Jan Coffey wrote: > > And as for the criminal bit, well, it isn't some shady, underground, > > fly-by-the-night illegal operation. These contracts follow the laws > of > > two countries and are in tune with the concept of globalisation. > > No actualy it is not in line with the laws we ~use~ to have. Or at > least what was expected when these companies were given tax breaks. > > We all voted for that becouse we thought it woudl creat more jobs for > ~us~. W knew we would have to make up the difference, but we did it > anyway becouse it was what was good for our country. The companies > are not playing fair, or nice. So now we want laws to make sure they > do what is right for the US first.
I didn't say these contracts were in line with laws these countries _used_ to have or _want_ to have. :) > > > I am not justifying that emotional response, only pointing it > out, > > > and asking what should be done about it. > > > > And I am just asking what these people would like the Indians to > do. > > > Insist on being paid the salary > > of their US counterparts? > > Bingo! And if you don't we should make tax laws which equalize it. > Not only is it good for the US worker, but it would be good for the > government coffers. You guys are free to do whatever you want. But why would you expect Indians to make such a foolish move? Who in their right mind would demand a salary which would never be paid? Especially when they are satisfied with the salary which is already being paid? > > As far as I can make out, the salient point here is that a choice > was > > offered and that the second mechanic neither used > > guns/threats/blackmail, nor got into the car and drove it away. > > Your forgetting, that we built these compnaies, our tax dollars and > society have supproted the ability of these companies to be what they > are, they are ~our~ companies. We have supported them and fostered > them, and worked for them and built them for ~our~ society. No, I am not forgetting any such thing. Nor have I heard anybody ever claim that these companies were Indian or that they exist for the good of the Indian society. But what you seem to be forgetting is that according to the your economic system, these companies don't belong to the American people per se. If they did, the companies would be nationalised and we'd probably not be having this discussion. > If we > thought that they would simply abandon America we would never have > given them tax breaks, we would never have allowed them the kind of > freedoms to grow, we wouldn't have worked the increadably long hours > (in comparison ot our contrymen & women) over the past decade to make > the US technology industry what it is today. Why would we do that if > they are just going to rob us of the benifit, Then do what it takes to stop the process. Who's stopping you? Not Indians, that's for sure. > > The other > > part of the reason being the backlash being felt in US and Europe. > > Yea well, like I said it's NOT an open economy, you have every right > to try and produce your own companies which then sell their product > to us. But when you start doing the same work for slavery wages, and > selling the work, not the product, there are 2 problems. First you > are SLAVES. Since when is selling services the same as slavery? Whether a wage is a slave-wage or not depends on how far that amount goes in the country where it is being paid. These wages aren't slave-wages here. > Second, you make enemies of our people, and believe it or > not, our people really do have the power here eventualy. The > governement may lag our opinions and beliefs, but in then end, India > may find that they are an enemy. Not the goverment doing wrong kind > of enemy, but the people hate kind. If the American people are going to hate the Indians because the latter are not refusing jobs in order to help the former keep 1% or less of the jobs being destroyed [apparently that is the Indian share], then I don't see much point worrying about it. In such a scenario, sooner or later, the Americans *would* find a reason to hate the Indians anyway...such people would be hard to keep happy. Fwiw, I don't see it happening though. I think I have more faith in the innate fairness and decency of the common American than you do. :) > If you have so much trouble finding jobs for a decent living then I > have one very important bit of advice. If you can't afford the well > being of a child, then don't have one. It's not advice that I myself > have not taken to hart, so I don't feel the least bit rude in making > it to others. *l* And if the Indians ever start whining that the Merkins owe them these jobs, please feel free to offer this decidely unoriginal advice again. > > > Do you see, we are breading classism...but then I guess that is > > > nothing to Indea, where classism is common place. > > > > Don't you think the last comment was a bit below the belt? > > Not at all, if the market were open, the first thing anyone here > would require is equal treatment under the law. That already exists here. > You would have to do > away with your class system to achive that. So tell me, how does one do away with class system? After all, you Americans have been working towards it for longer than we have. We have legislation against it, it is prohibited