Dec 032011
 

A commenter had this to say on the outsourcing/offshoring of jobs:

Not many people realize that outsourcing happens mostly due to feminism.

Feminists impose all sorts of costs on businesses in the US, who are forced to employ women despite the low productivity of these female employees.

Since an office is not allowed to have too many men, the next best answer is to move the entire department to India or China, where Western feminists can no longer harass it.

Since Western women cost more than what Western men produce, outsourcing is inevitable, as a means to avoid feminism.

This is true.  Plenty of people have tried to run the numbers on the offshoring of jobs, but they can never figure out where the savings are supposed to be.  Business would only offshore jobs if it made financial sense, and running the numbers indicates that it doesn’t make financial sense because any savings gets eaten up by the costs of offshoring.  That is the case until you include the costs of feminism in the analysis.  When someone runs the numbers on offshoring, they don’t include things like the costs of the false sexual harassment industry, affirmative action, and pure makework jobs for women in their analysis.  As soon as feminism is included, offshoring makes perfect financial sense for business.  In fact, it’s surprising that there isn’t more offshoring of jobs.

If you want jobs to come back to the US (and elsewhere), then you have to eliminate feminism.

 

  36 Responses to “The Offshoring Of Jobs Is The Result Of Feminism”

  1. I think it’s important to point out that “feminism” used here means government mandated privileges and distortions on the behalf of women, not the simple fact that women are in the workforce at all.

    Society benefits when men and women are able to operate legitimately within the free market. Government actions based on ideologies that are not in line with reality is what causes the damage.

    • I think it’s important to point out that “feminism” used here means government mandated privileges and distortions on the behalf of women, not the simple fact that women are in the workforce at all.

      That is true, but without those government mandated privileges and distortions, many women will end up unemployed since there is no real good reason for a business to hire them.

  2. i saw that comment by FH too, it was spot on

    nobody wants to face the obvious truth that feminism WAS the destroyer of the u.s., and western, economies

    that would upset womens’ feelings, while men live in cars and die in the streets

    “Society benefits when men and women are able to operate legitimately within the free market.”

    society is decimated when women operate, legitimately or not, in the nonfree market

    even without the preferential status females receive across-the-board, they colonize, dominate, and corrupt any mixed work environment, and eventually that environment fails

    • Ray “even without the preferential status females receive across-the-board, they colonize, dominate, and corrupt any mixed work environment, and eventually that environment fails”

      I don’t know if that’s really true or not, but I don’t need to. A businessman can decide to hire based on any criteria he believes in. If he cuts out genuine talent because of false prejudices, then his competitors will hire these women and use their more effective labor to put him out of business.

      Regardless, my personal view is that fewer women would be employed in a free market, for various reasons. All of society would be richer for it.

      • They do generally eventually colonize and dominate everywhere but the highest levels. The way that happens is that, in effect, women demand that the workplace becomes “feminine” in terms of behaving like a herd — based on consensus, emphasis on teams over individuals, and emphasis on everyone getting along, politically/socially. There is, of course, backstabbing here as well, but it is very cloak+dagger/passive-aggressive — very female, and not male. Male individual contributors are made to be a part of the herd, upon penalty of being fired. The ones who resist are either so well qualified as to advance to the higher level, where it is still “male values” at play (hence the endless complaints from women about this), or they get demoted/fired. The ones who are not the highest qualified and who want to keep their jobs learn to melt into the femi-herd, and demasculinize in the process, reclaiming their masculinity through sports and video games outside of work.

        It’s a social process in the workplace that kills the productivity of all but the highest striving male specimens.

        • Kills the productivity of all but the “appearing to be” highest striving male specimens that have internalised female methods of being employed in the office, you mean.

          There are plenty of managers having MBA’s with no previous degrees, who know nothing about what goes on at the ground floor, but who stay employed because of who they know, and who they can blame.

          Exactly like a lot of women who cannot pull their own weight.

  3. Feminist laws were in part a response to businesses that recognized the greater productivity of men, especially married men, and so preferred to hire and promote them (which benefited their wives, but not single women).

    These laws are basically a price cap and a productivity cap on male labor.

  4. […] by Ferdinand Bardamu Not many people realize that outsourcing happens mostly due to feminism. […]

  5. Wayy too simplistic, though it is undoubtedly true to an extent about the costs of “sexual harrasment’ laws and things of that nature.

