Overseas Call Centers Target Of Anti-Outsourcing Bill

[Faeries]

---

That's what someone who doesn't understand economics would say. Politics is all about stakeholders, there are winners and losers in every decision. This will lead to some increase in employment but at the cost of higher prices for goods and services. Remember that companies are outsourcing here because labor is cheaper, so they can sell their products/services more cheaply in the U.S.

I think there was a study that if the U.S. stopped all imports of goods from China their inflation rate would shoot up to 400% annually. It all boils down to whether the increase in prices for everyone in the States is worth the slight increase in employment for a few people. In most cases, it's not worth it it's just another form of subsidies for sectors that aren't competitive. In the first place, even at 9% the unemployment rate in the U.S. is already relatively low and compared to our own unemployment is pretty good (and that is not even their normal unemployment rate).

What I see here is a knee-jerk reaction to mismanagement of the government budget. Their politicians are looking for somebody to blame, whether it's Philippines, China or India so they can distract ordinary Americans from the real problem which is overspending. If they did this, there will be retaliation from other countries. How would they feel if we banned all imports of Angus beef because we want to support our own farmers? This will make our farmers happy but how would you feel paying 100% more on beef? That's the real effect of these protectionist policies: inflation.

Yeah I think their normal unemployment rate is around 6%. The law is for the benefit of the american people, we are talking about american lawmakers and laws and not our own.

Correct me if i am wrong but arent you basing your assumption that lower unemployment rate leads to higher inflation rate from the Philips Curve?

Its a short term effect though, isnt it? Of course I am not an economist major and maybe I am wrong.

[peewee_toot]

i believe they would.

with a high unemployment rate in the US and with huge debts, it would be stupid for them to not take the job. they would take the job and earn from it rather than ma imbargo ilang balay and go homeless.

some but not all. kahibaw na baya ta nga grabe ka pili-an ang mga kano mao ng daghan ang jobless sa ila...

[gareb]

You say that but why is it there are so many countries that implemented high degrees of liberalization and became extremely rich doing so. I think you are blaming the system when the failure is in people, not systems. Singapore went from one of the poorest to one of the richest countries in Asia because of foreigner-friendly investment policies. The same can now be said of China, which enjoys the largest amount of FDI in the world.

You like to post your hate for liberal policies but never provide any explanation why these policies fail and always ignore the many examples of countries that have succeeded because of neoliberal trade and investment policies. On the other hand, you ignore the many failed states that followed communist ideals which you espouse. Even if the U.S. were to pass this law, it doesn't discredit liberal trade policies, it just means the U.S. has lost its way. The problem in the U.S. is not caused by outsourcing, it is caused by overspending. Don't confuse the two.

another word: myopia.

we focus too much on our 'success stories' while we fail to see the often-times repeated failures that IMF-WB's version of trade liberalization brings. ever heard of the devastation that "structural adjustments" by the IMF brought to the world? behold, they are not even "communist" countries to begin with, and some of them have have been weaned off their socialist tastes for years, only to come crashing down even lower after the IMF's SAPs.

so "many success stories"? but so much more failures. the entire resource-rich continents of South America and Africa has never lifted themselves out from poverty and destitution despite decades of liberal economic policies by the Washington Concensus, as opposed to your "success stories" such as Hong Kong, Singapore and perhaps Dubai, tiny states who do not rely on resource extracting industries, but in converting their city space into hubs of commerce. there is a wealth of difference between a country like them, and a country like us.

what is hilarious about the entire thing is that we like to label countries based on their politics and not on their economics. we label China, Cuba, Vietnam and one-time Russia as "communist" all because they are lead by communist parties without knowing the stark differences in their economic policies. we perceive Europe and US as "capitalist", ignoring the ingrained socialist traditions of the Scandinavians (which makes their people some of the happiest in the world), and the protectionist policies of the US (e.g. corn subsidies), as well as reneging on its laissez faire policy with the economy again and again (e.g. stimulus packages). the issue is not if you succeed or fail because of your politics, but if you succeed or fail because of your economic policies.

what is even more laughable is to place China as an example of "high degree of (economic) liberalization". its economic policies are successful, yes, but they are not even liberal to the degree that the IMF-WB or the WTO can accept. the Heritage Foundation ranked it 135 out of 179 in its 2011 Economic Freedom Index. economic liberalization and success are two different things, don't confuse the two.

