Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Call Centres In Bristol And Newport To Move To India


Recommended Posts

What if they do? And what about the growing chance of global trade wars and trade collapse? Neo-Liberal Globalization has essentially failed.

What has really failed is the assumption that local interests can survive in the real world in the long term. In other words, the assumption that the beneficiary of a lucky sperm who was born in the first world might not be so lucky going forward is finally being exposed.

There is no way that local workers who don't contribute very much can continue to thrive in a world where they have to compete globally.

The externality red herring is simply a crutch to try to protect the overburdened, overpaid workers in the first world from the exposure to their actual worth on a global basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Don't know if Google's search is poorly setup for that kind of requirement or tradespeople are missing a trick by not have a decent SEO website.

It's the latter. I'd make a killing doing SEO for local businesses back in the UK, using a rent your own website kind of model :lol:

Though I'm working on something more expandable at the moment so don't want to muddle in that stuff.

As far as Yellow Pages are concerned, their business model collapsed as soon as the internet existed. Hell it would be pretty easy to do a 'local yellow pages' for your city by making a website with all the local businesses listed (for a fee) then advertising it around the city.

You could charge 10% of the price Yellow Pages does and probablly turn a healthy profit.

For a long time now I've believed there are only two ways to make good money easily, one is having a lot of capital to invest in a big business with startup costs and the other is marketing which has and always will have minimal startup costs.

Edited by Saberu
Link to post
Share on other sites

We were always in a race for the lowest condition for workers possible. That's what the market does. It seeks yield, by exploiting the difference between one option and another; you can't stop this.

Is this the case?

Going back to basic economics the undeveloped world has more undesirable political leaders with much less respect for individuals. Is it not possible that this is what is holding back the improvements in living standards that we from western liberal societies accept is what should be normal.

Our societies growth from similar conditions really began when enlightened social policies took effect. I'm looking back to how social conditions in the UK have changed from the Industrial Revolution, through Victorian England to the post war society we now live in.

Eminent industrialists, I'm thinking Henry Ford here, realised that by paying his workers a good wage he increased the market for his goods and therefore his own personal wealth. There are others that can be used to support this argument. Ultimately the evidence is all around for us to see in our own living standards.

Globalisation is a leveler, will it cause a great deal of pain in the developed west or will it improve the living conditions of others in the world?

The example of Yell is really just a postponement of the inevitable, an unviable business product that is reducing costs in a struggle for survival. More telling is that I read about growth in furniture manufacturing in North Carolina. It is becoming competitive through changes in the economic landscape. A straw in the wind perhaps, but it reinforces the point Scepticus raised earlier.

Could the turmoil suffered in Zimbabwe also support my contention. What changed was the political environment, with the result that the country changed from the bread basket of Southern Africa to a basket case.

On a more prosaic level I dread speaking to overseas call centres. No cultural awareness and an overwhelming need to follow their script so as not to upset their paymasters. Whenever possible I will use businesses that have not outsourced their customer contact abroad. Unfortunately organisational changes are too dynamic to keep abreast of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To pay the rent for the land your shelter sits on?

I was counting that as part of the cost of shelter. Whether people have free and easy access to land very much depends on the political system, regarding planning and taxation; the same goes for the UK in this regard. While I agree that it is an important point, especially when credit growth is accelerating (hint: it isn't for us now), it isn't really central to the points being made about globalisation and the repercussions of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

of course the global economic system will behave like an oscillating response curve, meaning the currently well off economies will become poor and vice versa, the size of these changes will be dependent upon the inherent damping in the system.

I would expect wild rapid swings followed by a slow reduction until an equilibrium of sorts is reached in about 1000 years time, ho hum, :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the case?

Going back to basic economics the undeveloped world has more undesirable political leaders with much less respect for individuals. Is it not possible that this is what is holding back the improvements in living standards that we from western liberal societies accept is what should be normal.

Whether or not there are corrupt politicians or Mafia like groups with power is beside the point, IMO. Even if this is the case (which I'm not saying it isn't), it is still cheaper to make stuff in the developing world, compared to the developed. However, I don't expect this (gang-master stuff) to last - imbalances have a habit of being eroded over time by market forces. In other words, greedy bosses tend to get their margins squeezed by local, national and global competition. Considering that capital flows have changed, with the developed world tapped out, their margins will probably be squeezed harder than ever.

Our societies growth from similar conditions really began when enlightened social policies took effect. I'm looking back to how social conditions in the UK have changed from the Industrial Revolution, through Victorian England to the post war society we now live in.

Eminent industrialists, I'm thinking Henry Ford here, realised that by paying his workers a good wage he increased the market for his goods and therefore his own personal wealth. There are others that can be used to support this argument. Ultimately the evidence is all around for us to see in our own living standards.

Well, it's a good argument by Henry Ford - as I understand this, it is essentially increasing the velocity of money, which increases liquidity, thus improving economic activity as a whole. As long as this process is all voluntary (ie. it's not the government forcing the issue with excessive public borrowing), then there is a net benefit. People get nice cars, people spend money, companies make money - a virtuous cycle.

