job.

[SheepDog]

The only jobs that won't be outsourced are the ones which are not economically feasable to do so.

I think health care will be one, but unfortunately, I see the outcome of "health care reform" as becoming "health care bureaucracy". I get a headache just thinking about it. I think it would be really cool to be in R&D for health care devices, if I only had the right credentials.

I don't have much faith in IT in general. I see COTS software packages taking over. There will be a need for integrators, but that will mean travel, which just isn't for me.

I can see why the farming idea would be appealing. I think if you kept it interesting, it would work for an INTP. I've thought of organic farming as an option, but I'm not sure the economics work out.

Renewable energy will someday be more important, but I think we're a bit early for it to provide a good living. There are some places which have government subsidies, which will help offset the fact that it's still not economically feasable. Still, it's something that I think will remain interesting, and of increasing importance.

Just some thoughts.

[booyalab]

I can see why the farming idea would be appealing. I think if you kept it interesting, it would work for an INTP. I've thought of organic farming as an option, but I'm not sure the economics work out.


Farming is also being outsourced, to South America, and at a very rapid pace.

[Dman]

The health industry is certainly worth looking at. People are not going to go to India when they break an arm or have an ear infection.

Besides, it is only large corporations that can afford to outsource that will be doing that. There is always going to be room for the little guy that can do local stuff more efficiently than the multinational big boys.

You also mention you have a degree in education, well, most of us aren't going to send our children overseas to be educated.

The outsourcing "epidemic" is primarily media hype. It exists, sure, and some fields & industries will feel it more than others, but the sky isn't falling. Just choose a profession that can always be relevant. Even in accounting and law, there will always be smaller local firms to fill in the niches where large ones can't efficiently go. Ah, the beauty of the market.

[SheepDog]

Farming is also being outsourced, to South America, and at a very rapid pace.
That's why I mentioned organic.

[jimkopelli]

Anything that requires a physical person to do it, right there in front of you. Seems like... teaching, (like possibly art history) or stuff like that... Most of our local level blue collar stuff will never go anywhere, it would be infeasible. Ship your car to a mechanic in another country? Nah, I'll just push it around the corner, thanks.

[mgb]

You seem to have a hard on for school...so why don't you do your Masters in History or your PhD and become a prof?

You could do your thesis on the history of outsourcing.

[SheepDog]

You seem to have a hard on for school...so why don't you do your Masters in History or your PhD and become a prof?

You could do your thesis on the history of outsourcing.
Very clever. :D

[SheepDog]

Anything that requires a physical person to do it, right there in front of you. Seems like... teaching, (like possibly art history) or stuff like that... Most of our local level blue collar stuff will never go anywhere, it would be infeasible. Ship your car to a mechanic in another country? Nah, I'll just push it around the corner, thanks.
I've thought about this, too. I've always had an interest in mechanical things, and have wondered how I could make something in that realm interesting enough to keep my attention. The word 'custom' keeps coming to mind. For one thing, custom work is almost by definition going to keep changing. And depending on what it is, it is resistant to outsourcing. I say resistant because I can see a big market for remote but custom manufacturing as design and automation tools become more sophisticated *. Other things like custom remodeling are harder to do remotely. Of course, anything labor-intensive is susceptible to an influx of workers. But I see no reason why I couldn't benefit from that rather than be hurt by it.

*For an example, this site offers custom manufacturing of machine parts.
www.emachineshop.com

[Claverhouse]

Chin up biff_loman! Once every conceivable job is outsourced to India and their economy is booming, they'll start outsourcing jobs over here! Of course, you'll get paid $5 an hour but it won't matter since you don't have to pay rent for a cardboard box mansion. Actually, had just read a rense article on America becoming a 3rd-world country someday though the twin-drives of out-sourcing and immigration...

Destruction of Middle-Class (http://www.rense.com/general60/illegalimmigrationsdestruct.htm)

Although we read here constantly about the US being a booming power-house of wealth for all who strive, with minimal poverty and unemployment...

Right-wingers never lie.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ Including some chap from Silicon Valley training as a plumber... ]

[mgb]

Actually, had just read a rense article on America becoming a 3rd-world country someday though the twin-drives of out-sourcing and immigration...

Destruction of Middle-Class (http://www.rense.com/general60/illegalimmigrationsdestruct.htm)

Although we read here constantly about the US being a booming power-house of wealth for all who strive, with minimal poverty and unemployment...

Right-wingers never lie.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ Including some chap from Silicon Valley training as a plumber... ]

I think at worst America is at risk of becoming...well...another England. Former superpower, lots going for it, just not the superpower anymore.

Its got the infrastructure and natural resources to go for years.

[Edmond Zedo]

Low-level drug dealer; Stripper

[Robespierre]

Any attempt by fedgov to stop "outsourcing" is, by its nature, morally wrong and disgusting to individual liberty. Society is not a monolithic entity with a fixed amount of jobs that simply must be maintained at all costs. There exists no right to employment, and no moral excuse for the mafia-like protection tactics of tariffs and minimum wages.

[MjrMarshmellows]

Out-sourcing is not nearly as large of a problem as many people are making it out to be. Most technology jobs are getting outsourced to india and such places, not because of cheeper labor there, but because of an absence of trained people here in America. So if anyone is dropping the ball here, I would have to say it is the universities. The fact is that not many people would want to teach computer science at a university or college and make 40 thousand when they could be making 60-70 thousand at a software company. (maybe part of the cause of rising tuition costs)
Anywho, If you can get into a decent computer science department, I would recomend doing it (its what i'm doing too)
Btw: Microsoft is offering employee's 200-1000 doller bonuses if they can find someone who microsoft will eventually hire. (if they dont, the jobs WILL go to india)

[mgb]

Any attempt by fedgov to stop "outsourcing" is, by its nature, morally wrong and disgusting to individual liberty. Society is not a monolithic entity with a fixed amount of jobs that simply must be maintained at all costs. There exists no right to employment, and no moral excuse for the mafia-like protection tactics of tariffs and minimum wages.

Its only disgusting to individual liberties if you don't like in the country that is being protected.

You are right, there is no right to employment, but according to the US constitution there is a right to life liberty and happiness. That may mean that citizens have the right to expect the government to look out for their best interests. That may mean that the government is forced to provide tariff protections and minimum wages to give everyone the best chance possible to attain happiness.

On the mafia note, corporations shouldn't have rights to side step rules that don't suit their best interests, in essence put themselves above the people they employ and the country they thrive off of.

[mgb]

Out-sourcing is not nearly as large of a problem as many people are making it out to be. Most technology jobs are getting outsourced to india and such places, not because of cheeper labor there, but because of an absence of trained people here in America. So if anyone is dropping the ball here, I would have to say it is the universities. The fact is that not many people would want to teach computer science at a university or college and make 40 thousand when they could be making 60-70 thousand at a software company. (maybe part of the cause of rising tuition costs)
Anywho, If you can get into a decent computer science department, I would recomend doing it (its what i'm doing too)
Btw: Microsoft is offering employee's 200-1000 doller bonuses if they can find someone who microsoft will eventually hire. (if they dont, the jobs WILL go to india)

Microsoft also "contracts" out most of its jobs to third parties. They are in America but because of the temp status they don't have to pay benefits to most of their "employees". They certainly aren't above the curve here. And believe it or not, $200-$1000 isn't that much.

[Edmond Zedo]

You are right, there is no right to employment, but according to the US constitution there is a right to life liberty and happiness. That may mean that citizens have the right to expect the government to look out for their best interests. That may mean that the government is forced to provide tariff protections and minimum wages to give everyone the best chance possible to attain happiness.