no one here is saying that the economic problems of the US is caused by outsourcing, though it adds a dimension to its complexity. and being a consumer economy it relies of consumer spending to largely fuel its economy, as opposed to China which manufactures these goods. without jobs, purchasing power goes down which means less spending, which means less an economic slump. overspending as the cause of the present US economic decline? consumer spending, no, but corporate spending, perhaps.

if and when the US Congress will pass this bill, then it will only vindicate what the opponents of the mainstream neoliberal economic order has been saying for so long; that the world economic order only exists to serve the developed countries. if the very same policies endanger their own economies, they will select those portions that favor them and reject those that don't, without heed for the consequences on other economies.

That's what someone who doesn't understand economics would say. Politics is all about stakeholders, there are winners and losers in every decision. This will lead to some increase in employment but at the cost of higher prices for goods and services. Remember that companies are outsourcing here because labor is cheaper, so they can sell their products/services more cheaply in the U.S.

I think there was a study that if the U.S. stopped all imports of goods from China their inflation rate would shoot up to 400% annually. It all boils down to whether the increase in prices for everyone in the States is worth the slight increase in employment for a few people. In most cases, it's not worth it it's just another form of subsidies for sectors that aren't competitive. In the first place, even at 9% the unemployment rate in the U.S. is already relatively low and compared to our own unemployment is pretty good (and that is not even their normal unemployment rate).

What I see here is a knee-jerk reaction to mismanagement of the government budget. Their politicians are looking for somebody to blame, whether it's Philippines, China or India so they can distract ordinary Americans from the real problem which is overspending. If they did this, there will be retaliation from other countries. How would they feel if we banned all imports of Angus beef because we want to support our own farmers? This will make our farmers happy but how would you feel paying 100% more on beef? That's the real effect of these protectionist policies: inflation.

basic economics: unemployment or inflation; take one or the other, or take both.

[DailyCore]

Excerpt 1

"It's common sense that we should not be rewarding companies that ship jobs overseas while millions of qualified Americans are looking for work," Bishop said in a statement. "Taxpayer dollars should only be used to incentivize good corporate citizens who create American jobs."

Excerpt 2

The bill is also designed to limit the threat of consumer fraud and identity theft at foreign call centers. A new CWA study expected to be formally released next week will spotlight the fact that foreign call centers often lack the type of security measures common in the United States, potentially putting financial, medical, and other sensitive customer information at risk.

Congress Moves to Cut Off Off-Shoring - CRM Magazine

[monroy]

another word: myopia.

we focus too much on our 'success stories' while we fail to see the often-times repeated failures that IMF-WB's version of trade liberalization brings. ever heard of the devastation that "structural adjustments" by the IMF brought to the world? behold, they are not even "communist" countries to begin with, and some of them have have been weaned off their socialist tastes for years, only to come crashing down even lower after the IMF's SAPs.

so "many success stories"? but so much more failures. the entire resource-rich continents of South America and Africa has never lifted themselves out from poverty and destitution despite decades of liberal economic policies by the Washington Concensus, as opposed to your "success stories" such as Hong Kong, Singapore and perhaps Dubai, tiny states who do not rely on resource extracting industries, but in converting their city space into hubs of commerce. there is a wealth of difference between a country like them, and a country like us.

what is hilarious about the entire thing is that we like to label countries based on their politics and not on their economics. we label China, Cuba, Vietnam and one-time Russia as "communist" all because they are lead by communist parties without knowing the stark differences in their economic policies. we perceive Europe and US as "capitalist", ignoring the ingrained socialist traditions of the Scandinavians (which makes their people some of the happiest in the world), and the protectionist policies of the US (e.g. corn subsidies), as well as reneging on its laissez faire policy with the economy again and again (e.g. stimulus packages). the issue is not if you succeed or fail because of your politics, but if you succeed or fail because of your economic policies.

what is even more laughable is to place China as an example of "high degree of (economic) liberalization". its economic policies are successful, yes, but they are not even liberal to the degree that the IMF-WB or the WTO can accept. the Heritage Foundation ranked it 135 out of 179 in its 2011 Economic Freedom Index. economic liberalization and success are two different things, don't confuse the two.