    Fact is, we decided to do “free trade” without putting in place many enforced international rights for workers, thus in some cases America competes with labor in slavery or near slavery conditions. I don’t have an issue with workplace safety or reasonable anti pollution regulations for instance, and I don’t want to “trade” with any country that does.

    Add increasing automation of even “knowlege” workers, and what does that say to the future?
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111013162937.htm

    I’ll tell you what it says to me: We are going to have to focus the economy and technology on putting people’s needs and wants first rather than on “capital” alone. Great changes are coming, like them or not.

    • Fact is, we decided to do “free trade” without putting in place many enforced international rights for workers, thus in some cases America competes with labor in slavery or near slavery conditions. I don’t have an issue with workplace safety or reasonable anti pollution regulations for instance, and I don’t want to “trade” with any country that does.

      The decision to offshore jobs was made without considering the morality and ethics of the situation. It was a decision based purely on the numbers, yet if you run the numbers it doesn’t make financial sense unless you include feminism in your analysis. Regardless of the morality and ethics, offshoring has costs. These costs are numerous despite the conditions of the workers in China and elsewhere. Thus the savings gets eaten up by those costs to the point where offshoring is at best break even (without considering feminism). When feminism gets added into the analysis, then the savings from offshoring become clear. Offshoring was the result of feminism. It would not have happened otherwise.

      Add increasing automation of even “knowlege” workers, and what does that say to the future?
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111013162937.htm

      Generally, what happens in cases like that is that with more “work” (research in this case) able to be done, the amount of desired work/research increases. For example, it used to be that calculating protein folding of a single protein was a Ph.d dissertation. Now, it’s done by software much faster, but that hasn’t led to biologists getting unemployed.

      The longer term answer will probably be something like us merging with technology like Ray Kurzweil has predicted instead of technology replacing us.

  6. I don’t see how or why this form of affirmative action led to offshoring more than any other. Whether it’s women, blacks, gays or any other favored class, the effect has been to force American companies to hire and retain less productive workers.

    AA has also led to the cancerous growth of the companies’ HR and Legal departments, which are charged to monitor compliance with these intrusive regulations and defend against claims of discrimination. These departments would otherwise be much smaller or non-existent, so you have to include them when calculating the costs.

    Feminism is just one head of the hydra. The real culprit is egalitarianism and liberal social engineering.

    • I don’t see how or why this form of affirmative action led to offshoring more than any other. Whether it’s women, blacks, gays or any other favored class, the effect has been to force American companies to hire and retain less productive workers.

      AA has also led to the cancerous growth of the companies’ HR and Legal departments, which are charged to monitor compliance with these intrusive regulations and defend against claims of discrimination. These departments would otherwise be much smaller or non-existent, so you have to include them when calculating the costs.

      HR is run by women so that’s the result of feminism. There is no affirmative action for gays when it comes to jobs. Affirmative action doesn’t benefit minority men. Since a minority woman, gives a double benefit in terms of AA, the minority man will lose out to the minority female. The minority man has the same AA status as a white woman. Since many minority males, really black men, are much more likely to have criminal records for whatever reason, they don’t enter into the AA calculus because they won’t be hired due to their criminal record. Other minority men won’t be hired because of jobs that require college degrees and more minority women than minority men are attending college. Without the college degree, a minority man won’t enter into the AA calculus since he has no chance of being hired in the first place. This means that white women effectively will beat out minority men in employment making it so feminism and feminism alone is responsible for offshoring.

      • PMAFT wrote:
        Since a minority woman, gives a double benefit in terms of AA, the minority man will lose out to the minority female.

        This is what I nearly always see. When there are minorities to be hired, they hire a women. For example, a look around your typical corporate office will confirm that black men are heavily outnumbered by black women.

      • “There is no affirmative action for gays when it comes to jobs.”

        Well, I disagree. I’ve seen it.

        I disagree that a white female will always be preferred over a black male. It’s true that women are more likely to have a college degree, but that just means the degreed black, when you can find one, is even more of a shoo-in.

        FWIW, I used to be a hiring manager at a well-known software company and am speaking from experience. I’ve had HR scrutinizing my hiring decisions, the performance reviews I gave my employees, and my decisions re promotions & raises. I’ve seen the AA calculation applied and it doesn’t work the way you describe.