1. You're not quoting the U.S. Constitution.
2. Life: irrelevant
3. Liberty: counters your stance, as total freedom would involve no trade restriction
4. Pursuit of Happiness: banter replacing "property" in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, because not everyone owned property (land). It means absolutely nothing.

[mgb]

Another reason outsourcing is unfair to the average American is the unfair competition. By this I mean that a lot of other countries have really low cost public post-secondary education. It ensures the best and brightest get into university and leave without financial burden. So say in India, they might make $5/hr, but they don't have $80,000 in student loans (or whatever) to pay off requiring them to make a much higher hourly wage or salary just to get by.

This discrepency could either be remedied by high federal funding for all universities or tariffs and protections helping out students as they graduate. Without jacking up taxes, tariffs seem to be the best way to create a real level playing field.

[Edmond Zedo]

Without jacking up taxes, tariffs seem to be the best way to create a real level playing field.
Tarriffs are taxes.

[Robespierre]

Edmond seems to have this one covered pretty good, but I'll throw in just to provide perspective.


Its only disgusting to individual liberties if you don't like in the country that is being protected.

So basically, if you weren't going to take the prohibited actions anyway, tariffs, minimum wages, et al, are not restrictions?

Prohibitions are limitations, by use of violent force, on individual liberties. No condition can change this.



You are right, there is no right to employment, but according to the US constitution there is a right to life liberty and happiness.

Zedo got the part about "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" not being in the constitution, so I won't harp on that. I would like to point out the neither the constitution nor the declaration of independence create or remove any rights. Rights exist as a natural property of human beings. Documents do not create rights, but, in the case of the declaration, they merely recognize them.



That may mean that citizens have the right to expect the government to look out for their best interests.

You are free to expect whatever you like. Just realize that your expectation does not create a duty to society to fullfill that expectation. You may expect the fedgov to inform you which Rx drugs are suitable for consumption and which are not, but the fedgov has no obligation or even right to do so, least of all with wealth that has been violently removed from its original owner.



That may mean that the government is forced to provide tariff protections and minimum wages to give everyone the best chance possible to attain happiness.

Now I see why you left the word "pursuit" out of the declaration quote. You seem to think that the government was create to provide happiness. It was not. It was created to secure you the freedom to pursue happiness, not guarantee your attainment of it. And stopping me from buying a really nice DVD player which was made in Japan most certainly interfers in my right to pursue happiness.



On the mafia note, corporations shouldn't have rights to side step rules that don't suit their best interests, in essence put themselves above the people they employ and the country they thrive off of.

The people employed by corporations are employed in a voluntary way. They do not own their jobs. The corporation does. If the employee becomes displeased with the terms of his employment, he is free to break the voluntary relationship at any time.

Any rules which you claim corporations might be side-stepping are likely contradictory to the pursuit of happiness as well.

Just to be clear, a corporation is not a singular entity, just as the "public" is not. The is no such thing as the "greater good". There are only individuals and their relationships to each other.

[Robespierre]

Another reason outsourcing is unfair to the average American is the unfair competition. By this I mean that a lot of other countries have really low cost public post-secondary education. It ensures the best and brightest get into university and leave without financial burden. So say in India, they might make $5/hr, but they don't have $80,000 in student loans (or whatever) to pay off requiring them to make a much higher hourly wage or salary just to get by.

This discrepency could either be remedied by high federal funding for all universities or tariffs and protections helping out students as they graduate. Without jacking up taxes, tariffs seem to be the best way to create a real level playing field.

Think about what you are saying for a minute. Other countries make it a public expense to train workers that are willing to work for american corporations. Basically, India, China and others are subsidising the training of our industries. Why do you see massive transfers of public funds in Asia to private pocketbooks in america as problematic to our economy?

I swear, I have not heard so many socialist buzzwords in one post in a long time. Level Playing Field? How would you define a level playing field? A world where everyone had the same amount of wealth, did the same amount of work, and liked the same things? The idea of level playing field is a pointless semantic exercise. The one factor that drives all economies is the un-even distribution of resources. Group A has something that Group B wants, and group B has something that Group C wants and Group C has something Group A wants, so they all exchange and everyone is wealthier than before. For a short list of other basic logical reasons why tariffs are not only immoral, but idiotic in that they don't achieve what you claim they would, google "comparative advantage".

[Edmond Zedo]

First rule IS...The laws of Germany
Second rule IS...Be nice to mommy
Third rule IS...Don't talk to commies
Fourth rule IS...Eat Kosher salamis

[mgb]

So basically, if you weren't going to take the prohibited actions anyway, tariffs, minimum wages, et al, are not restrictions?

I would say they are taxes/restrictions on importers/retailers not on the general population. It allows for goods created locally to have competitive prices (because of the higher wages they pay when making them). They may also encourage retailers to buy locally.




Zedo got the part about "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" not being in the constitution, so I won't harp on that. I would like to point out the neither the constitution nor the declaration of independence create or remove any rights. Rights exist as a natural property of human beings. Documents do not create rights, but, in the case of the declaration, they merely recognize them.


Not my constitution. I think you can get the general idea of what they were saying though. Trying to create an equal playing field for everyone.



You are free to expect whatever you like. Just realize that your expectation does not create a duty to society to fullfill that expectation. You may expect the fedgov to inform you which Rx drugs are suitable for consumption and which are not, but the fedgov has no obligation or even right to do so, least of all with wealth that has been violently removed from its original owner.

Who is the fedgov supposed to be protecting? It's citizens or off-shore multinationals? The government has a responsibility to look after its citizens best interests.

Does that mean the federal government has to protect its citizens from Rx drugs. Yes. It has the same responsibility to protect citizens from each other. I have no right to assault you. The same way a drug company has no right to put a product on the market that might cause harm. These ideas are fundamental to every society that has existed, see Hammurabi's code.




Now I see why you left the word "pursuit" out of the declaration quote. You seem to think that the government was create to provide happiness. It was not. It was created to secure you the freedom to pursue happiness, not guarantee your attainment of it. And stopping me from buying a really nice DVD player which was made in Japan most certainly interfers in my right to pursue happiness.

Again, not my country or constitution. So I agree, pursuit is important. I am glad you brought up Japan though. You do have a right to get the best deal possible. Getting the best deal allows you to save up money and pursue happiness. Now what if the company that made that Japanese DVD player was subsidesed by the government? What if that allowed said Japanese company to charge a lower price for the player? Is that not government interference? Say your neighbor also owns a company that makes DVD players. He is not subsidised by the US government. In order to sell players at the same price he either has to pay his employees pennies per day or make really cheap DVD players. Logic tells us that he won't be selling DVD players too long and probably won't be your neighbor very long either. Also, when he tries to ship his products to Japan he finds that his importers have to pay a high price to bring his products in, so much so that its not worth it and the entire market is closed to him. So, he says to the government, these trade practices aren't fair. I can't pay my employees enough so they keep leaving/my products are crap and no one will buy them. The big picture is that you end up paying a bit more for your player. This allows more people to be employed and products being made locally to be of high quality. If the price of the DVD player becomes too high, I guess you'll just have to use your CD player instead when you are on the road.




The people employed by corporations are employed in a voluntary way. They do not own their jobs. The corporation does. If the employee becomes displeased with the terms of his employment, he is free to break the voluntary relationship at any time.

True enough. But what is your employment really worth to a corporation? What if they said, you are taking a pay cut? Would you stay? What if it was just enough to get by? What if it was less than enough to get by? You would probably leave right? If every corporation did the same thing would you be so hasty to leave?

I know that sounds crazy. Tell that to people in the Phillipines working 75 hours a week for less than a dollar a day making clothes. Don't think it wouldn't happen in the US, remember the depression?



