jahanpanah
Registered Users (C)
Its a matter of time ...
when people in the US and other advanced countries will fully understand and accept the effect of globalisation.
When US and other advanced countries can sell goods in developing nations, killing the potential weak domestic industries, why can't a person from a developing nation take over a job in another country. Welcome to globalisation.
As long as there were abundant jobs opportunities everything was fair. But when there is scarcity there is bound to be discomfort. Compare that to swadeshi (for non Hindi speakers.....belonging to one's own country) tantrums in India that used to come up once in a while earlier. All that is gone now and everyone consumes foreign goods with pride in India as long as the price or the quality is right and if they can afford it.
Besides, people would certainly raise issues that may be sensitive and rightly so, e.g., a concern that personal information may be being disclosed when a contract is outsourced to a foreign country and that may jeopardise security. I am sure many of the government contracts would fall into this category. I would not be surprised to know that some of the government contracts got cancelled specifically for these reason before it got exposed too much. As long as no issues were raised, government mostly turned a blind eye reaping the benefits. But I am hopeful that these holes would be plugged over a period of time and then outsourcing would still continue in a manner that may not be questionable from sensitivity perspective. Its easier to justity outsourcing for economic reasons but hard to defend if there are security issues that people are extremely sensitive to.
By the way if you watch Lou's program carefully, you would that the guy is very smart. He is certainly biased in this case because of the theme of the segment but his delivery and choice of words is excellent for the job at his hand. His job, in this segment, is to portray how foreign workers and foreign contracts are causing hardship to American people. He is not, at this moment, doing a segment on 'Foreign Workers Contributions to US Economy' or 'Made in China Brings more Values to your hard earned Dollars'. I would not doubt if he would these in future or if he already did as someone noted earlier in this thread.
I am amazed, while watching him discuss, how he barely speaks a few words, most often appearing grammatically incorrect and sentences incomplete (not that I am always grammatically correct in this post), and the respondant starts reeling out sentences addressing them. When I do the same, people say they don't get me and could I ellaborate or give some examples. He has mastered the art of picking the words that conveys his intent and knows also how to give a positive spin to everything he does. Besides, he also knows how to agitate someone by picking on them and discussing irrelevant aspects of the conversation therby changing the intent of the discussion.
But I fully understand and believe that parties that are affected by this segment on CNN must respond. There is no morality here when one is trying to be global. The key it to protect ones interest. Organisations and media in nations affected by this must respond with their own view. Similarly, we must respond to register our protest to this one-sided view. In this case the two sides are not legal vs illegal. In one of his program, a viewer indicated that he was one-sided when he discussed illegal immigrant issues. He was quick to respond that in this case he is one-sided and he is on the legal side.
With this thought I am willing to sign the petition and urge others to do the same.
when people in the US and other advanced countries will fully understand and accept the effect of globalisation.
When US and other advanced countries can sell goods in developing nations, killing the potential weak domestic industries, why can't a person from a developing nation take over a job in another country. Welcome to globalisation.
As long as there were abundant jobs opportunities everything was fair. But when there is scarcity there is bound to be discomfort. Compare that to swadeshi (for non Hindi speakers.....belonging to one's own country) tantrums in India that used to come up once in a while earlier. All that is gone now and everyone consumes foreign goods with pride in India as long as the price or the quality is right and if they can afford it.
Besides, people would certainly raise issues that may be sensitive and rightly so, e.g., a concern that personal information may be being disclosed when a contract is outsourced to a foreign country and that may jeopardise security. I am sure many of the government contracts would fall into this category. I would not be surprised to know that some of the government contracts got cancelled specifically for these reason before it got exposed too much. As long as no issues were raised, government mostly turned a blind eye reaping the benefits. But I am hopeful that these holes would be plugged over a period of time and then outsourcing would still continue in a manner that may not be questionable from sensitivity perspective. Its easier to justity outsourcing for economic reasons but hard to defend if there are security issues that people are extremely sensitive to.
By the way if you watch Lou's program carefully, you would that the guy is very smart. He is certainly biased in this case because of the theme of the segment but his delivery and choice of words is excellent for the job at his hand. His job, in this segment, is to portray how foreign workers and foreign contracts are causing hardship to American people. He is not, at this moment, doing a segment on 'Foreign Workers Contributions to US Economy' or 'Made in China Brings more Values to your hard earned Dollars'. I would not doubt if he would these in future or if he already did as someone noted earlier in this thread.
I am amazed, while watching him discuss, how he barely speaks a few words, most often appearing grammatically incorrect and sentences incomplete (not that I am always grammatically correct in this post), and the respondant starts reeling out sentences addressing them. When I do the same, people say they don't get me and could I ellaborate or give some examples. He has mastered the art of picking the words that conveys his intent and knows also how to give a positive spin to everything he does. Besides, he also knows how to agitate someone by picking on them and discussing irrelevant aspects of the conversation therby changing the intent of the discussion.
But I fully understand and believe that parties that are affected by this segment on CNN must respond. There is no morality here when one is trying to be global. The key it to protect ones interest. Organisations and media in nations affected by this must respond with their own view. Similarly, we must respond to register our protest to this one-sided view. In this case the two sides are not legal vs illegal. In one of his program, a viewer indicated that he was one-sided when he discussed illegal immigrant issues. He was quick to respond that in this case he is one-sided and he is on the legal side.
With this thought I am willing to sign the petition and urge others to do the same.
