Today, almost half of BPO employees are women, many of whom outearn both of their parents. Free-market cheerleaders, conflating rising wages with rising spirits, are quick to applaud India's "maturing" markets. But the truth is more complicated: Studies show that once people move out of poverty, increasing wealth does not necessarily lead to happiness.
Yeah but it sure cuts down on malnutrition. The above paragraphs is a shibboleth for well-off far lefties. And boy does reading it piss me off. What a way to miss the forest for the trees!
This article started out great but then slowly started to go bad. Our plucky western kid, son of doctors, with a liberal arts education freely admits he just can't quite grasp the basic geography of Australia.
If that was a badly done attempt to compliment the Indians, good. Badly written, but good intent. If it was an honest admission of his... jeez is this what liberal education does to a son of two doctors!?
The writer also goes the extra mile by sharing a bed with a stranger, but all he seems to get out of it is a few sentences mentioning that he shared a bed with a stranger, and this one time the power went out. Not exactly many deep insights form all this self imposed hardship. Or as the kids say these days, cool story bro.
Lastly, the author spends a lot of time writing about one depressed guy.
There was some good stuff, globalization, the changes in Indian society, and it could have been a great article. But instead it seems to be just a vague money doesn't bring happiness story, also westernization is kind of sucky. You don't say.
> This was not an opinion piece; it's just a description of what the author encountered while working in India.
Just like anything in reason.org is bound to have a certain slant, things in Mother Jones are not going to get published if they don't have their own slant.
> Any opinion you attribute to the author is most likely something you are imagining based on your own opinions.
The same phrase he mentioned popped out at me too, and if you look at it, it carries a lot of opinion:
"Free-market cheerleaders, conflating"
First of all, "cheerleaders" certainly contains a sense of someone in favor of something in a sort of rah-rah, go-team way that is not entirely positive. "Conflating" means: "they're mistaken".
That said, yeah, it's mostly his experiences, but it's sprinkled with stuff to make it "on-message" with where it's published.
What's sad about the attempts to make it "on-message" is how bad and shallow they are.
India is a big and complicated place, and there is a lot to think about its economic development. Are big foreign companies favored over small and/or local ones? Why, what kind of dynamic is at play here?
How does the new economic power of women affect the sex selection of infants?
There's just two examples, right of the top of my head, that I think (hope!) would be of interest to the hard core mother jones readers.
But that's not where this goes, instead we get the shallow, almost caricaturish, money isn't everything undertone. Mixed with not enough money undertone, the workers should be getting paid more, they work 30+ hours shifts and still have to have bunk mates. All this mixed with, life sure can be complicated in this modern ever changing world.
And none of these issues are explored in depth, it's just "doesn't it suck how little they are paid, doesn't it suck that money doesn't make you happy, hey look a Marxists!"
I guess I would mind "on-message" editorializing a lot less, if it was part of a really good article. And what's most disturbing is this sense I get that maybe there could have been a much better article, but then it wouldn't have been on message, and to make it on message some bad things had to be done to the writing.
>How does the new economic power of women affect the sex selection of infants?
// It was an article not a book. Isn't the purpose to raise in your mind these sorts of questions? He presents his experience to enlarge your outlook and enable you to address such questions in a more informed way. He's surely not attempting to offer an exhaustive insight into Indian culture just a snapshot from a long visit.
Presumably malnutrition is not much of a concern after one has left poverty. The author is citing studies that show that once you are beyond poverty and have the means to attain whatever things you want, then "increasing wealth does not necessarily lead to happiness."
Its probably not much of a concern for the person working in the call center, but what about the family they're sending money back to? I'm not sure if giving money to your relatives so they aren't malnourished will increase your happiness, but it should certainly increase theirs.
Presumably malnutrition is not much of a concern after one has left poverty.
That's exactly the point!
The big win here is gaining one up on the basic necessities of survival.