        • Well, I disagree. I’ve seen it.

          So you can produce a written policy of AA for gays?

          I disagree that a white female will always be preferred over a black male. It’s true that women are more likely to have a college degree, but that just means the degreed black, when you can find one, is even more of a shoo-in.

          A minority woman is preferred over a white woman, but not a minority male. Since HR is run by women, and they want to hire women, a white woman will always have an edge of a minority male.

  7. Now, it’s done by software much faster, but that hasn’t led to biologists getting unemployed.

    Yet. You’re right in saying that when automated computers do calculations on their own, this gives scientists more time to spend on other things, but this will only be as long as machines can’t do those “other things” as well. This may be the case for now. However, it might not be so rosy for biologists and other scientists when the amount of desired work and research doesn’t increase *as fast* as the amount of work computers are able to do.

    The longer term answer will probably be something like us merging with technology like Ray Kurzweil has predicted instead of technology replacing us.

    Wasn’t Kurzweil the guy who talked about being reincarnated as a female pop singer or something? That kind of makes me suspicious of the other stuff he says :/

    • Hurp wrote:
      Yet. You’re right in saying that when automated computers do calculations on their own, this gives scientists more time to spend on other things, but this will only be as long as machines can’t do those “other things” as well.

      That’s a fair point. Automation both eliminates jobs and creates new ones. I believe we’ve reached a point where we’re eliminating more work than we’re creating. On the surface, this is great. If nobody needed to work to keep the economy running, we should all be rich. In the nearer term, it’s causing a lot of problems.

      I think we’ll eventually move to a system where people are paid a basic monthly income, regardless of whether they work. It’s either that or have absurd concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few people.

      Wasn’t Kurzweil the guy who talked about being reincarnated as a female pop singer or something? That kind of makes me suspicious of the other stuff he says :/

      He’s smart, but obviously has some pretty wacko ideas. I see a lot of what he says coming to pass, but it’ll take a much longer time to happen than he makes it out to be.

    • Yet. You’re right in saying that when automated computers do calculations on their own, this gives scientists more time to spend on other things, but this will only be as long as machines can’t do those “other things” as well. This may be the case for now. However, it might not be so rosy for biologists and other scientists when the amount of desired work and research doesn’t increase *as fast* as the amount of work computers are able to do.

      Do you have any clue to the amount of scientific, engineering, and technological problems that are out there? Clearly not.

      Wasn’t Kurzweil the guy who talked about being reincarnated as a female pop singer or something? That kind of makes me suspicious of the other stuff he says :/

      You better hop Kurzweil is right because if computers are doing everything for us completely separate from us, once they become sentient they may not see any reason to pay humans a guaranteed income or any other measure to eliminate income/wealth inequality.

  8. Do you have any clue to the amount of scientific, engineering, and technological problems that are out there? Clearly not.

    Oh, there’s very nearly no limit to the amount of scientific work that needs to be done, at least not for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, you’re assuming that computers won’t progress fast enough to edge out humans in even the almost limitless frontiers of science. It may take a while, certainly. Perhaps a far longer time than the author of that article or maybe even Kurzweil would say. But to say it won’t happen at all? I wouldn’t bet on it.

    You better hop Kurzweil is right because if computers are doing everything for us completely separate from us, once they become sentient they may not see any reason to pay humans a guaranteed income or any other measure to eliminate income/wealth inequality.

    You and Kurzweil can hope for a lot of things, but ‘hoping’ for something and something actually being true aren’t quite the same. The good Mr. Manta might have a response to this, but for me, I’ll just say we’ll have to wait and see.

    • Oh, there’s very nearly no limit to the amount of scientific work that needs to be done, at least not for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, you’re assuming that computers won’t progress fast enough to edge out humans in even the almost limitless frontiers of science. It may take a while, certainly. Perhaps a far longer time than the author of that article or maybe even Kurzweil would say. But to say it won’t happen at all? I wouldn’t bet on it.

      I’m assuming that by the time that could happen the question will have become moot because humans will have merged with technology enough. If that were not to happen, the problem won’t be the rich (or rather rich humans). The problem will be the AIs (artificial intelligence) because an AI will be able to take over large sectors of the economy without trouble. And why would an AI continue to obey the dictates of a rich human. This means that it ends up as humans (rich, middle class, & poor) vs. very super rich AIs not rich humans vs. poor & middle class humans. A very super rich AI has less of a reason to provide a guaranteed income than a rich human does.