Any rules which you claim corporations might be side-stepping are likely contradictory to the pursuit of happiness as well.

I am talking about pretty simple rules. Things like not lying to investors and paying taxes. I could go on about this one ad nauseam but there is a ton of info on the internet about corporate shenanigans.



Just to be clear, a corporation is not a singular entity, just as the "public" is not. The is no such thing as the "greater good". There are only individuals and their relationships to each other.

You are right, so why not give everyone the same advantage when they have to deal with one another? I am advocating a level internation playing field, unfortunately, tariffs and minimum wages are part of that.

[mgb]

Think about what you are saying for a minute. Other countries make it a public expense to train workers that are willing to work for american corporations. Basically, India, China and others are subsidising the training of our industries. Why do you see massive transfers of public funds in Asia to private pocketbooks in america as problematic to our economy?


I don't know why you think high unemployment at home is an advantage? You are saying that rich in the US should get richer and everyone else will get poorer. Without a strong middle class the US will be decimated. People will be less likely to attend post-secondary and eventually the work force in the US will become what it is in the worst countries abroad. Other countries realized this a long time ago and invested in education so that their people will have a chance at the American way of life.



I swear, I have not heard so many socialist buzzwords in one post in a long time. Level Playing Field? How would you define a level playing field? A world where everyone had the same amount of wealth, did the same amount of work, and liked the same things? The idea of level playing field is a pointless semantic exercise.
[quote]

The playing field may never be truly level, but why penalize your own citizens so that a few fat cats can by themselves and their kids the world while the rest of the population wallows in poverty.

[quote]
The one factor that drives all economies is the un-even distribution of resources. Group A has something that Group B wants, and group B has something that Group C wants and Group C has something Group A wants, so they all exchange and everyone is wealthier than before. For a short list of other basic logical reasons why tariffs are not only immoral, but idiotic in that they don't achieve what you claim they would, google "comparative advantage".

You assertation is that their is "fair trade" between Groups A, B, and C. It doesn't exist. You can bury your head in the sand about it, but Group A is going to do everything it can to make sure Groups B and C aren't on the same footing. To protect themselves, Group B and C would be well advised to protect themselves. That doesn't happen either does it? Group B will try to put itself ahead of Group C. If what you are saying is true, every country in the world would be on equal footing because most every country has something that another country wants.

And drop the rhetoric, its pretty obvious this is a left wing take.

[Biff_Loman]

You seem to have a hard on for school...so why don't you do your Masters in History or your PhD and become a prof?

You could do your thesis on the history of outsourcing.

LOL - good idea, but it's almost impossible to get a job as a history professor. I almost applied for M.A. in history programs, but there's not much future in it - unless I want to move to Alaska.

There are totally competent individuals with history PhDs - even people who have great research and have written books - who are floating out there without a position.

You're not the first person who has said that I "should" be a professor. It's not that simple!

[mgb]

LOL - good idea, but it's almost impossible to get a job as a history professor. I almost applied for M.A. in history programs, but there's not much future in it - unless I want to move to Alaska.

There are totally competent individuals with history PhDs - even people who have great research and have written books - who are floating out there without a position.

You're not the first person who has said that I "should" be a professor. It's not that simple!

Nothing worthwhile is. Your teaching background could give you a competitive advantage. Why don't you work as a teacher while you are doing your Masters? That is a pretty stable career and can be fairly rewarding.

[Robespierre]

I would say they are taxes/restrictions on importers/retailers not on the general population.

Importers and retailers ARE the general population. They make up some portion of it, anyways. And those who are not directly importers and retailers, directly or indirectly do business with them. If you use some cowardly tariff to jack up the prices on the consumer, you hurt everyone.

Suppose, incorrectly, for a second that you could JUST hurt the retailers and importers. Why should that be okay? Perhaps it would be okay to pass laws that restrict the freedoms of blacks, in oder to benefit society and the greater good? You see where it goes when you start dividing people up into groups that you deem to not have rights?


It allows for goods created locally to have competitive prices (because of the higher wages they pay when making them). They may also encourage retailers to buy locally.

Localism is nice and all, but to enforce it at the point of a gun is pretty sick. You pass this off as some nice community enhancement, without mentioning the devastating effects it has on the entire world.


Not my constitution. I think you can get the general idea of what they were saying though. Trying to create an equal playing field for everyone.

Yeah, nice try. "You get the idea" No, actually, I do not. What is a "level playing field"? The founding fathers make no mention of it, and our constitution certainly does not. I have no time or desire to read the Canadian constitution.


Who is the fedgov supposed to be protecting? It's citizens or off-shore multinationals? The government has a responsibility to look after its citizens best interests.

I don't actually think the fedgov has a right to exist at all, but that is a topic for another thread. As for your anti-corporatism, I don't really know how to explain it any more clearly than I have been. Corporations are voluntary groupings of people. If some third party enters the situation, and uses threats of violence to force the group to do its bidding, a crime has occured. You advocate that crime.


Does that mean the federal government has to protect its citizens from Rx drugs. Yes.

No, absolutely not. It has no right, and no legal sanction to do so. Amendments IX and X to the constitution specifically state that any power not specifically granted to the fedgov by the constitution, is retained by the individual or the state. And I have yet to see any article in or amendment to the constitution which grants to power to regulate Rx drugs, or ANY drugs for that matter.


It has the same responsibility to protect citizens from each other. I have no right to assault you. The same way a drug company has no right to put a product on the market that might cause harm. These ideas are fundamental to every society that has existed, see Hammurabi's code.

In a backwards accidental way, you are correct. Non-aggression is the ultimate rule. Now if you could apply that rule to governments, and consider the consequences...


Again, not my country or constitution. So I agree, pursuit is important. I am glad you brought up Japan though. You do have a right to get the best deal possible. Getting the best deal allows you to save up money and pursue happiness. Now what if the company that made that Japanese DVD player was subsidesed by the government?

Yeah, what if?


What if that allowed said Japanese company to charge a lower price for the player?

I covered this earlier. If the Japanese government wishes to subsidize our purchase of consumer items, why should we be so idiotic as to ban individuals from trading with them?

[QUOTE=mgbradsh]Is that not government interference?

Certainly, but not interference with me. They are not holding a gun to my head and demanding a purchase.


Say your neighbor also owns a company that makes DVD players. He is not subsidised by the US government. In order to sell players at the same price he either has to pay his employees pennies per day or make really cheap DVD players. Logic tells us that he won't be selling DVD players too long and probably won't be your neighbor very long either. Also, when he tries to ship his products to Japan he finds that his importers have to pay a high price to bring his products in, so much so that its not worth it and the entire market is closed to him.

So, in other words, because of evil Japanese tariffs which stifle freedom, other countries should ALSO have tariffs?

As stated, my neighbor with the DVD manufactory has a right to pursue his happiness. He does not have a right to get his political allies together and collectively force me and the rest of the nation to pay inflated prices for his goods. Your arguments in favor of tariffs make zero economic or moral sense.


So, he says to the government, these trade practices aren't fair.

But pointing a gun at me to prevent me from buying a DVD player from my friend in Japan IS fair?


I can't pay my employees enough so they keep leaving/my products are crap and no one will buy them. The big picture is that you end up paying a bit more for your player. This allows more people to be employed and products being made locally to be of high quality. If the price of the DVD player becomes too high, I guess you'll just have to use your CD player instead when you are on the road.

The fallacies of your economic understanding are many and varied. Higher prices and protected markets do not lead to higher employment. They lead to less competative companies and political corruption on a massive scale. The system you propose is basically a form of modern fuedalism, where the business owners with political connections are allowed to use the violent power of the government to force the serfs into line with their revenue schemes.