The fact that ennui is unaffected well sure that's a downside, money is not the same as happiness, but it sure beats starving or freezing to death.
Basic necessities of life vs ennui. If you mention both in the same sentence in an attempt to even out the benefits from steady work, well then you're a dick.
And data supports this theory. See some of Hans Rosling's Ted talks, as income goes to $60,000 in the U.S.A., happiness steadily increases, then levels off.
Having said that, this is a great read. What worries me about India is that we are producing a generation whose sole competency is in answering phone calls and faking who they are and the only selling point is that they are cheaper labor than the western workers. This isn't a sustainable in longer term. We are bound to find labor markets that are cheaper (we already are) or business processes that are more efficient (we already are). For a sustained development India needs to ramp up her infrastructure and invest in her people in a way which produces value rather than ups elling her people cheaply. Outsourcing should just be a stepping stone to industries that are more valuable.
Remember, the whole IT/BPO industry of India makes up just 5% of Indian GDP and it has directly employed just 2-3 million people. Most of the hype surrounding it has been created by the clueless western media - "OMG, India is eating our jobs".
India has achieved great strides in other industries in recent years (steel, coal, automobile, textile, agriculture, crafts, jewellery etc.) which should be highlighted and encouraged. Enough of this call-center nonsense.
5% of world's 10 largest GDP is huge. At 5% of 1.5 Trillion dollars its about 250 Billion US Dollars. Also, the growth in BPO is also much more significant than the regular industries.
In any case, it is hardly insignificant (or nonsense).
The Indian IT industry is worth $60-75 billion at present. Remember, it's the whole IT industry. BPO sector hardly touches even $20 billion. Given its value, the hype it has earned for more than a decade is ridiculous and unjustified.
Yea.. Sorry about 70 Billion. My bad. That's a valid argument to make. But given the growth that the BPO industry has seen and given the industry employs mostly young people. I think its still important to consider its cultural impact.
To work in a call center, you need to be able to speak, read and write English. You do not need a university degree, you do not need to possess a particular technical skill set. Most call centers will offer just enough training to get an employee going.
India has a huge number of young people who may not be able to join the IT companies, manufacturing industries, or the booming private financial sector because they may not have the education, inclination or aptitude to do so.
Call centers, much reviled as they are, provide an avenue
for hundreds of thousands of people to hold down a well paying, stable job. I think the author's experience there is fairly typical, but there is a crucial difference in perception.
What the author finds depressing (or pointless) is actually a gateway to a "middle class" life for many thousands of people. I am sure if the author went back in time to Michigan in the 20s, he would have similar things to say about workers on the automobile assembly lines. But while the great American manufacturing boom of the early 20th century is celebrated as a gateway to prosperity, a fairly similar thing happening in India is looked upon with a somewhat negative bias.
"Twenty years ago, before India opened its markets to the world, career prospects were bleak. Men might have been laborers or government workers, but even the most ambitious women often gave in to social pressure and stayed home."
My 70 year old Indian grandmother was a school teacher. She had five daughters and all of them became teachers or professors. None of them spent their childhood in cities.
It is a very superficial, stereotyped statement (not any worse than those about Aussies, I guess), and people were obviously doing things other than laborers, government workers, and homemakers. However, the BPO era has added a significant number of jobs of questionable worth and the statement does talk of a real sociological phenomenon.
>> Men might have ..., and even the most ambitions women often ...
So it doesn't really say anything for certain. It does bring up the common stereotypes of traditional Indian women being forced to stay home, and India's economy being two speeds - the wealthy Fabian socialist government, and poor labor-intensive private sector.
BPO does add to the private sector, and bring in some easy money (as long as India stays poor). There are other elements of the private sector, such as software engineering companies, automobile manufacturing (Tato), and so on; and India's domestic demand (which is partly fueled by BPO) drives these.
I doubt BPO can really poison India's economy, the way tourist dollars can deskill some places. BPO is too small, and India's too big.
