No I don't think that it is right for any 1st world nation to outsource to a 3rd world nation. For the longest time in Canada they would have little stickers/tags with the red maple leaf on the merchandise. This meant that it was made in Canada. Provided that the quality is good, I go out of my way to buy this even if it is a dollar or two more because this is what keeps our jobs at home.
2007-05-21 11:01:13
·
answer #1
·
answered by Alletery 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
The problem is much larger and it has to do with choosing greed over national & social responsibility. The alarming trend toward outrageously lavish executive compensation even when corporations lose money gets largely ignored by most media outlets. Recent studies have shown that wealth does not necessarily equal intelligence. Apparently, this is true in as most US government leaders and corporate executives don't remember their history. Historically speaking, over time a two class system always falls to revolution. The US economy is trending toward a two class system of "haves" and "have nots". Eventually, if the trend continues, the US economy fails and the wealthy retreat to their estates and hire small private armies to protect them, the US will be ripe for revolution. NEVER in history has there been a two class system whereas the lower class maintains the right to bear arms. Fortunately for we the people, US government & corporate leadership so far has not been smart enough to take away the 2nd amendment. This coupled with intelligence, vision and a strong sense of national & social responsibility will allow the revolution a swift and relatively easy takeover if and when the time comes. GOD BLESS AMERICA...! Obama-Clinton 2008 is the only hope to right the ship, turn the USA around and avoid eventual economic breakdown and the resulting revolution.
2016-05-19 01:19:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by lonnie 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is a matter of economics not morality. You are asking about morality "do you think it is right [just, etc.]...." (For morality go to the Religion forum elsewhere on Yahoo Answers.)
It would be wrong for a company not to do this if it made economic sense. That would be taking money away from the owners (stockholders) and giving it to the employees. It is the obligation of every corporation in a capitalist economy to maximize the return on the owner's money. Incidentally, some of these stockholders might be former employees who are now retired. So, should we take money from them to give to current workers?
It is the obligation of all workers to keep educating themselves and to keep up their job skills so that they can make any required changes if their job is outsourced.
2007-05-21 11:06:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by Flyboy 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is a tough issue to address. You get the domino effect. If one company does it, their competitor's have to do it to remain competitive. If the jobs stay here, consumers pay more for the products. I can understand if companies are trying to reduce costs. However, I think it is unethical if they do it because of easier labor laws and regulations. Everybody should have the right to work in a safe and reasonably comfortable environment and not have to work unreasonably long hours - that is most definitely not right.
2007-05-21 10:07:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by RcknRllr 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
How else can US companies compete with manufacturers in China, India, Mexico, Africa, Korea, etc? Would you prefer the company go out of business? Are you willing to pay about 50% more for clothing, electronics, etc?
Get real ... we're in a world economy.
2007-05-21 10:14:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by jdkilp 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
No, I do NOT think it is right. But, obviously no one cares what I think.
2007-05-21 10:04:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by tooyoung2bagrannybabe 7
·
0⤊
0⤋