[QUOTE=mgbradsh]True enough. But what is your employment really worth to a corporation?

Your employment is worth whatever they think it is worth. Whatever price they are willing to purchase your labor for.


What if they said, you are taking a pay cut? Would you stay? What if it was just enough to get by? What if it was less than enough to get by? You would probably leave right? If every corporation did the same thing would you be so hasty to leave?

Did you not actually read the paragraph you responded to? Everyone makes exchanges based upon his own set of values. If I value the money I get from being employed more than the free time and effort I give up to be employed, then I remain employed. If that valuation were to be inverted, I would leave my job. Simple.


I know that sounds crazy. Tell that to people in the Phillipines working 75 hours a week for less than a dollar a day making clothes. Don't think it wouldn't happen in the US, remember the depression?

I love your fantastic arrogance. WHAT ABOUT THE POOR BROWN PEOPLE!? Why don't you let them fend for themselves, instead of trying to wreck their lives too? Do you honestly think little miguel would work in the soccer-ball manufactory if he had somewhere else to go? Why do you think those people work those jobs? They are damned happy to work, and you and your do-gooder bullshit come along and demand we help them by closing them all down.

As far as the depression, that's another thread also. Suffice it to say, government intervention is completely to blame for that catastrophy. Central banking, wage and price controls, manipulation of credit and bank laws, all contributed to bring the world economy down. Perhaps you recall the Smoot Hawley tariff which basically stopped all meaningful international trade?


I am talking about pretty simple rules. Things like not lying to investors and paying taxes. I could go on about this one ad nauseam but there is a ton of info on the internet about corporate shenanigans.

You could go on, but I highly doubt any of it would make sense or be relavent in any way to what we are talking about.


You are right, so why not give everyone the same advantage when they have to deal with one another? I am advocating a level internation playing field, unfortunately, tariffs and minimum wages are part of that.

LEVEL PLAYING FIELDS FOR ALL! Start the printing presses, we shall run off a million dollars in sheets of $100 bills! Everyone in the world will be rich!

[Robespierre]

I don't know why you think high unemployment at home is an advantage?

High unemployment is a symptom of protectionism, not free trade.



You are saying that rich in the US should get richer and everyone else will get poorer.

No, you are saying that people who live in the united states should be subjected to your values. I am not saying who should or should not be rich, I am simply pointing out the violent nature of your nationalism. You want "protect" local jobs at the expense of individual liberty.


Without a strong middle class the US will be decimated.
People will be less likely to attend post-secondary and eventually the work force in the US will become what it is in the worst countries abroad. Other countries realized this a long time ago and invested in education so that their people will have a chance at the American way of life.

A semi-free market in education has produced the best University system in the world in the United States. However, the socialized nature of public education on the elementary and secondary level in the US has turned it into a stinking heap of garbage. If freedom of choice were returned to early education in the US, it would improve vastly.


The playing field may never be truly level, but why penalize your own citizens so that a few fat cats can by themselves and their kids the world while the rest of the population wallows in poverty.

Why do you phrase your own position as though it were mine? You are the one suggesting that the industrialists be let lose in the hen house and granted competition free markets with-in which they can do as they please and line their pockets at our expense.

You have yet to describe what a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD is. Please do so before using the term again.


You assertation is that their is "fair trade" between Groups A, B, and C. It doesn't exist. You can bury your head in the sand about it, but Group A is going to do everything it can to make sure Groups B and C aren't on the same footing. To protect themselves, Group B and C would be well advised to protect themselves.

So long as they don't aggress against the other parties involved, what's your beef with competition?


That doesn't happen either does it? Group B will try to put itself ahead of Group C. If what you are saying is true, every country in the world would be on equal footing because most every country has something that another country wants.

And drop the rhetoric, its pretty obvious this is a left wing take.

I will forgive your ignorance on this, and assume you are just a young one, but I am not a leftist. The fundamental core of my understanding of human social interaction is that of non-aggression and private property. A leftist would advocate no property at all, or state owned property. The very idea of the abolition of property rights or of state owned property makes my stomach unsettled.

As for your raving fear of competition, I really don't know how to console you.

[mgb]

LEVEL PLAYING FIELDS FOR ALL! Start the printing presses, we shall run off a million dollars in sheets of $100 bills! Everyone in the world will be rich!

Remember when I said drop the rhetoric? Any good point you made was lost to me when you said this. I could waste my time engaging is some sort of pissing contest with you, but I won't.

[Biff_Loman]

Nothing worthwhile is. Your teaching background could give you a competitive advantage. Why don't you work as a teacher while you are doing your Masters? That is a pretty stable career and can be fairly rewarding.

If teaching were an acceptable solution to me, I'd skip the other steps and do that. ;) Otherwise, I would work towards a master's in education, and possibly a PhD in that field (which was a plan in the works at one point).

I would rather have sand poured in my eyes than step into a school again. I practice taught for twelve weeks, and I wanted to die for the last nine weeks. There are times when I simply cannot believe that I stuck it out and completed the program. More endurance and perseverance were necessary for my one year of teacher's college than for the four years of my history degree. It was, without a doubt, the worst mistake of my life.

As for a PhD in history. . .

I interviewed all my history profs about the job. Let me put it this way: I would be lucky to find a position somewhere in the English-speaking world within less than a few years after graduating. I'm serious about having to move to Alaska and no, I'm not up for that.

Well, teaching is a good back-up plan for when I grow older, though! I would seriously have to tap the other parts of my personality to do that job, so it'll have to wait until later.

[Ckyzxr]

Ok biff, hope this is of some help.

A rule I that was conveyed to me once about finding the perfect job:
Figure out what kind of problems you like to solve and then find the job that needs those problems solved.

It appears that since you are quite sure the economy will be altered greatly by outsourcing to other countries, you can approach this problem from two directions. First, look to those jobs which will prosper greatly from this trend, i.e. sales rep or customer service rep to a foreign manufacturer. Other industries/areas that will benefit are:
Shipping (Sea and Air)
Packaging
Ports (Sea and Air)
Telecommunication
Language Arts (interpreters)
Financial Experts (monetary issues like exchange rates)
Foreign Commodity Expert (manufacturers need raw materials)
Customs/Goverment Inspectors

OR

Look to those industries that CANNOT be outsourced. This has been covered already to some degree but here might be some more ideas:
Residential and Infrastructure Industries (construction/repair in cities/urban/rural)
Personal Service industries (salons/mechanic/lawn care/pets/childcare)
Entertainment (live entertainment/gambling/restaurant/sports/movies/TV)
Security (police/military/personal)
Food/Toiletries (grocery/fuel)
oh yeah...don't forget
Politician! (Bureaucracy is a industry unto itself and will probably show high growth over the coming decades) :)

But the best idea I think you already mentioned...the Death Industry. There will be nearly uninhibited growth in this industry until society collapses, then it will only get better depending on what your niche is. Right now you have 6 billion plus customers already lined up GUARANTEED to "buy it" in some form or another. If I were to make a major change in industries from my present pursuits, I would look seriously in this direction.

Be good.

[Robespierre]

Remember when I said drop the rhetoric? Any good point you made was lost to me when you said this. I could waste my time engaging is some sort of pissing contest with you, but I won't.


Oh yeah, I remember now.

Okay, so go ahead and dance your way out of the corner you're painted into.

[SheepDog]

biff_loman, I'm actually in a similar predicament to yours, with some key differences. I also have a degree in something that I'll probably never use, and was a mistake in the first place. Unlike you, I do have a job now that pays decently, I just don't enjoy it, and that describes a situation that is not sustainable (in my mind anyway).