>It is a very superficial, stereotyped statement (not any worse than those about Aussies, I guess), and people were obviously doing things other than laborers, government workers, and homemakers.
Yes. There were several statements that were plain false, and I picked that one because I had proof-of-falsehood.
>However, the BPO era has added a significant number of jobs of questionable worth and the statement does talk of a real sociological phenomenon.
I think it is entirely possible to write about this phenomenon without having to stretch the truth.
EDIT: I just realized that the article doesn't really say anything about Aussies.
I meant proof-of-falsehood for myself. That is, I knew vaguely that a lot of things that were written in that article were not quite true, but I didn't have facts that showed them to be false, except for the quote in my original post. I didn't write all the facts I had against that because I felt that, if you do not believe my anecdote, offering more than one doesn't strengthen my case, and if you choose to believe it, I needn't offer more than one story.
Yes but India has/(had? kinda not really) the caste system so it would be expected that people in the same family have the same profession. Intellectually speaking, in your average Indian village just how many people would you expect to be schoolteachers and how many would you expect to be labourers? Approximately 50% of the population is female, do you think the number of schoolteachers in a pre-globalization Indian village approaches that ratio? What were these other women doing then?
Yes, India has a caste system. It hasn't "gone away", but it doesn't necessarily mean everyone in the same family is always forced to work in the same profession and it hasn't had the force of law for quite a while. These things can subtly create significant hurdles for many people, but so does poverty or membership in unpopular groups for people in countries other than India. I think I am pro free marker, but something I find irritating is Tom Friedman-esque simplistic assumptions that aren't true. I don't think many village laborers were able to improve their lot and become school teachers due to BPO businesses. Its not a statement against globalization, just the way things are right now. Also, the economic liberalization process changed some things about Indian commerce irrespective of globalization.
Funny -- I had never heard of the "Teacher" caste before. But by the same measure of anecdotal evidence, there must exist a "Hollywood caste” in US -- how else would you explain Will Smith's kids going into entertainment biz. Or may be there is a Pizza maker caste -- what else could explain the family owned pizzeria next door. My daughter's paediatrician is my doctor's son and he is married to nurse. There must be a doctor caste to explain this.
As an immigrant I have a very hard time buying this. Shoot, I've been living 24/7 for years in a foreign country, and I've not had a single moment of identify crisis.
This concern over the call center workers' lost identity seems silly to me.
"Just stating facts, guys," Lekha began, as we scribbled notes, "Australia is known as the dumbest continent. Literally, college was unknown there until recently. So speak slowly." Next to me, a young man in a turban wrote No college in his notebook.
I can't comment on the dumbest continent thing, but it is true that the Indian accent often sounds very fast to Australians.
"Australians drink constantly," Lekha continued. "If you call on a Friday night, they'll be smashed—every time."
lol.
"Oh, and don't attempt to make small talk with them about their pets, okay? They can be quite touchy about animals."
WTF?? Where did they get this from? Can anyone explain the source for this?
Australian here too. They get this from the same place we get our ideas of Indian culture - urban myth and hearsay.
Regarding slow talkers, it depends on where you come from in Aus (stereotypically rural and/or Queenslander). I travelled across the US and when I approached NYC I was eager to hear people speaking at a 'normal' rate, as I was a bit fatigued from having to slow down my rate of speech (I'm also known as 'the quiet one' among by friends). And when I got to NYC... New Yorkers still didn't speak fast enough for me. I didn't have to slow down, but it was still noticeably slower than what I was used to.
As for college being unknown here until recently, maybe they mean recently compared to India? 150 years is a drop in the bucket to several thousand...
The speech thing is interesting. Thinking about it some more, I suspect the big difference with Indian English vs Australian is that the Indian version seems to have smaller gaps between words (to my ears at least).