in our constitution, people have the right to move the courts, there are NGOs and charities which have been working relentlessly, for decades, to root out the discriminations. We have provisions for affirmative action. What else can be done? It is a vexatious problem and has bothered me for a long while. Try as I might, education, vigilance and time seem to be the only other answers. > So until you do, there is > no open echonomy. And don't tell me differnt, I see the class system > at work right here in my own workplace. This is a kind of raceism > that has creeped into the american workplace and it discusts me. > Especialy when, for some reason, non Indian americans ended up at the > bottom. Racism is always disgusting. But really, if your criteria for an open economy includes not just equal protection of law but also a perfectly egalitarian society, then did the American economy ever qualify as 'open' in your eyes? > > Besides being > > inaccurate, at least insofar as it suggests that the US society has > been > > class-free one until all this happened? > > No it doesn't, but see above. We do not have an indoctrinated class > system. We may have had slavery, but..wait, from the sound of what > kind of wages you will work for it seems we still do. Bzzzt! *You* do not. Remember the origin of the entire argument lay in jobs being outsourced to India because Indians *here* work for lower wages? Not that we have slavery either. We Indians have been a free people since August 15, 1947. > > But you are right, it is nothing to India. Not because class > divisions > > are common here [they are, as are caste, communal, regional and > economic > > divisions] but because it is not our problem. > > cast class, slavery, same difference from my perspective. And it is > your problem, becouse unless you ware willing to open your contry to > an open economy, I thought that is what the liberalisation of our economy was all about... > and play by the same rules as the west, I thought that was the problem at Cancun - trying to find rules that all want to play by... > you are > SLAVES, and your MASTERS are steeling our jobs. Putting words in caps doesn't necessarily make a statement true. > > Okay. What do you think he owes the American worker? Not to make the > > offer? Or not to make the offer in the hearing of the workers? Or a > > percentage of his profits? Or something else? > > Well, he can have his slaves if he wants. It's not my country, it's > not my society, he, and those like him can be your masters if that is > what you really want, but when he comes over here hocking slave > trade, then pardon me if I am repulsed, and pardon me if I beleive > what he is doing is theft. I have this one vocation that I worked > hard to aquire. I paid a fortune for my education, and I worked my > way up from nothing, from washing dishes and scraping toilets to have > what I have now. It's the american dream. But if he thinks he is > going to come over here and offer my same vocation to be done by > slaves, then yea, I think he is steeling something, becouse In my > country he wouldn't be allowed to have slaves. In my country what he > is doing is illigal, only he is doing it in ~your~ country. So sure, > I am appoled at ~your~ country as well, for letting him do it. Hmm, perhaps you'll understand it if I say this slowly and simply: 1] The man you are describing as a slave owner/trader is merely an employer. 2] He has *employees*, not slaves. 3] He pays them *wages*, not slave-wages. Those wages go quite far here. 4] He offers alternatives, he doesn't indulge in stealing/forcing/blackmailing. What my country is 'letting him do' is generate employment. Last I heard, that is not something Americans get appalled over, nor is it illegal in the US. > > > Am I going to > > > vote Republican in the next election. Hardly. > > > > I'm rooting for Kerry anyway. > > You need to decide if you are American or Indian. Oh, nothing to decide there. I am an Indian and have no intention of changing my nationality. > You either make a > plege of aligence to this country or you align yourself with India, > you should not have the option of having it both ways. Huh? How does the question of pledging allegiance to the US arise? Since when is one required to swear allegiance to a country just so that one can hold an opinion on its politics? If that were a requirement, most of the world would have sworn allegiance to Iraq over the last year... :) > > > I tensions rose > > > between Indea and Pakistan would I be infavor of helping indea > out. > > > Doubt it. > > > > And Jan, how would that be any different from the USA's > subcontinental > > policy over the last 57 years? :) > > good point. Like I said, we are a ficle people. Well, it does seem that people, by and large, to tend to be fickle but it is hardly an intrinsic trait of Americans alone. Besides, it is an inaccurate statement in this context. I'll believe what you said earlier in the mail - that the US govt sooner or later faithfully reflects the opinions of its citizens. Then it follows that the US public has been steadfastly supporting Pakistan against India over the last 57 years. I would describe that as fidelity of the highest order, not fickleness. :) Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