Since where I am is different, my tactics to get to the next place will be different than yours. But I think we share the bigger question, which is trying to decide an general direction that, for each of us, will put us in a place where we can make a decent living doing something that we enjoy. This hasn't been easy for me. I've been thinking about it for some time now, and haven't found an obvious answer.

To relieve some of the stress, I've attempted to focus less on the destination and more on the process. Since I enjoy discovering new things, I've been taking classes based purely on what I find interesting, regardless of their career potential. It's quite invigorating, and even if it gets me no closer to a solution for my career dilemma, the process is satisfying. It's also funny that in two different classes, my instructor has asked my why I was taking the class. In both cases, I was doing very well but they knew that I wasn't part of a degree program. In this little microcosm of the classroom, I saw the truth of the statement "do what you love and success will follow."

I don't know if any of this helps you. I know you're seeking a practical path to follow, and this is rather vague. I think it's smart to consider the larger economic forces to find a place to apply your talents. Your words just reminded me of these other thoughts that have been racing through my head.

Good luck to you.

[Johnny]

...Everyone makes exchanges based upon his own set of values. If I value the money I get from being employed more than the free time and effort I give up to be employed, then I remain employed. If that valuation were to be inverted, I would leave my job. Simple...

...Do you honestly think little miguel would work in the soccer-ball manufactory if he had somewhere else to go? Why do you think those people work those jobs? They are damned happy to work, and you and your do-gooder bullshit come along and demand we help them by closing them all down...This highlights an important question. When we offer compassion and charity to a downtrodden individual or group, boost them up, I think it's naive to assert that we are truly crippling ourselves for it - that we are not paying a price for both acting and not acting in support of someone else who would otherwise "fail" at some particular game or competition (up to and including death).

Whatever system or group rules the day (or timeline), they are entrenched in their "successful" ways (the more successful, the more entrenched), their inflexible and slow-to-react responses to fresh ideas and challenges. We all know this instinctively (in my opinion), and so charity and philanthropy also exist within us to keep variety alive. Sometimes that variety gains momentum, bringing revolution and change on a large scale. But that's why compassion and charity exist, and it does bring us great value...especially when it is desparately needed to retire a failing system or group, or, alternately allow that system or group the opportunity to evolve when circumstances require it.

Besides, who really knows what little miguel's feelings are on the matter but miguel himself?

[Robespierre]

This highlights an important question. When we offer compassion and charity to a downtrodden individual or group, boost them up, I think it's naive to assert that we are truly crippling ourselves for it - that we are not paying a price for both acting and not acting in support of someone else who would otherwise "fail" at some particular game or competition (up to and including death).

Compassion and charity are not at issue in this discussion. Tariffs and any other act of government are in no way connected to charity, but to violence and coercion. I have no personal problem with charity, but when the "charity" involves threats of violence for non-compliance, it is no longer charity, but robbery.


Besides, who really knows what little miguel's feelings are on the matter but miguel himself?

Who knows, who cares? The US government has no right to interfer in his or my non-aggressive interactions with society.

[SheepDog]

Robespierre, if I understand your view here correctly (and please clarify if I misstate anything, I am actually seeking understanding), it is that individual liberties are of primary concern, since they represent a fundamental moral value, and that ANY government intervention (tariffs, wage or price constraints, etc.) is by definition an infringement upon liberties, and therefore is immoral. I do think you consider that acts of individuals (or businesses) that directly harm others represent an area in which the government can (probably should) intervene to mitigate those harmful acts.

If I understand what you are saying, then it appears to me that you are applying a VERY high standard of non-involvement of government in individual and business affairs. The standard I allude to is a standard by which I think every government which I can think of would fall short. I say this because every government I can think of does regulate both individual liberties as well as commerce. At the very least, I think it represents some very gray areas for discussion.

[Robespierre]

Robespierre, if I understand your view here correctly (and please clarify if I misstate anything, I am actually seeking understanding), it is that individual liberties are of primary concern, since they represent a fundamental moral value, and that ANY government intervention (tariffs, wage or price constraints, etc.) is by definition an infringement upon liberties, and therefore is immoral.

A very good synopsis, yes.


I do think you consider that acts of individuals (or businesses) that directly harm others represent an area in which the government can (probably should) intervene to mitigate those harmful acts.

There are some sticky points in there. If you use the term "government" in its most oft used form as a synonym of "state", then no. If by government, you mean some governing body, then yes. For instance, a firm has its own government, but it is not a state. That is, it does not have a territorial monopoly on the legal use of force.


If I understand what you are saying, then it appears to me that you are applying a VERY high standard of non-involvement of government in individual and business affairs. The standard I allude to is a standard by which I think every government which I can think of would fall short. I say this because every government I can think of does regulate both individual liberties as well as commerce. At the very least, I think it represents some very gray areas for discussion.

Certainly. You have made the proper reductions and struck the root of the matter. No government, in the form of a state, can possibly pass my test of right or wrong. I am in favor of a completely voluntary society. At the core of this concept, is the principle of non-aggression, which is given proper domain and range by the understanding of property rights.

[Johnny]

I have no personal problem with charity, but when the "charity" involves threats of violence for non-compliance, it is no longer charity, but robbery.Tariffs are violent threats? To my understanding, tariffs are all about charity. As long as need exceeds the resources, charity must neglect something.


Who knows [little miguel], who cares? The US government has no right to interfer in his or my non-aggressive interactions with society.You earlier claimed that little miguel was happy, and now you don't care about his happiness at all. This saddens me.

If you mean to work with the assumption that a government is incapable of performing any actions to the benefit of yourself and others, that's your business. But concluding that a government is then incapable of bringing benefit to others is too easy this way. And no, I'm not a free market advocate.

[SheepDog]

Robespierre, I'm going to have to ponder this for a bit, as you've raised some issues that are thought provoking. For now, I will say that I relate to your principles (especially individual liberty and non-aggression). The application of those principles is where it gets complicated very quickly. As I see it, not so many people have the level of integrity that I see in your words, and as I'm sure you're aware, not everyone agrees with these values.

I imagine that were we to find a cafe (or pub) to chat, we could have some interesting chats. :cheers:

[Robespierre]

Tariffs are violent threats? To my understanding, tariffs are all about charity. As long as need exceeds the resources, charity must neglect something.

What happens if you attempt to cross the border with a truckload of goods that subject to a tariff? Will the border guards ask you if you care to pay a duty on those goods? Of course not, you MUST pay, under threat of violence. If you refuse them and drive through, they will certainly arrest you, and possibly kill you in the process. Tariffs are not charity.

If the salvation army bell-ringers had knives, and stabbed people who exited a store without "donating", would you continue to call the salvation army a charity organization? Or would they actually then be a mafia?

Aside from the disgusting moral problems with tariffs, they can never have a positive effect on an economy! Consider what a tariff is, an artificial price increase. How could dead weight cost possibly have a positive net effect on the economy? Use your INTP pure-reasoning skills and consider it.


You earlier claimed that little miguel was happy, and now you don't care about his happiness at all. This saddens me.

He can be happy, without me giving a damn.


If you mean to work with the assumption that a government is incapable of performing any actions to the benefit of yourself and others, that's your business. But concluding that a government is then incapable of bringing benefit to others is too easy this way. And no, I'm not a free market advocate.

If others see a benefit to subjecting themselves to government, I have no problem with that. The problem comes when they use their government to interfere with me.

What exactly DO you advocate, if not a free market?

[Robespierre]

Robespierre, I'm going to have to ponder this for a bit, as you've raised some issues that are thought provoking. For now, I will say that I relate to your principles (especially individual liberty and non-aggression). The application of those principles is where it gets complicated very quickly. As I see it, not so many people have the level of integrity that I see in your words, and as I'm sure you're aware, not everyone agrees with these values.

I imagine that were we to find a cafe (or pub) to chat, we could have some interesting chats. :cheers:


Right on, over a nice pint of stout.

[Johnny]

If the salvation army bell-ringers had knives, and stabbed people who exited a store without "donating", would you continue to call the salvation army a charity organization? Or would they actually then be a mafia?

Aside from the disgusting moral problems with tariffs, they can never have a positive effect on an economy! Consider what a tariff is, an artificial price increase. How could dead weight cost possibly have a positive net effect on the economy? Use your INTP pure-reasoning skills and consider it.Your analogy doesn't work very well. This is how your analogy should be described: the salvation army bell-ringers must wear armor so that they have a chance to survive the donors who have knives and want to stab them for their efforts.

Tariffs aren't about crippling you for having a market advantage, they're about supporting the businesses that can't compete with you otherwise. It's just like charities - some will benefit and some won't. Tariffs don't prevent you from flaunting your market advantage elsewhere. Even little miguel knows that...

Speaking of little miguel:

He can be happy, without me giving a damn.

If others see a benefit to subjecting themselves to government, I have no problem with that. The problem comes when they use their government to interfere with me.Relationships and interference exist everywhere and amongst everything, in my view.


What exactly DO you advocate, if not a free market?I advocate a market economy, where a democratically elected government plays a central role in establishing and enforcing rules of market. Look, economy is about game...and games have rules. You can pander to the concept of private property as natural law all you want, but unless you don't care whether or not little miguel buys into your natural law you might want to look to some kind of regulatory body to help you remind him of this caveat.

And for that non-aggression part...sincere good luck goes out to you...

[Robespierre]

Your analogy doesn't work very well. This is how your analogy should be described: the salvation army bell-ringers must wear armor so that they have a chance to survive the donors who have knives and want to stab them for their efforts.

I completely disagree. Charity, at the point of a gun, is NOT charity.


Tariffs aren't about crippling you for having a market advantage, they're about supporting the businesses that can't compete with you otherwise. It's just like charities - some will benefit and some won't. Tariffs don't prevent you from flaunting your market advantage elsewhere. Even little miguel knows that...

As far as a real charity goes, everyone gains from the voluntary exchanges that take place there. If an individual decides to donate some amount of money, he does so because he seeks to improve his own situation. Altruism is a logical dead end, and a self-contradictory concept.

You can frame a tariff however you like, but in the end, it is enforce by people holding guns, and by its very nature, the tariff reduces individual liberty.


Speaking of little miguel:
Relationships and interference exist everywhere and amongst everything, in my view.

Aggressive interference?



I advocate a market economy, where a democratically elected government plays a central role in establishing and enforcing rules of market.

Democracy and free markets do not mix well. Individual liberty and democracy are opposites. Either individuals have control over their lives, or the majority has control over everyone else.


Look, economy is about game...and games have rules.

Yeah, property rights, non-aggression, homesteading of unowned property.


You can pander to the concept of private property as natural law all you want, but unless you don't care whether or not little miguel buys into your natural law you might want to look to some kind of regulatory body to help you remind him of this caveat.

I will handle that myself, if I were to support violent gangs to force my opinion on others, I would be no better than the current fedgov.


And for that non-aggression part...sincere good luck goes out to you...

Care to unpack that?

[Dman]

Wow, good stuff.

To the original posting, Sheepdog's mention of "Do what you love & success will follow" is the best advice for anyone's career ambitions. Even if it's a nonglamorous job, or doesn't pay well, your life and mental health will be much richer. The tough part can be figuring out what it is you love that can be applied to sustainable employment (i.e. drinking beer & playing video games would be difficult to apply).

For the raging economics debate, I have a belief that socialism works best for those who are the type to just due their time at work, punch their cards 8 to 5, and generally "work to live", preferring to spend time pursuing other interests while the government takes care of their health, education, pension, etc. Capitalism on the other hand works best for those who "live to work", have unquenchable ambition and a competitive, entrepreneurial spirit who want to make the world their own way, rather than have "big brother" take care of them.

[Robespierre]

For the raging economics debate, I have a belief that socialism works best for those who are the type to just due their time at work, punch their cards 8 to 5, and generally "work to live", preferring to spend time pursuing other interests while the government takes care of their health, education, pension, etc. Capitalism on the other hand works best for those who "live to work", have unquenchable ambition and a competitive, entrepreneurial spirit who want to make the world their own way, rather than have "big brother" take care of them.

The debate doesn't come down to capitalism vs socialism. In a just system, those who wished to exchange with each other could do so without hassle from interlopers. Those who wished to pool their resources and live in communes would also be free to do so. Economic systems are not dictated by natural human rights, but legal systems are.

[Dman]

The debate doesn't come down to capitalism vs socialism. In a just system, those who wished to exchange with each other could do so without hassle from interlopers. Those who wished to pool their resources and live in communes would also be free to do so. Economic systems are not dictated by natural human rights, but legal systems are.

So rather, it comes down to laissez-faire free market vs. centrally-commanded pooled resources, which of course are not in any way equated with capitalism vs. socialism.

Well, anyways, in a just system free from hassle with interlopers, those who had the biggest guns would be calling the shots over how much of what was exchanged, without fear of those interlopers hassling them.

[Robespierre]

So rather, it comes down to laissez-faire free market vs. centrally-commanded pooled resources, which of course are not in any way equated with capitalism vs. socialism.

Well, anyways, in a just system free from hassle with interlopers, those who had the biggest guns would be calling the shots over how much of what was exchanged, without fear of those interlopers hassling them.

That would qualify as interloping and hassle, and would be identical to the system in which we live right now.

[Dman]

That would qualify as interloping and hassle, and would be identical to the system in which we live right now.

Touché, I hadn't read all the other posts before I wrote that.

But I will pick another point - altruism is not a logical dead end. There are many examples for why not, but here's a crude one that hits home - putting yourself in harm's way to save your child's life. Although you may die, you are helping the survival of your genes. In a grander scheme, doing anything to save another human being, even a stranger, is instinctive to ensuring the survival of the species. Seems logical to me.

I will finish with this:

Imagine there's no countries; it isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too.

And then we woke up.

[Robespierre]

Touché, I hadn't read all the other posts before I wrote that.

But I will pick another point - altruism is not a logical dead end. There are many examples for why not, but here's a crude one that hits home - putting yourself in harm's way to save your child's life. Although you may die, you are helping the survival of your genes. In a grander scheme, doing anything to save another human being, even a stranger, is instinctive to ensuring the survival of the species. Seems logical to me.

No human being acts in any way contrary to what he believes to be in his best interest. All human beings, are in a more crude sense, selfish. This does not mean that humans never value the comfort, happiness, safety, or even wealth of others more than their own. A parent may believe it in his best interest to place his life at risk to save his child. A person walking out of Target may value the warm feeling he gets from tossing a dollar in the salvation army kettle more than the utility he would normally get from that dollar. But in ALL instances, the individual is action in his own self interest. Altruism is a logical impossibility, it is like suggesting A and not A.


I will finish with this:

Imagine there's no countries; it isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too.

And then we woke up.

Yep. I wonder if you can...

[Edmond Zedo]

Imagine there's no countries; it isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too.
That song's the only piece of hippy tree huggin' garbage I ever fell in love with. It's sublime.

[Dman]

No human being acts in any way contrary to what he believes to be in his best interest. All human beings, are in a more crude sense, selfish. This does not mean that humans never value the comfort, happiness, safety, or even wealth of others more than their own. A parent may believe it in his best interest to place his life at risk to save his child. A person walking out of Target may value the warm feeling he gets from tossing a dollar in the salvation army kettle more than the utility he would normally get from that dollar. But in ALL instances, the individual is action in his own self interest. Altruism is a logical impossibility, it is like suggesting A and not A.