Global trade should be no exception, but it is on a larger scale. This is why protectionism can only make things worse in the long run, even if pulling the draw bridge up now, may cause capital to be more sticky for a while.

Globalisation is a leveler, will it cause a great deal of pain in the developed west or will it improve the living conditions of others in the world?

I would say it will cause short term pain for us, with short term gain for them, but ultimately long term gain for all of us.

The example of Yell is really just a postponement of the inevitable, an unviable business product that is reducing costs in a struggle for survival. More telling is that I read about growth in furniture manufacturing in North Carolina. It is becoming competitive through changes in the economic landscape. A straw in the wind perhaps, but it reinforces the point Scepticus raised earlier.

There is also evidence of UK manufacturing picking up and increased demands for wages in China. These are all indications that the market is behaving as expected, under the conditions we are going through. In short, the market is sorting itself out, while our politicians and bureaucrats are procrastinating about what to do next to 'fix' it.

Could the turmoil suffered in Zimbabwe also support my contention. What changed was the political environment, with the result that the country changed from the bread basket of Southern Africa to a basket case.

On a more prosaic level I dread speaking to overseas call centres. No cultural awareness and an overwhelming need to follow their script so as not to upset their paymasters. Whenever possible I will use businesses that have not outsourced their customer contact abroad. Unfortunately organisational changes are too dynamic to keep abreast of.

I think you have identified that we value our regional accents. I've noticed that sales teams are often English, but support/service are foreign - I'm sure that isn't an accident.

Edited by Traktion
Link to post
Share on other sites

What has really failed is the assumption that local interests can survive in the real world in the long term. In other words, the assumption that the beneficiary of a lucky sperm who was born in the first world might not be so lucky going forward is finally being exposed.

There is no way that local workers who don't contribute very much can continue to thrive in a world where they have to compete globally.

The externality red herring is simply a crutch to try to protect the overburdened, overpaid workers in the first world from the exposure to their actual worth on a global basis.

Do you think multi-millions of first world citizens are "well paid" (High-tech japanese, 40.000 a year of whom commit suicide, can't afford more than a shoe box to live in)?

The end game for the globalists is when the population majority dump their monetry systems through breakdown & complete distrust (cause of the extortion and corruption)

Which turns out extremely Biblical as one of the Prophecies talks about the complete collapse of the Global trading with wailing 'traders' etc

It is quite easy to take on the Banksters - just change the method/way we trade (eg use whelk shells) and bankrupt the bastards and their rip-off systems overnight.

Edited by erranta
Link to post
Share on other sites
The externality red herring is simply a crutch to try to protect the overburdened, overpaid workers in the first world from the exposure to their actual worth on a global basis.

Aren't most asset values a function of this rentier activity though? In 'delflating' the value of the western worker is not an implosion of the system implied as the incomes no longer exist to prop it up?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was counting that as part of the cost of shelter. Whether people have free and easy access to land very much depends on the political system, regarding planning and taxation; the same goes for the UK in this regard. While I agree that it is an important point, especially when credit growth is accelerating (hint: it isn't for us now), it isn't really central to the points being made about globalisation and the repercussions of it.

It might be more central than you think- depending on how many of our foreign competitors own the shack they live in- or the land it stands on.

Many people in the UK could be a lot more competitive in terms of labour costs if they were not saddled with massive housing debt courtesy of our insane housing policy that pushes the basic cost of shelter to the moon.

Our whole economy seems to be designed to promote the interests of the rent seekers over the interests of the productive- and this is one thing the eton boys are not going to be changing any time soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't most asset values a function of this rentier activity though? In 'delflating' the value of the western worker is not an implosion of the system implied as the incomes no longer exist to prop it up?

Its certainly true that an era in which the relationship of capital and labour will be inverted is approaching, and its going to be an horrific outcome for rentiers of all stripes.

The chance to stop this transition was lost when the authorities round the world refused to let deflation take hold. Of course they didn't have a choice because had they done the opposite they would have been lynched.

The primary reasons to expect this inversion is firstly the inversion of the population age structure, and secondly the eventual demise of risk free financial assets. Before long monetary authorities will not be able to contain wage demands. I would expect that as this becomes the case, firms will contain wage demands themselves by linking pay to profit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't most asset values a function of this rentier activity though? In 'delflating' the value of the western worker is not an implosion of the system implied as the incomes no longer exist to prop it up?

Agreed.

Our financial structures are rushing headlong towards a meltdown for two primary reasons :

- People seem to confuse gross assets with net assets. They further confuse assets and quality of life.

- There is an implicit promise in our economic system that we can all become rentiers rather than doing something productive. At the limit, this is clearly impossible. The quest to reach this "nirvana" will cause its collapse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except thats not the way its going. To be correct your example would be everyone in the first world 9% worse off, the top 0.001 in the third world 10000% better off, and the other 99.999 in the third world 0.01% better off.

All you need to do is look is look at people such as Mukesh Ambani and his billion dollar home for your proof.