On US accents - have you seen the US Accent Test[1]? taking it as a foreigner is pretty interesting. Apparently I have a Northeastern accent (I'm from Adelaide).
highly recommend movie "Outsourced" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425326/ - funny, seems (never been to India myself) realistic while without extra cynicism, and personally it made me feel better toward the Indian guys/gals on the other end of the phone line.
"Truth is, 90 percent of the people there, you will find, they'll do the most stupid things, impulsive things. I know for a fact. At the same time, Americans are bighearted people, and the remaining 10 percent of them are smart. Bloody smart. That's why they rule the world."
Americans have a great can-do attitude and are lucky to have some of the wealthiest land in the world. These two things let them exploit their smarts very well. But bighearted? Not really. Domestic charity doesn't really stand out from the pack and foreign aid is a lesser proportion of GDP than their contemporaries. Their foreign aid is more effective than elsewhere because of the size of their economy, but as a proportion of what is earned, it's not competitive.
My personal experience in the US is that the people are very welcoming and friendly, which leads me to think that Americans are bighearted to people they personally know, but not so much to strangers - eg witness the powerful currents of public opinion against welfare or universal healthcare that don't really exist in contemporary countries.
I feel sorry that they have to put up with abusive behavior. Just hang up and move on. But can you really just ignore abuse? It must be leaving a mark somewhere. I have also had abusive users and customers and I also ignore them. But can't get it out of my head sometimes. It keeps bothering me.
Well, a call centre is a voice recognition system. It's a black box, you plug phone lines into one end, and your back-end corporate databases into the other. Artificial artificial intelligence, I've heard it referred to as.
It's really sad that its cheaper to have a person act like a computer than vice-versa. Its like we are going through the industrial revolution, only backwards.
It's a matter of algorithms and processing power and data points at this point. With the number of people working on it, we're close. Computer systems have come leaps and bounds in the last 5 years, and computational linguistics is not an easy problem.
Likewise, the first companies that made telephone directories available in the Web didn’t try to OCR the phone books; it was cheaper to hire people in China to transcribe the listings.
I'd be happy if such outsourcing jobs stop flourishing in India. By cutting the amount of easy options to make money, it will motivate/challenge students to do well and aim for a much better career.
One, being a bit pedantic but exchange rate has nothing to do with the income gap. If I measure distances in feet and you in metres, would you say that distances in my country are 'smaller'? The term that you should be looking at is per-capita income at purchasing power parity.
Two, economies go through development cycles. They start out in the low-skill jobs and then move on. For example look at the shipbuilding industry. Moved from the west to Japan in the 60's, who then used it to move to other heavy industries. After Japan had grown skills and incomes increased the industry moved to Korea. The same cycle is in process right now, with the industry now moving to China. Don't hate outsourcing, but use it to build a better future.
"Troll" as in I'm pretty sure she was making the story up. Judging by her perfect writing style and the degree of tech-literacy necessary for her to find the narrative to begin with.
Yeah but it sure cuts down on malnutrition. The above paragraphs is a shibboleth for well-off far lefties. And boy does reading it piss me off. What a way to miss the forest for the trees!
This article started out great but then slowly started to go bad. Our plucky western kid, son of doctors, with a liberal arts education freely admits he just can't quite grasp the basic geography of Australia.
If that was a badly done attempt to compliment the Indians, good. Badly written, but good intent. If it was an honest admission of his... jeez is this what liberal education does to a son of two doctors!?
The writer also goes the extra mile by sharing a bed with a stranger, but all he seems to get out of it is a few sentences mentioning that he shared a bed with a stranger, and this one time the power went out. Not exactly many deep insights form all this self imposed hardship. Or as the kids say these days, cool story bro.
Lastly, the author spends a lot of time writing about one depressed guy.
There was some good stuff, globalization, the changes in Indian society, and it could have been a great article. But instead it seems to be just a vague money doesn't bring happiness story, also westernization is kind of sucky. You don't say.