Guy outsources his job gets sack, employers who do it get praised?

[I1L2T3]

Couldn't you argue that capitalism has spread the wealth a lot fairer than what preceded it in this country?

 

Be interesting to see some research if anybody knows of some, but the argument seems to be that the process of spreading 'wealth' has been thrown into reverse, that wealth is once again increasingly accumulating at the higher income levels.

[JFKvsNixon]

Be interesting to see some research if anybody knows of some, but the argument seems to be that the process of spreading 'wealth' has been thrown into reverse, that wealth is once again increasingly accumulating at the higher income levels.

 

I do rather think that you wouldn't have to do too much research to conclude that the average person in this country is far far better off under capitalism than they were under feudalism.

 

You are right though about too much money accumulating at the highest levels, for capitalism to work the money has to be continually circulated throughout society.

[BoroB]

Be interesting to see some research if anybody knows of some, but the argument seems to be that the process of spreading 'wealth' has been thrown into reverse, that wealth is once again increasingly accumulating at the higher income levels.

 

Under a capitalist system there will always be winners and losers.

 

Wealth has never stopped being accumulated at the top but what has changed are those without are being more vocal than when everything was hunky dory a few years back.

 

You could argue that this generation is wealthier than any that has preceeded it even for those at the bottom.

 

Colour TVs, laptops, washing machines, ipads, ipods, mobile phones etc have become the norm for most households.

 

Foreign holidays, double glazing, central heating? Not on my (council) estate in the 1970's/ early 1980's.

[ronthenekred]

Be interesting to see some research if anybody knows of some, but the argument seems to be that the process of spreading 'wealth' has been thrown into reverse, that wealth is once again increasingly accumulating at the higher income levels.

 

The process of outsourcing globally is only a microcosm of that model locally.

 

Even locally, outsourcing from an individual or company basis still happens within our own borders..ie- I move my company from Knightsbridge to Rotherham effectively reducing my overheads. Those in Knightsbridge will suffer at the expence of Rotherham who have gained. Some companies are so large that moving within the confines of one border at best will only stave off closure or massive redundancies. Even small companies including one man bands work and trade on a international basis.To think we can lock that down to within our own borders on the basis of protecting our own or morality.. purely from a business perspective seems suicidal. Mr Wang getting £8hr the same as Mr Smith is the ideal..when that happens Mr Wang will just become another name somewhere else around the world working for 50p a day..

 

Ideally all businesses should be working within the same framework internationally..workers should have the same rights and benefits that their co workers have on the other side of the globe..ok I started to dream a bit there but it would be nice. Owning and starting a business is as easy as breathing air if you have capitol..the difficult bit is making it survive in an increasingly cut throat international environment.

 

If you want to play by those rules, make the investment. If you want to play by your own rules within the already established rules and get caught with yer thumb up yer ass, then don't be so surprised when you get a bite.

 

Personally I take my hat off to the guy and his initiative. His mistake was not taking that initiative and sharing it with his employer.

[I1L2T3]

Under a capitalist system there will always be winners and losers.

 

Wealth has never stopped being accumulated at the top but what has changed are those without are being more vocal than when everything was hunky dory a few years back.

 

You could argue that this generation is wealthier than any that has preceeded it even for those at the bottom.

 

Colour TVs, laptops, washing machines, ipads, ipods, mobile phones etc have become the norm for most households.

 

Foreign holidays, double glazing, central heating? Not on my (council) estate in the 1970's/ early 1980's.

 

Of course there will be winners and losers. What I was getting at is have got to a point where the number of losers is increasing.

 

You mention consumer products and yes they are the norm but unfortunately for many only obtainable by taking on debt. I would class anybody with substantial amounts of consumer debt as one of the losers, and I say that because debt for them means profit for those at the top of the tree. The trick for the marketers though is to make them feel like they're winners. It's very sad really.

 

---------- Post added 19-01-2013 at 16:14 ----------

 

His mistake was not taking that initiative and sharing it with his employer.

 

His mistake was violating the security policies of his employer. Most places would sack people who did that.

 

---------- Post added 19-01-2013 at 16:16 ----------

 

I do rather think that you wouldn't have to do too much research to conclude that the average person in this country is far far better off under capitalism than they were under feudalism.

society.

 

Of course but I wonder if you missed the point.

 

The question I was asking was is the process reversing.

[TJC1]

I'm sorry but I don't understand your response so I'll try again.

 

Both my employer and I signed the same contract of employment which is presumably standard across departments.

 

In another department they have made some staff redundant and outsourced the work they did to a country in South East Asia.

 

So please explain to me why you believe it acceptable for them to break this contract of employment, but not for this guy who appears to have done the same thing as they have.

 

Who's contract? you are working on the basis it's a mutual contract that you both signed.

 

It's not. You have a right to be treated a certain way in their employment but that's as far as it goes.

You have no rights on how your employer conducts Business activities. They have every right to make employees redundant and outsource to SE Asia if it meets Business needs in order to stay competitive or for any other legitimate reason. They have the right to make you redundant and replace you with cheap labour.

So yes it's acceptable.

 

Is it wrong? well it sucks for employees, yes. Because the employer always has favourable terms, always. If you don't like it I guess you could always start a Business?

[Magilla]

It's not the same thing though is it.

 

If an employee is leaving for a bigger salary the employer can match it if he wants to keep them.

 

Ultimately, the employee can still refuse. The employer can do nothing about it.

 

If an employer wants to increase his profits by outsourcing work abroad then the employee can do nothing about it.

 

Exactly like the situation above.

 

So the two are totally different.

 

But in reality, not so different afterall.

[BoroB]

Of course there will be winners and losers. What I was getting at is have got to a point where the number of losers is increasing.

 

You mention consumer products and yes they are the norm but unfortunately for many only obtainable by taking on debt. I would class anybody with substantial amounts of consumer debt as one of the losers, and I say that because debt for them means profit for those at the top of the tree. The trick for the marketers though is to make them feel like they're winners. It's very sad really.

 

---------- Post added 19-01-2013 at 16:14 ----------

 

 

People have a choice - who forced them to take on debt?

 

Most of the goods I mentioned are luxuries, not neccessities.

 

What is sad is that people buy into the consumer society that exists today.

 

No doubt thousands, even millions, of household have over spent in December to celebrate Christmas.

 

Is this because they are regular church goers and wish to celebrate the birth of their saviour?

 

Or is it because they have become accustomed to being bombarded from August onwards with media adverts about what they 'need' to have a good Christmas?