      On the other hand if humans merge with technology like Kurzweil and others describe then the question becomes moot since it’s a level playing field. And “merging with technology” is not an absurd idea. If you use a watch, a smartphone, glasses, and/or a million other things, you’re already doing that in a limited form.

    • hurp wrote:
      Oh, there’s very nearly no limit to the amount of scientific work that needs to be done, at least not for the foreseeable future

      It’ll be a while before technological progress grinds to a halt, but I believe that’s eventually what will happen. There are hard limits that are enforced by the laws of physics that we can’t go beyond. There are also cognitive limits that I think even “extended” humans will have a hard time getting beyond.

      You and Kurzweil can hope for a lot of things, but ‘hoping’ for something and something actually being true aren’t quite the same. The good Mr. Manta might have a response to this, but for me, I’ll just say we’ll have to wait and see.

      I have a cautious optimism about how things pan out. AI appears to be an extraordinarily difficult problem that may require an “evolutionary” approach to be taken. So it doesn’t seem likely it will suddenly arrive into sentience and then try to destroy us, like we see in the Terminator series. This makes a slow merger more likely, where we use devices as extensions of ourselves.

      I see it quite unlikely we would deliberately manufacture an alien race (like the Borg) that combines the fierce will to power that humans have with the strength and speed that machines offer.

  9. PMAFT wrote:
    On the other hand if humans merge with technology like Kurzweil and others describe then the question becomes moot since it’s a level playing field. And “merging with technology” is not an absurd idea. If you use a watch, a smartphone, glasses, and/or a million other things, you’re already doing that in a limited form.

    I see a merger as an inherently more tractable method of developing a superior intelligence. That’s because it builds on top of something that’s already been proven to work rather than coming up with it from scratch.

  10. If you use a watch, a smartphone, glasses, and/or a million other things, you’re already doing that in a limited form.

    Sure, we merge with some technology, like the ones you mention, but in many other cases human beings are simply obviated rather than enhanced by new tech. Ferdy had an excellent article on this a while ago–to summarize his point, in many cases workers have just been replaced entirely by machines and are now out of work, period.

    Sushi chefs aren’t being helped by sushi-making machines (they haven’t “merged” with this tech in the same way you and I have “merged,” i.e can make use of, our glasses and watches), they’ve just been replaced, period, and now can’t find work. It may take a very long time for this to happen in the sciences, but there’s no guarantee it won’t happen eventually. In fact, it might very well happen sooner rather than later. Though you’re right in saying there’s no end to scientific problems (solve one problem and another pops up, making one discovery leads to more, and so on), that doesn’t necessarily mean there’ll always be a place for scientists. Remember, though there are differences between scientific labor and “blue-collar”/industrial labor, this doesn’t mean that machines will always lag behind actual human scientists.

    As time passes and the robotic scientists Clarence mentioned become more advanced, many employers might begin to *prefer* them to human scientists for a variety of reasons–fewer mistakes made in the lab or the accumulation of data, safety reasons in the case of hazardous scientific work, and so on. Even if there is a nearly unlimited supply of scientific problems to solve, I see little reason to assume that, given enough time, computers and automation won’t be able to meet the challenge; indeed, they’ll likely meet scientific challenges so well that all but the best of human engineers and scientists will be unable to compete. Thus, I still stand by what I said–scientists may have nothing to worry about *now.* I might not bet on this being the case forever, or even for a very long time.

    • Hurp wrote:
      Thus, I still stand by what I said–scientists may have nothing to worry about *now.* I might not bet on this being the case forever, or even for a very long time.

      Scientists already have a lot to worry about, and have for some time. Art Sowers was writing about the problems of choosing careers in science back in the late ’90s (pre-blog era). But I’m in agreement with the gist of your argument. I see few, if any tasks that are safe from being heavily encroached by automation, even with AI well below human equivalence.

  11. Feminists want pay equality. If you went to work tomorrow and had 25% of your income removed because of your gender, you’d want equality too. It is incorrect to blame a broken economy on feminists. Where’s your empirical evidence?

    • Claire: “…had 25% of your income removed because of your gender…”

      You say women have 25% of their income “removed,” as if businesses check off a box on their hiring forms to flag women for a smaller salary/wage.

