Comment by pinnochio
13 days ago
> Who are you to suggest they are less happy than otherwise?
Who are you to assume they always are? Once again, you're just dismissing the problems away.
> They took that decision voluntarily.
As if nobody in the history of the world took a deal that turned out to be bad for them. A voluntary choice does not inherently imply that the choice made them better off.
Regardless, you've completely ignored the last sentence of my original reply, but I'll try to spell it out for you. The neocolonialist objection does not boil down to, take these women's jobs away and make people in the corporation's home country do it. It is primarily a critique of the society that benefits from or depends on labor its own members consider unacceptable or beneath them. It is inherently exploitative by that society's own standards, and retaining such an economy is either unsustainable or incentivizes the perpetuation of the conditions which allow it to exploit. In other words, the US has a vested interest in making sure some people are always poor and desperate enough to do the jobs it doesn't want to do.
You’ve ignored my point on material poverty leading to suicides again. This means you can’t appreciate that Indians suffer mostly from people lack of money than anything else.
> As if nobody in the history of the world took a deal that turned out to be bad for them. A voluntary choice does not inherently imply that the choice made them better off
I’m suggesting that it’s the best decision for them. They’ve clearly taken the decision so they also think the same. I asked you for alternatives, or what you could have rather done but you’ve not answered. Maybe consider that it’s the best option for them?
> In other words, the US has a vested interest in making sure some people are always poor and desperate enough to do the jobs it doesn't want to do.
This shows clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. It’s mostly because of US that India has great IT jobs. It’s also because of products and services made in the US that we use in India that India enjoys some prosperity. Think of all the pharmaceutical innovations. Think of the internet, iPhones and everything. The USA has a massive part in reducing poverty in India.
What you are doing is clear: moral grandstanding without suggesting any clear alternative. It’s always nice to show easy empathy.
Your perspective is consistently too black and white. No one in this comment chain has once said that this should not be allowed. At most it's been said that paying poor people to take trauma is concerning. Your response has consistently been "How dare you say poor people shouldn't have these jobs? These jobs are great!". You're trying to make it black and you white, when it's neither.
If your argument was "These jobs probably will scar some people for life, and that's troubling, but I do think the overall gain in welfare will likely outweigh that", then no one reasonable would be arguing with you. As it is, you haven't bothered to include this nuance, or even once admit or consider that some people could be made worse off overall by these jobs, even if perhaps most aren't. It basically just sounds like you want to see fewer "low IQ" poor people and you aren't really bothered how they feel afterwards. I'll say again, exceedingly many people have all the things you said are required for happiness, and still aren't happy. And that is usually due to trauma, the very thing we're talking about.
> No one in this comment chain has once said that this should not be allowed. At most it's been said that paying poor people to take trauma is concerning
There's a commenter saying that they were forced to do it.
>Being able to force someone to do something is not justification for doing so. Further, it is ridiculous to try and label that as 'beneficial for everyone involved'. By the same token you can call outright slavery under threat of execution 'beneficial for everyone involved'. What tripe.
3 replies →