in reply to
Re^7: You have a point... :-)
in thread When are you moving to India to find a better job?
Maybe you missed my original node. I'm not talking about public health system. I'm talking about corporations that go overseas because they can find a work regulation more forgiving than that in their home country. Because they can make the good and the bad time there, but not at home. Because they are bound to guarantee lower security standards - this is why I was talking about a broken leg.
This does not mean that they shouldn't invest overseas. What I find unfair is that their gain arises from worker's weaker position (with respect home workers). I accept the argument from merlyn about payment, as I said; I don't accept that this is not sufficient, and that more gains are done on looser safety and guarantees.
You say I have no sense of history. You're probably right, but I see here in Italy that years of working rights are being sacrificed in the name of "work flexibility", while capitals tend to concentrate in the hands of few and people suffers for increased poverty and less stability - which is a big step back IMO. And if this happens here, I fear that better conditions will never happen there: it's us that are adapting to their lower standard, not the contrary.
It was less than a century we had child workers in the west. Human rights for women isn't exactly new, either.
So what? Are you implying we should step back in the west? Or that this path will be the natural one for the east in the next years? This only means that they can't have easy slaves in the west, and they go looking in the third and fourth world. And this is history since the night of times.
Don't fool yourself.
perl -ple'$_=reverse' <<<ti.xittelop@oivalf