As he is Indian, then he will be helping to live his own out of abject poverty.
Oh yeah, then why does the Wong family own half of Mars? And why does Amy insist on “打死你!”?
Seriously though, in response to the OP. No one can be top dog forever. Deal with it.
We’re straying out of Pit territory and into GD or even IMHO, but given that India has a thriving tech industry layered on top of 3rd world poverty – what is the best way to help the poverty-stricken? I imagine that eventually the wealth will trickle down – will raising the market share of their tech industry make that happen sooner?
This gets my vote for “most narrow-minded OP ever”. Well done!
Thank you! I’ll let you know the results when all the votes are in.
Actually, yeah. I have an Indian friend from a poor farm family who got kicked out of his home at 16 for being gay, crossed the country with literally $.60 to his name, worked as a waiter for some time and spent his off time learning English. Now he works at a call center and is supporting himself quite well. It’s practically the American dream.
India has rice. India has farmers. But farming food is never going to make a country much money- which is why we have to subsidize our own farmers. What a country needs to develop is industry. And since manufacturing is on it’s way out (how much manufacturing is there in our own country?) India decided to skip that step and focus on the next step of economic development- tech (which also has the advantage of being pretty clean.) It’s been working pretty well, thanks to their stable government and investment in school systems. Much of India has changed dramatically, in a good way, in the past decades. It’s a huge complicated country and plenty are left out, but along with China, India has experienced one of the greatest eradications of poverty this world has ever seen. Anyway, the have a right- maybe even an obligation- to continue that development until they have eradicated extreme poverty. Anyone who helps them do that is doing a net good in the world.
I dream of the day that other countries can achieve that. How I look forward to call centers in Ghana, robotics factories in Cambodia and programming companies in Moldova.
They’re in. You lose.
Tell that to the millions of Americans whose jobs have been outsourced! :rolleyes:
Small (read: no) consolation to people in AMERICA who’ve lost their livelyhoods due to globalization. :dubious:
God knows I am no defender of free trade on inernational capitalism, but, maybe, just maybe, the United States economy might be better off with a rich, prosperous India buying U.S. goods?
And also maybe, just maybe, the world will be a better, more stable place with a country of a billion people doing well economically, allowing it to act as an effective counterbalance to the growth of China? I mean why would we have any interest ins eeing a friendly, democratic, secular nation prosper when its neighbors are often dictatorships or fundamentalists?
But no. Better to shut the borders and keep every job here. For the 18 months that policy works, of course, but I am sure we can think of a new one then.
Globalization is a net benefit to this country; that is, to most Americans. It’s unfortunate that some people may have lost their livelihoods, but globalization is a fact of life, and anyone who wants to fight is is fighting a losing battle. Better to face the music and make sure you have the skills to ride that wave instead of being swept away by it. (No mixed metaphor intended!)
And people who lose their livelihood in the US are still 1000x better off than millions of Indians who barely get by.
Will said robots make kick ass curry?
If so, I, for one, welcome…
So did I. *The Soup *had some fun with her.
Sorry, the above is my fault. I posted to say the kid the OP was complaining about won the tournament, but he didn’t. I removed the post after about 3 seconds, but villa responded at the same time. I think the robot kid lost in the semifinals.
You may be surprised to hear that I agree with all the above. The short run is devastating, though; I wonder how many steel workers got re-trained in some more current skill (like IT, ironically); and how many just collected unemployment for the remainder of their days.
Villa, you are, OF FRICKIN’ COURSE, correct! A thriving democracy, with a miiddle-class, is a great benefit to the U.S. economy.
But, according to the argument made by nearly everyone in this thread, such patriotism is wrong.
God damned injians!
Now wait jes’ a goldang minute thar, ya hornswagglin’ polecat!
Ah reckon’s how the right proper elocution, dick-a-shun-ar-ily speakin’, is “injuns”.
Then the problem is with our social safety nets, not with globalization.
There will always be people who lose their jobs because of a change in the market of some sort. How many farriers lost their jobs when the automobile supplanted the horse? How many sailmakers had to find another line of work when the steamship rose to prominence? Whalers? Blacksmiths? Gandy dancers?
Outsourcing is a bit different in that the job exists somewhere, it’s just not available to Americans, but the net result is the same. In that case, we need to make sure there are programs in place to assist in the transition from one line of work to the next. Note that this doesn’t have to be a government program; some unions have training programs for their members (as one example). For workers close to retirement, I wouldn’t at all oppose some sort of extended unemployment benefit of other means to carry them over. There are ways to make the change less tragic; to rail against the massive shift in the market that caused the change in the first place is futile.