Exactly. The redistribution in India is even more unequal - which is why, as Chomsky points out, the health of its society is dropping. Hydro, mining and logging concessions to the oligarch has driven 10s of millions of people from their ancestral tribal homelands into destitution. This isnt compensated by a couple of million IT jobs. India is in a state of civil war. Its air force is used to strafe its own people.

By August, newspapers were reporting that the on-again-off-again Air Force was on again. “The Indian Air Force can fire in self-defense in Anti-Maoist Operations” The Hindustan Times said, "The permission has been granted but with strict conditionalities. We cannot use rockets or the integral guns of the helicopters and we can retaliate only if fired upon…To this end, we have side-mounted machineguns on our choppers that are operated by our Garuds (IAF commandoes)”. That’s a relief. No integral guns, only side-mounted machine guns.

Link

maoist_12_20100329.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

f its society is dropping. Hydro, mining and logging concessions to the oligarch has driven 10s of millions of people from their ancestral tribal homelands into destitution. This isnt compensated by a couple of million IT jobs. India is in a state of civil war. Its air force is used to strafe its own people.

Sounds not a million miles from home tbh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What has really failed is the assumption that local interests can survive in the real world in the long term. In other words, the assumption that the beneficiary of a lucky sperm who was born in the first world might not be so lucky going forward is finally being exposed.

There is no way that local workers who don't contribute very much can continue to thrive in a world where they have to compete globally.

The externality red herring is simply a crutch to try to protect the overburdened, overpaid workers in the first world from the exposure to their actual worth on a global basis.

More neoliberal lies. Irrespective of where in the world you are or how hard you work it boils down to

class war

Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be more central than you think- depending on how many of our foreign competitors own the shack they live in- or the land it stands on.

Many people in the UK could be a lot more competitive in terms of labour costs if they were not saddled with massive housing debt courtesy of our insane housing policy that pushes the basic cost of shelter to the moon.

Our whole economy seems to be designed to promote the interests of the rent seekers over the interests of the productive- and this is one thing the eton boys are not going to be changing any time soon.

Oh, I agree that it makes us less competitive, as it pushes up our costs to do business higher. However, consider that rentals are going to come under ever more pressure, as more people struggle for business/work in the global market place. This is going to make life very difficult for the rentiers, especially if they are heavily leveraged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its certainly true that an era in which the relationship of capital and labour will be inverted is approaching, and its going to be an horrific outcome for rentiers of all stripes.

The chance to stop this transition was lost when the authorities round the world refused to let deflation take hold. Of course they didn't have a choice because had they done the opposite they would have been lynched.

The primary reasons to expect this inversion is firstly the inversion of the population age structure, and secondly the eventual demise of risk free financial assets. Before long monetary authorities will not be able to contain wage demands. I would expect that as this becomes the case, firms will contain wage demands themselves by linking pay to profit.

Again, I very much agree. What do you think the time scale would be on this inversion? I see that there is evidence of it already occurring in the developing world, but do you have a guestimate for here? I'm tempted to say 5-10 years, but it's not based on much other than a wet finger in the air.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More neoliberal lies. Irrespective of where in the world you are or how hard you work it boils down to

class war

Per capita GDP in India is rising. The proportion of people living below the poverty line in India (which is, in itself rising) is falling.

A quarter of Indians have been lifted from below the poverty line to above it in a quarter of a century. This is a remarkable achievement and we should all be applauding the improvement in the living standards of so many people.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:IND&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+per+capita+india#met=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:IND:CHN

BPL_Data_GOI.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I very much agree. What do you think the time scale would be on this inversion? I see that there is evidence of it already occurring in the developing world, but do you have a guestimate for here? I'm tempted to say 5-10 years, but it's not based on much other than a wet finger in the air.

You can play around with the UN population projections up to 2050 here:

http://esa.un.org/unpp/

The US population is not expected to peak by 2050 although the ratio of over 60s will increase from 18% now to 27% in 2050. This will necessitate a politically painful restructure of the retirement promises re Social Security and Medicare but other than that will not cause the kind of capital / labour ratio disruptions that scepticus fears.

There will be much more worrying and also interesting developments over the next 40 years than demographics namely resource constraints / great power conflict and technological transformation / the approach of the singularity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I very much agree. What do you think the time scale would be on this inversion? I see that there is evidence of it already occurring in the developing world, but do you have a guestimate for here? I'm tempted to say 5-10 years, but it's not based on much other than a wet finger in the air.

well if the average boomer is 55, then in 15 years most all of them would be retired or unable to work. Then although they may be poorer than they expected they still would own most of the assets so at this point labour dominates over capital.

the removal of the remaining 'risk free' assets in aging western economies will accelerate as governments dispose of them to fund the demographic changes, so I'd guess most western public debt will have been monetised in say 25 years time.

however the full inversion cannot really take place properly while a major portion of the worlds population in emerging markets is still offering yield, so they key question is how long it takes brics to achieve peak debt. Our own final transition to peak debt took 40 years. For the brics we could safely assume half that, if not less.

So this taken with the priod to full age structure inversion looks to me to begin the region of 15-20 years. Of course if you assume markets are forward looking then the process ought to take 5 or 10 years less.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.