Absorbine_Sr
1 In The Hood
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Schererville, IN
clubs:
| Needs convincing
Though I personally don't work in a call center, my wife does, and so do many others that I know. They are highly trained professionals who do a marvelous job of helping people who buy the software our company sells. Maybe Mr. Miller needs to be convinced that these people are not just untrained chimps reading from a card. Maybe a hundred thousand or so emails might help convince him? Contact address from the ITAA site is hmiller@itaa.org. Spread the word.
--
I'd give my left hand to be ambidextrous... |
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
2 edits | Call centers? oh Please. . .
I don't know, I've worked in them before, if you are gonna cry a river about them, you should be up at arms about the Federal Do not Call list.
But you admit, this hits close to home.
The fact of the matter is that the free-flow of labor allows areas to take advantage of comparative advantage, an iron-clad law of economics. The MSN article illustrates as much by mentioning the repatriatiton of workers. So the eeevil company realizes it's a loss to outsource after all.
Perhaps we should attack the root of the problem and address the onerous taxes and regulations eeevil companies are faced with (not to mention the ever-present threat of litigation thanks to our trial-lawyer friends). Currently, the US taxes eeevil corporations at 40%—that means 100% lost, 60% gained on a 50-50 toss. . . .(gee, India looks more attractive now).
But what is a corporation but a collection of people? I should point out, that the government taxes the eeevil corporation's earnings many many times, the people who get paid by it get taxed, the shareholders that own stock or the eeevil small business owner pay taxes on the residual income, and then there's the various add-ons like payroll taxes, health bennies requirements, etc... (And again, India looks more attractive.)
And this doesn't even begin to address the robust economic theory that the ITAA is talking about when it points out how newer—more advanced jobs typically open up here at home. The fact of the matter is, there are gains to trade: both countries are better off as they perceive it ex ante and if they come to think their perception was wrong, they take steps to reverse the situation (well, you can't always do things like just take your new car back but you get my drift).
Again I stress, what are "countries" trading with each other, other than individual action (again, people. Thus any restriction on trade no matter how casuist the intention is always a restriction on people and thus a barrier to their "right to happiness" as they see it.
Q.E.D.
{edit}
Dangit, I meant to add an eeevil partisan note being that it's an election year, and all. John Kerry calles eeevil outsourcing companies "benedict arnold" corporations, his wife, heiress of the Heinz fortune decries walmart as "breaking up rural communities". Well, as it turns out, the company her daddy owned outsources 2/3 or so of its manufacturing and Teresa owns $1 million in Wal-mart stock. Too rich (pun intended!  )
--
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." —Ronald Reagan |
