Quote:
Originally Posted by hobo";p="
My point is, once you put aside your bleeding-heart towel, a lot of the world really wants the chance to earn good money in a first world nation. If the US could only control the ebb and flow of contract workers legally, then theoretically, everyone would benefit. Oops, not everyone, the lazy lout that would prefer to stay on the dole might not like the competition. That does not make my American capitalistic heart cry.
|
Efficiency-wise it might be a good idea... but I think there is something very dangerous about a country taking most of its labor from people with no stake or say in the country... That's also my difficulty with outsourcing... It's not so much that I have a problem with seeking out cheap labor. I'm fine with the fact that communication jobs are exported to India, a democracy... but I don't think it's morally reasonable when we use exploited labor from non-free countries.
It's unfortunate that, like DuH says, you cannot buy a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing these days without supporting such a thing... but it's certainly not something to expand on.
The hope, perhaps a bit optimistic, with our outsourcing to non-free countries is that we will help them develop and as they develop gain rights... but if we accept the labor in our own country of non-citizens we are creating a slave class... maybe not as bad as slavery in the past... but a form of slavery nonetheless. And we'll be asking our citizens to compete not only with the developing world... but with slaves.
That was the point I was trying to make in this thread with my posts. What's good for capitalism and efficiency is not always what is good for democracy and humanity. In fact sometimes there is a clash.
If the US is to be a beacon for the world, it should be a beacon of humanity and freedom rather than puritanical efficiency. Let China be the beacon for that... and watch them fall.