no one here is saying that the economic problems of the US is caused by outsourcing, though it adds a dimension to its complexity. and being a consumer economy it relies of consumer spending to largely fuel its economy, as opposed to China which manufactures these goods. without jobs, purchasing power goes down which means less spending, which means less an economic slump. overspending as the cause of the present US economic decline? consumer spending, no, but corporate spending, perhaps.

if and when the US Congress will pass this bill, then it will only vindicate what the opponents of the mainstream neoliberal economic order has been saying for so long; that the world economic order only exists to serve the developed countries. if the very same policies endanger their own economies, they will select those portions that favor them and reject those that don't, without heed for the consequences on other economies.

I'm still looking for your evidence that proves your statement "open up our economies for foreign investment, from services to resources, rendering our economies at the mercy of foreign corporations". Your post shows limited correlation, not causation and it ignores the role of corruption and poor leadership. You also just assume that smaller countries are the only ones that can succeed with trade liberalization without showing any proof or evidence why, again confusing limited correlation with causation. You ignored the fact that those "small" countries you mentioned were run by competent leadership (the British colonial admin in Hong Kong, Lee Kwan Yew in Singapore) that implemented very pro-business policies (no minimum wage, no right to strike, low income taxes).

China may not be at the top of the economic freedom list, but they are much higher in that list than they were before trade and economic liberalization. The pace of liberalization in that country is fast if you consider that this was once a hard-line communist country and on many of the scales used in that study you cited they are already equal to the Philippines, which has never been a communist country. Also I never labelled China as a communist state...

basic economics: unemployment or inflation; take one or the other, or take both.

You're just repeating what I already mentioned in my post, but my point was that the lower unemployment rate won't be worth the increase in inflation. Real myopia is focusing on one group of stakeholders (jobseekers) over a larger group of stakeholders (consumers). Proper governance is balancing the cost and benefits of every policy decision and ensuring that the benefits outweigh the costs. The passage of this bill doesn't prove that the global order serves the interests of developed countries. That's just conspiracy theory without evidence. It merely proves that governments make mistakes and pass bills that they think are best for their constituents or their political careers at the expense of sound economic principles.

When I hear people say that poverty in Philippines and similar countries is caused by the WTO and trade liberalization I see someone trying to look for a scapegoat for our problems when the real cause of poverty here is bad government that has always been anti-business, corrupt and haphazard in forming economic policy. It's just a blame game stacked on nothing but presumptions. Maybe you ought to consider that the countries WTO-IMF are asked to intervene in are already messed up countries with bad governments, that's why the chances of failure are already built in from the start? Liberalization alone won't solve anyone's problems... WTO-IMF is invited to intervene, because most of the countries they intervene in are neck-high in debt from bad leadership...

[gunsky]

A proposed US legislation aims to 'ship back jobs' to America.

1. Disclosing where you are and transfer to US upon request
2. Make firms ineligible for state loans for 5years
3. Needs to report and make it public for all firms that outsource operations

Congressmen Introduce Bill Tackling Overseas Call Centers - Jobs & Hire

U.S. Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection Act Introduced with Bi-Partisan Support

[gunsky]

transferred calls nata ani ron.

[peewee_toot]

mura naa na mn cgro thread pareha ani. basin ma merge ra ni...

[jen_lyn]

This is alarming for Filipino CC workers..well..considering the facts that some professionals(registered nurse,accountants,teachers) are under-employed,this might start them up to pursue their degree. But the question is..will there be companies that would warm welcome under grads? Perhaps,there's something we need to do to lessen unemployment rate as what the Americans are doing right now.

[elord]

This is alarming to all Filipino i hope it will not realized since daghan nag work sa CallCenter karon specially akong mga amigo ug amiga batchmate ug relatives. Maayo lang wala ko migrate sa US since my Auntie told me dili maayo ang economy sa US karon daghan Jobless didto.

And if this happen what is the reckon of our Government? I don't think wala ni sa ila ideas nga ma hitabo ni soon. Government should act na unta sa atong mga Kababayan kay daghan dyud mawad-an ug work. Nya kitang mga Filipino lahi bya ta attitude if work ta then mo support bya dyud ta sa atong Family. Maayo unta dili ni madayon nga Bills.