Yep. I wonder if you can...

Yeah, in the strictest sense of the word I'll agree with that.

[Robespierre]

Yeah, in the strictest sense of the word I'll agree with that.

If you've got another sense of the word, let 'er rip.

I'm not telling you that I know everything, just that what I am saying is at least logically consistent. And if the premises are true, that makes the conclusions true also. And if you can break the chain of reasoning at some point, I would be greatful, as I do not wish to spouting off about something that doesn't add up.

[Dman]

If you've got another sense of the word, let 'er rip.

"Showing unselfish concern for the welfare of others".

Emphasis on "showing", i.e. implying that the act appears to be altruistic even if it is not.

[Robespierre]

"Showing unselfish concern for the welfare of others".

Emphasis on "showing", i.e. implying that the act appears to be altruistic even if it is not.

The word "showing" in that definition does not imply anything about the nature of the act, but implies that the word "altruism" refers to the visible act of "unselfish concern for the welfare of others."

My beef is with the word unselfish. The word can be used in ways that are not logically wrong, but those are few, and subjective. In the sense that the word "unselfish" is used in the definition, it confirms my point about the logical fallacy that is the idea of "altruism". It is asking someone to believe that something can be simultaneously true and false. It is an example of Doublethink.

[Dman]

The word "showing" in that definition does not imply anything about the nature of the act, but implies that the word "altruism" refers to the visible act of "unselfish concern for the welfare of others."

My beef is with the word unselfish. The word can be used in ways that are not logically wrong, but those are few, and subjective. In the sense that the word "unselfish" is used in the definition, it confirms my point about the logical fallacy that is the idea of "altruism". It is asking someone to believe that something can be simultaneously true and false. It is an example of Doublethink.

Indeed. It is impossible to "do" anything and qualify it as unselfish.

However I believe most people interpret an "unselfish" act not literally, but figuratively, particularly when one puts his/her life in jeapordy. Such as in cases where it appears that the costs of risking one's life appear to be much greater than the potential intrinsic benefit of "feeling good" for saving the person. Thus it becomes more difficult to say the act was self-centered, when it does not sound rational, even though at it's most fundamental level it was a selfish act.

[Robespierre]

Indeed. It is impossible to "do" anything and qualify it as unselfish.

We agree then.


However I believe most people interpret an "unselfish" act not literally, but figuratively, particularly when one puts his/her life in jeapordy. Such as in cases where it appears that the costs of risking one's life appear to be much greater than the potential intrinsic benefit of "feeling good" for saving the person. Thus it becomes more difficult to say the act was self-centered, when it does not sound rational, even though at it's most fundamental level it was a selfish act.

The term gets properly deflated to its rightful size, a subjective description, which will vary from person to person. Much like the word "good" when referring to the taste of food, or the quality of a movie, or any other subjective valuation. Certainly there are standards than many people agree upon, but this agreement in no way certifies the agreed upon subjective value as objective.

[Dman]

We agree then.



The term gets properly deflated to its rightful size, a subjective description, which will vary from person to person. Much like the word "good" when referring to the taste of food, or the quality of a movie, or any other subjective valuation. Certainly there are standards than many people agree upon, but this agreement in no way certifies the agreed upon subjective value as objective.

Absolutely. That's why I said in the strictest sense, it was my way of saying cut out the subjective description of the word that many people apply and take it literally. Perhaps a more lucid response from me would have been "in the literal definition".

[Aryan]

Alright here's my opinion of whats going on:

Its called outsourcing in America, its called brain-drain in India.

In fact more than jobs comings towards India, its India who is sending her technically minded people towards America. Its brain that is going not muscles, right ! In fact 30-40% of researchers working in NASA, microsoft, u say it, are of Indian origin. And America is the one who is taking the most advantage of this brain-drain.

Don't worry, US will remain a superpower. For example 25% of US's GDP is from entertainment industry. 25% of US is more than enough, compared to other countries, and this entertainment industry isnt gonna stop.

Anyways, again don't think that outsourcing will benefit India so much that it will make her a superpower or something. She is standing on her own after british exploitation, not due to uncle Sam. ;P

Btw: This wasnt meant as a rant, just another perspective of whats goin on actually.

Anyways this nation concept is total shit ! I dont believe in nations as such. Think the world should be a single nation


Imagine there's no countries; it isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too.

Right dude !
But that is possible, only for intellectually minded people. ESxx people wont listen never ever.
WE ALL WILL DIE AND THEN NOTHING WILL MATTER !

[Robespierre]

In fact more than jobs comings towards India, its India who is sending her technically minded people towards America. Its brain that is going not muscles, right ! In fact 30-40% of researchers working in NASA, microsoft, u say it, are of Indian origin. And America is the one who is taking the most advantage of this brain-drain.

This is a very good point, and it exposes the inherent nationalism of those who propose to restrict individual liberty. Apparently free trade will take jobs away from AMERICANS. Even though this is not the case in the overall, as you point out, it shows the underlying sense of entitlment. The sense that, and American is due a job, and some filthy furrrener ain't gonna take it from no american.

[mgb]

Alright here's my opinion of whats going on:

Its called outsourcing in America, its called brain-drain in India.

In fact more than jobs comings towards India, its India who is sending her technically minded people towards America. Its brain that is going not muscles, right ! In fact 30-40% of researchers working in NASA, microsoft, u say it, are of Indian origin. And America is the one who is taking the most advantage of this brain-drain.

Don't worry, US will remain a superpower. For example 25% of US's GDP is from entertainment industry. 25% of US is more than enough, compared to other countries, and this entertainment industry isnt gonna stop.

Anyways, again don't think that outsourcing will benefit India so much that it will make her a superpower or something. She is standing on her own after british exploitation, not due to uncle Sam. ;P

Btw: This wasnt meant as a rant, just another perspective of whats goin on actually.

Anyways this nation concept is total shit ! I dont believe in nations as such. Think the world should be a single nation


Right dude !
But that is possible, only for intellectually minded people. ESxx people wont listen never ever.
WE ALL WILL DIE AND THEN NOTHING WILL MATTER !


I think you are missing a few points here that add/take away from this prospective. First, there are 3 times as many people in India as the US. I would say it is fairly natural for people to migrate away from India and go to places where there is less competition for jobs.

Secondly, school in India is completely publically funded. This was enacted back in the 60's when Indira Gandhi realized that educated people would be a great advantage to rebuilding the country. Applying to universities is a grueling process and based completely on merit. It is next to free once you get in and the education you get is better than the education you get in the states.

So why do the big companies hire them? They aren't graduating from school with $50,000 to $100,000 in student loans so they are probably willing to work for less because they don't have a gigantic loan payment to make. And if you are a company you probably want to hire the best educated people you can get your hands on. They happen to be Indian right now.

As for entertainment, India has that covered too, look at Bollywood.

[Robespierre]

I think you are missing a few points here that add/take away from this prospective. First, there are 3 times as many people in India as the US. I would say it is fairly natural for people to migrate away from India and go to places where there is less competition for jobs.


So what about american jobs? Are you saying that some smelly indian should be allowed to steal our jobs!!??

I am not a national socialist, and am simply saying such offensive things to demonstrate the intense, but masked, nationalism of others.

[Dman]

So what about american jobs? Are you saying that some smelly indian should be allowed to steal our jobs!!??

I am not a national socialist, and am simply saying such offensive things to demonstrate the intense, but masked, nationalism of others.

Indeed; it is Ok to benefit from 'globalization', but not to suffer any consequences! I want my cake and eat it too!

I must admit that I was dismayed in biz school when outsourcing came up. I think due to the high concentration of computer/tech engineers in the program, the professors were sympathetic (in fact many of the students were in biz school to change careers due to outsourcing fears). Here they had been teaching us the wonders and workings of capitalism and globalization, and then for the most part going anti-capitalism and anti-globalization when it came to outsourcing. Isn’t that what outsourcing is all about, globalization?

I have no sympathy. This is the system we benefit from and thrive upon, except when it doesn’t always go “our” way? B.S.

The professors' main arguments were that a US corporation has a civic duty to keep the jobs in the US, since that is where it was created and given the ability to exist. But that’s a whole other thread. At least they were willing to admit to us that it was something we will have to deal with and won’t go away.

Of course, perhaps this is a natural result of a system based upon “me, me, me”.

[Robespierre]

Of course, perhaps this is a natural result of a system based upon “me, me, me”.

Democracy sickens me. Elections are an advance auction of soon-to-be-stolen goods.

[Dman]

I would prefer a world that was all about "you, you, you", and by "you", I mean me.

[Dman]

BTW, I was not arguing that a system based upon "me, me, me" was right or wrong - simply that in this system, what do you expect. Of course Americans are going to be pissed off when their jobs are outsourced. Isn't the rest of the world pissed off when the money goes to Americans? Why would anyone expect Americans to act any differently? Regardless of right or wrong, what do you expect.

[Robespierre]

I expect people to have some basic understanding of economics. I realize that they do NOT, but I expect them to anyways.

[Dman]

I expect people to have some basic understanding of economics. I realize that they do NOT, but I expect them to anyways.

Yeah, they probably went to private schools. Too bad not everyone is educated at public schools.

[Robespierre]

Yeah, they probably went to private schools. Too bad not everyone is educated at public schools.

Public school economics understanding is something like the mentality of a hungry dog: I WANT IT NOW.

[Dman]

Public school economics understanding is something like the mentality of a hungry dog: I WANT IT NOW.

Yes, of course I was being facetious, I hadn't even an inkling of economics when I graduated high school. However, upon entering the 'real world' I quickly realized that I was lacking, and studied economics considerably in college in order to catch up. State college, BTW.

So, it was all due to public school! Since it didn't teach me about economics in the first place, I was able to realize for myself that I needed to learn about economics! I'm sure it was planned that way.

[Robespierre]

learn about economics!

http://www.mises.org/studyguide.asp

All you need to know.

[Network Alchemy]

outsourcing makes a country ~richer~ and as an example say you are an organization which is expert in graphic design but you also have several printers to print those designs for customers and every once in a while you experience printer problems and because you are not specialized in printers things are not as smooth as you would like then you hire a specialized organization to do the printing for you then you do not have to take care of any printers you can remove the printers giving you extra space which you can fill with new computers and new artists and you can complete that many more graphic design projects and because of this you will be getting more profit than before

this is the only way countries become richer and another way to say this is organizations which are or try to be selfsupportive do not become wealthier

the reason is because while you have ten graphic artists working on ten projects your competitor has six graphic artists working on six projects and a printer technician

there may be some feeling of contradiction and something may arise in the mind as ~in your example your graphic design company hired ~more~ artists but in the real world people are ~losing~ jobs not gaining them~ but what actually happened is that there were resources being used on the printers such as electricity and of course people and because you no longer need printers you are able to free up those resources which may happen to include people and of course if you are one of those persons you may either be reassigned or lose the job which may sting but what needs to be understood is that it is a short term loss and the long term benefits for the country far outweigh this loss

if you are a resource which has been freed up then you can be used somewhere else where you can provide more value to the country






outsourcing is a manifestation of the idea of modularity which all good programmers and architects of any kind are well familiar with and know leads to simplification and structural efficiency the overhead of which runs a gamut but the overhead of outsourcing is minimal otherwise it would not be used





the country america outsources the most to ~by far~ is britain and the most complained about is india which immediately reveals slyness on the part of many

[Geoff]

The country America outsources too most is Britain? That's interesting, I dont see too much evidence of that here, I would be interested to see some facts on that? Ireland maybe, I see a fair amount outsourced to there (lots of good reasons).

-Geoff

[Network Alchemy]

good thing you caught me the country is actually canada and britain is second after that however india is indeed far from the top and as for the sources i will need time to look for or forge them but if someone else can find the statistics that would be appreciated

[Dman]

good thing you caught me the country is actually canada and britain is second after that however india is indeed far from the top and as for the sources i will need time to look for or forge them but if someone else can find the statistics that would be appreciated

Outsourcing to Canada and Britain is a different ballgame than outsourcing to a developing country like India. That is why outsourcing to *developing countries* such as India receive more attention (complaining) than those of similar economic structure.

Don't forget the mass exodus of outsourcing to Mexico years back, under Clinton's NAFTA. At the time you would have thought the world was ending. It's media hype, just like this time around. American jobs may change, as they always have and always will, but they will not disappear, as they never have and never will.

[mgb]

I would also say that it is a different type of outsourcing. When a company outsources to the UK or Canada they are looking for tax breaks and skilled labour and machines able to build complicated products.

Outsourcing to developing countries often involves a low skilled labour force (combined with tax breaks and free-trade zones) that is paid a menial amount for the work they do and typically work in sweat shop like conditions.

American jobs do change (see the Wal-Mart thread) but I think you might also find the disparity between rich and poor is increasing and with the loss of the manufacturing jobs and such you will probably see a degredation of the middle class, which I think is fairly dangerous.

[s]

It will all sort itself out somehow. Now, excuse me as I join the rest of the world in exploiting the less fortunate (in the pursuit of my happiness, of course).

[mgb]

It will all sort itself out somehow. Now, excuse me as I join the rest of the world in exploiting the less fortunate (in the pursuit of my happiness, of course).

The ostrich defense, that's good.

[coffeezombie]

American jobs do change (see the Wal-Mart thread) but I think you might also find the disparity between rich and poor is increasing and with the loss of the manufacturing jobs and such you will probably see a degredation of the middle class, which I think is fairly dangerous.

Why is that? People here still vote Republican even when they lose their jobs. Just look at Ohio. They'd rather lose their jobs and be unemployed and poor than see gay people be able to get married. Kind of a sad commentary on the intelligence of the average American, really.

[mgb]

Why is that? People here still vote Republican even when they lose their jobs. Just look at Ohio. They'd rather lose their jobs and be unemployed and poor than see gay people be able to get married. Kind of a sad commentary on the intelligence of the average American, really.

Well, when you die and are from Ohio, you will get into heaven and enjoy the heavenly rewards of living a pious life and voting against those "damned" gays.

Gotta love the neo-cons, probably laughing all the way to the bank.

[Network Alchemy]

americans are not complaining that people in the countries to which the work is being outsourced may be suffering

if most of the outsourcing is not going to those countries at all then i believe it is a cultural bias and just think of it given these two situations




1 you have lost your programming job to someone in canada

2 you have lost your programming job to someone in india





what is the difference there is none you lost your job but people will only complain if you lose it to india so i believe the issue is not the job loss itself there is another issue that causes people to exacerbate the loss and this other issue only presents itself when jobs are lost to developing countries

(thinking)

actually there is a difference i notice and it is that in terms of cost per person the company u worked for will get more value out of someone in india because labor there is in theory cheaper than it is in canada and so that could be a reason why americans worry they think along the lines of ~india has such cheap labor that means many many companies in america are going to start outsourcing to india~

so i believe developing nations are conflicted about for two reasons one americans are cultural elitists and two labor in developing countries is beyond reasonable doubt cheaper than it is in other countries so the belief is that outsourcing will occur at a higher rate although the degree or proportion in which these two possible reasons present themselves is beyond me