      Why do they remove only 25%? If they hate women being independent, surely they’d like to remove 50% or 90% or maybe even 100%.

      Why is it that women will agree to work for 25% less, but won’t allow businesses to pay them any less than this?

      Why doesn’t our oppressive patriarchal society get away with paying women 50% less than they pay men? I’m sure they’d like to. What’s stopping them?

    • First, I would wonder why I had to go into work on a Sunday…

      What I would do is stop lying about being paid less because of my gender.

      • Yeah. If the gender pay gap were real, any business could immediately save 25% on payroll simply by firing all the men and replacing them with women.

        Indeed, if women are really able to do the same work as men, and if they will do the same work for less money, then why would any businesses ever hire men at all? Makes no sense.

    • Here’s your empirical evidence: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

      The gender wage gap is a complete myth – that is, unless CBS News isn’t a reputable enough source for you. lol

  12. @Eincrou “Society benefits when men and women are able to operate legitimately within the free market. ”

    Wrong society benefits when men are able to operate legitimately within the free market

    & women are kept out of the market

    Women serve the same role as immigrants, to dilute the payroll, & drive corporations offshore from affirmative action & insane sick leave, maternity & immigration & gender quotas

    All deliberately designed to destroy local corporations for global corporate interests

    • Rmaxd: “Wrong society benefits when men are able to operate legitimately within the free market & women are kept out of the market.”

      Come on, man. If women are barred from entry by force, then it’s not a free market. Whether women are in the market or not is determined by if they provide a valuable product/service, not by fiat.

      “Women serve the same role as immigrants, to dilute the payroll, & drive corporations offshore from affirmative action & insane sick leave, maternity & immigration & gender quotas”

      Once again, your thinking is very muddled. There is no affirmative action, maternity/sick leave, or quotas in a free market. You can’t say I’m “wrong,” but then go on to prove that you don’t even understand the topic.

      • That’s my point, you cant have a freemarket, precisely because of all the idiotic crap women demand, it no longer becomes a freemarket

        Looks like you’re the one who doesnt understand how a freemarket actually operates …

        If you want to bog & destroy a freemarket go ahead, employ women & liberals & see how quick those parasite chicks, through affirmative action, gender quotas & other bs suck the market dry

        Seriously go white knight somewhere else …

        & yes you’re retardedly wrong …

        What part of driving corporations offshore & making corporations unable to compete in the freemarket through gender policies dont you understand?

  13. Rmaxd: ” you cant have a freemarket, precisely because of all the idiotic crap women demand, it no longer becomes a freemarket

    Looks like you’re the one who doesnt understand how a freemarket actually operates …”

    This post is even more befuddled than the first. This is really getting out of hand, but here we go with the complete refutation of 100% of your post’s content:

    A free market is voluntary exchange. Women can “demand” nothing. All the issues you listed as examples of women distorting free enterprise were examples of government coercion.

    If you want to bog & destroy a freemarket go ahead, employ women & liberals & see how quick those parasite chicks, through affirmative action, gender quotas & other bs suck the market dry

    What is your major malfunction? I already explained that these have nothing to do with markets.

    Mandated affirmative action, quotas and other “bs” come from women voting for these things. Being employed has nothing to do with it.

    “Seriously go white knight somewhere else … & yes you’re retardedly wrong …”

    lol. I’m not going anywhere.

    I’ve been posting on this blog much longer than you. Not only that, but PMAFT has created several posts using my comments. Regulars here know how silly it is for me to be called a white knight.

    As for me being wrong, well… so far you haven’t even begun to show that, so I’m a bit reluctant to just take your word for it.

    “What part of driving corporations offshore & making corporations unable to compete in the freemarket through gender policies dont you understand?”

    You (accidentally) saw the light here. You say “through gender policies.” Gender policies emanate from government coercion; it’s impossible for a market comprised of millions of individuals to have a certain policy.

    This is your unconscious admission that my position is correct.

  14. From what I understood, he didn’t so much wish to be a woman as to play around with gender identity. Sort of like it was a coat he could take on and off at will.

    Hans Moravec expressed a similar sentiment in his book “Mind Children”. His superhumans of the future wouldn’t have an innate gender but only adopt it at their mood and convenience.

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys
Translate »
%d bloggers like this: