LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| reply to sherpaboy
Re: Those Damn Consumers
said by sherpaboy  :
I agree with Dr. Walter Williams to a point, but I do not believe that government intervention will help.
Well, Williams is merely trying to illustrate how absurd it is to think that government can write a law to fixed all these perceived ills. He would never seriously advocate government intervention as a means of attaining "fairness." To wit: Congressional Miracles.
Your story of your ISP operation reminds me of my landlord who bought the cheapest heat pump/AC possible and then complains that his energy bill went up. This is also the same guy who calls tech support for his cell phone just to have someone to talk to, so people like him are another reason why there is outsourcing—he is wasting resources.
--
"Lunches don't get free just because you don't see the prices on the menu. And economists don't get popular by reminding people of that." --Thomas Sowell |
|
sherpaboy
join:2001-07-06
Seattle, WA
| reply to LegoPower77
I was getting pretty frustrated reading the responses to these articles. It's nice to read some rational thoughts at last.
I agree with Dr. Walter Williams to a point, but I do not believe that government intervention will help. Matter of fact, government intervention usually makes things worse.
As you have pointed out, government regulations, employment laws, corporate taxes rates are killing us more than cheap Indian workers. It's always easier to blame the foreigner then to look at yourself in the mirror.
The weak STATE FUNDED education system is just another way our invasive government is damaging our ability to thrive. Get the government out of education and just watch us improve that system without their so called help.
The following from Dr. Walter Williams....
quote:
Then there's the consumer side of things. Years ago there were loads of corner grocery and hardware stores. Because of selfish consumers, motivated only by getting something cheap and not caring about what happens to small businessmen and their employees, these stores are mostly gone. They've been replaced by huge, impersonal supermarket chains and super hardware stores like Home Depot and Lowes. Had my proposed law been on the books small grocery and hardware stores would not have gone the way of the dinosaur.
I run a small ISP. We do T1, Frame Relay, DSL, dial up, and some Co-location and Consulting. We are a very good ISP. We focus on having top notch non out-sourced customer support and very reliable service. We have almost no downtime and try to answer every call with a human during normal business hours. After hours we we can be paged and we will respond in under 20 minutes. Our base rate for our low end DSL service is $40.00 a month, Qwest and Verizon will add $18.00 to $37.00 additional dollars for the loop charge. That brings my DSL to somewhere between $58.00 and $77.00 for low end DSL. We have a small but very loyal client base who are happy to pay for the excellent service we provide. We are very efficient with our dollars and employee 4 people. Even with all that, we barely make a livable wage.
In spite of all that, most of the calls from new folks looking for service tell me my prices are way out of line and they will shop elsewhere. They will choose MSN, VOL or some other big name low cost ISP.
What is the point of all this? Primarily that people are hypocrites. They scream when they have to pay for service even when they have no clue on the cost of deployment. Then they reward big companies for being cheap by purchasing their products and services. Then they scream when those companies try and do the same thing they just did and go out and buy the cheapest service.
Even with all this, I do not want a law that requires people to buy my services, or a law that requires other big name ISP's to raise prices so that I can more easily compete.
Consumers are driving big business over seas, pure and simple. Tell me how many adds you hear today that say, "unlimited" or "cheap fairs" or "FREE". Nobody says "High Quality" or "Reliable" or "Worth the Extra Money". Why? Because nobody wants to pay for it, they always think they are smarter if they get it cheaper. |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to toasterhead1
said by toasterhead1 :
Not only does this lead to lower wait times for the customer, but it also lowers cost as the can afford more employees at a lower price.
Wait times arent really lower if you factor in how many calls it takes you to make before you get someone you can halfway comprehend.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
3 edits | reply to Noodlin
Your analysis breaks down because of fallacy of composition: outsourcing does not affect all workers. Sure the ones who have lost their jobs are worse off (for the time being) and many here will cry them a river. But there are two overarching benefits to allowing eeevil companies to buy labor from the cheapest source.
First, the net effect is that prices are lower for everybody; in fact, you can take the surplus from gains to trade and directly compensate those who have lost their job and still come out on top.
Second, the unemployed workers are freed up to do more "useful" work. If congress had passed a law banning the automobile, not only would we be worse of for not having convenient transportation, many other industries would have a hard time finding workers because they are all still making buggy whips and horse shoes.
America may be at a disadvantage in terms of sheer number of workers, but we are at an exceptional advantage because of our technology and capital that we have working with labor—that's why our per capita output (GDP) is c. $36k when the rest of the world is lucky to make $10k (India's is $2.6k). Unfortunately, we have many forces here that make us uncompetitive, viz. tort laws, regulations, employment laws, our corporate taxes are the highest in the industrialized world (40%! can you imagine risking all but only getting to keep a little over ½ of what you make?) , not to mention a weak education system that scores relatively low compared to other countries. If we were to address these issues, we should have no problem competing with more populated countries.
[edit]
Another Williams article right on point.
[/edit]
--
"Lunches don't get free just because you don't see the prices on the menu. And economists don't get popular by reminding people of that." --Thomas Sowell |
|
namespace
join:2002-12-22
31337
| reply to toasterhead1
I think the answer is to tax exported labor and cut government funding to those who do export jobs. However, this will probably just cause companies to leave the U.S.
...and around and around we go...
Another idea is to be good americans and not support companies who export american jobs. But pay $39.95/mo instead of $29.95/mo for DSL? ... *shudders
Then again, I use speakeasy and don't shop at walmart so I don't have room to talk. |
|
rockjock
join:2003-10-14
Salt Lake City, UT | reply to yabos
Sorry, I thought we were talking about American companies. My bad. |
|
yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON | reply to rockjock
There is in Canada IIRC. |
|
rockjock
join:2003-10-14
Salt Lake City, UT | reply to yabos
Bah! You're misinformed, there is no such law. |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| reply to toasterhead1
People don't care how it's done they want "their" job at a "fair" salary, who cares that they'll be in the same boat when prices skyrocket. What most people fail to understand is that a particular job at a particular salary is not a right.
The fact of the matter is the economy is changing. People who are able to adapt and are willing to be flexible, will prosper; those who are of the mindset of lifetime employment at "fair" (read: astronomical) wages, will be the ones in the unemployment lines.
--
Japan-- Now with 30% more climbable telephone poles!! |
|
toasterhead1
Toasterhead
join:2002-07-01
Norcross, GA
clubs: | reply to yabos
Because then the company moves its headquarters out of the U.S. so it is not under the laws of the U.S. and just exports its products to us. Even more unemployment. |
|
yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON | reply to toasterhead1
There's a law that says you must hire a certain number of minority workers. Why don't they make a law that says you can't hire out more than X amount of work overseas? |
|
toasterhead1
Toasterhead
join:2002-07-01
Norcross, GA
clubs:
2 edits | reply to Noodlin
Another question also arises, if the product becomes much more expensive then not outsourcing will be the undoing of these companies.
Lets say company A is a computer company. They place there call information centers in India. Because the labor is cheaper there, employees can be hired cheaper. Not only does this lead to lower wait times for the customer, but it also lowers cost as the can afford more employees at a lower price.
Lets say company B is in the same industry, except there support technicians are in the USA. Lets say U.S. employees are 10x more productive then the Indian employees, they can take more calls and be more helpful. However an Indian employee cost $10 a day with no money paid to the govenrment, while an American cost $100 a day then on top of that are all the government fees -> SHA requirements, EEOC mandates, Social Security and Medicare, Family Medical Leave and many other workplace regulations. Added to worker costs that businesses incur are: Americans With Disabilities Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act and many other regulations . Suddenly, the Indian employee is the best way to go or else noone will buy there product because it will be way to expensive to compete. The consumers that do buy the product will be unable to purchase many "american made" products as they will alll be way overprice, thus leading to american employees demanding more wages and that leads to unemplyoment and higher product cost. Oops hey look were really in an endless spiral this time!
Lets say you want to protect American jobs.... what are you going to do? They are not our jobs, they are no America's jobs, they are the companies jobs and they can do what they want.
What do you want the government .. the president to do? Do you want some federal law that prohibits companies from transmitting information overseas by the Internet (I'm sure people at DSLreports would love that) , having that information transformed or modified, and then shipped back? And tell me just how do you enforce that law? Does that law then apply to you also if you seek information from a company that is located overseas, thus depriving a domestic company of your business? These companies aren't shipping parts overseas and completed products back. All they do is ship information overseas by phone lines or the Internet. |
|
Noodlin
join:2003-07-11
Monterey Park, CA
| reply to LegoPower77
“For one thing India has a billion people so they have what economists call comparative advantage in labor resources.”
Sounds like a line right out of my Econ Textbook.
On the subject of economics; one questions arises’ is that, if the main customer base of these companies are indeed Americans, then outsourcing can be the undoing of these companies. By outsourcing, the wealth of you main customer base will diminish (the unemployed American worker). With this diminished customer base, your operations as a company will also diminish due to a lack of funds available by the customer base (again, the unemployed American worker). This lowering effect will force the company to resort to even more drastic measures, perhaps even more outsourcing. Regardless, you can see how these chains of events can spiral downward quickly. |
|
