1.WHAT ARE THE PROS AND CONS OF OURSOURCING?
PLEASE REVIEW, SUPPORT/DISCUSS/DISAGREE/AGREE EACH CASE BELOW:
CON: A search for â€œoutsourcingâ€ at Amazon.com yields 1,708 books alone. The majority of these books are are written from an anti-outsourcing stance, with titles ranging from Outsourcing America: Whatâ€™s Behind Our National Crisis and How We Can Reclaim American Jobs (by Ron and Anil Hira, 2005), to Exporting America: Why Corporate Greed Is Shipping American Jobs Overseas (by Lou Dobbs, 2004).
While blue-collar workers have traditionally been the first to lose their jobs to outsourcing, white-collar employees are increasingly seeing their jobs move overseas as well. As a result, labor unions have been some of the most vocal critics of outsourcing, often claiming that companiesâ€™ sending jobs overseas to benefit from lower costs will lead to inferior labor lawsâ€”an accusation often termed the â€œrace to the bottom.â€
As Mike Gildea, a representative of the AFL-CIO, explained in speaking about the countries receiving outsourced U.S. jobs, â€œMore often than not, the labor standards are non-existent or are not enforced. [Firms] can escape protective labor laws. They don’t have to worry about it.â€ Moreover, as labor lawyer Daniel Pyne notes, employees in foreign countries â€œearn much lower wages and enjoy few, if any, of the protections enjoyed by their American counterparts.â€ Thus, not only do critics believe outsourcing will render them unemployed, literally taking the food off their tables, but also that it will lead to an overall world decrease in labor standards (USA Today).
PRO: So yes, some Americans are facing unemployment from outsourcing, however, this fact leads to one of the greatest outsourcing myths: the U.S. as a whole is losing jobs. Not so. According to research from The Heritage Foundation, the U.S. has never previously had so many people employed. As their household employment survey showed, 1.9 million more Americans have been employed since the end of the last recession in November 2001. â€œThat means, there are 138.3 million workers in the U.S. economy todayâ€”more than ever before.â€
Moreover, proponents of outsourcing believe the picture of unemployment is not nearly as bleak as critics paint it. While the most startling estimate predicts a loss of 3.3 million service jobs between 2000 and 2015, the real number is in actuality much closer to an average of 55,000 jobs lost per economic quarter. Here it is important to note that job loss is part of the normal economic cycleâ€”on average, 7.71 million Americans are unemployed each quarter, and the estimated number of jobs lost to outsourcing equal only 0.71% of this total.Rather than focus solely on job loss, supporters of outsourcing believe it can bring great benefits to the economy as a whole and suggest the development of government-sponsored retraining programs and other unemployment aid as a way to soften the blow to those whose jobs are affected (The Heritage Foundation).
2. Outsourcing, has attracted much attention since it became a hot topic during the last presidential election in the USA. Companies in the USA and Europe are now sending jobs off to India or China or some other country where they can be done at a lower cost, increasing the profit margin and productivity. Productivity increases are made possible by the 24-hour work day; when the office in the US is ready to close, its Indian counterpart is ready to begin, thus creating a continuous work cycle. Despite the advantages of outsourcing for companies, the practice has attracted much criticism from the US public and some politicians.
Companies have laid off workers in the US and hired people in India or China to do the same kind of work for less, for example, call centers in India. Many American companies have outsourced their customer service department to India. So when you call for service, the call is picked up in India. In addition to concerns about many Americans losing jobs, people have complained about the quality of service provided. The complaints arise mainly because of the difficulty in understanding their accent or due to the cultural differences. Nevertheless, a person who believes that he has received bad service will have a negative opinion on outsourcing.
What is your opinion on outsourcing?
3. PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE BELOW AND ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:
Can Sudan develop on its own? If so, how? If the development is successful, would it pave the way for the freedom of self-determination to trickle down to the lives of each individual on the African continent?
South Sudan has waited more than 50 years to gain its independence from the North. In 2005, following two civil wars, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed, giving South Sudan six years of autonomy. In January 2011, a referendum on secession was held and an overwhelming majority voted in favor of independence. The referendum will usher in statehood for Southern Sudan, even though formal independence will be declared on July 9, 2011.
South Sudan faces a long road ahead before a sustainable independence can be achieved. The legacy of the CPA is a litany of unsolved problems, including the lack of an agreed-upon border between South and North and the lack of a dispute mechanism to solve long-standing disagreements over oil and grazing rights.
South Sudan must overcome many historical problems before it can move forward with development initiatives, which are so crucial to the success of both countries.
History of the Sudanese Conflict
South Sudan has a history of oppression and enslavement. In the 1820s, the North enslaved Southerners and exploited their oil and fertile land. Fears of losing the rights to both the oil and the fertile land are actually the root of todayâ€™s conflict between the North and South.
From 1899 to independence in 1956, Southerners were further oppressed by the North under the British â€œdivide and ruleâ€ policy. Ultimately, the British wanted to maintain its relationship with Egypt in order to prevent France from gaining control of the Suez. So the British supported Egypt, who wanted Arab Muslims to rule Sudan.
The British granted the Northern Arab Muslims power over the South by giving them the skills to control government and by explicitly developing the North, while blocking private development efforts the South. For example, Christian missionaries, with little outside funding and support, were left in charge of education in the South. The South was intentionally kept underdeveloped to prevent Southerners from gaining power in the North.
By 1956, when Britain granted independence to Sudan and control of the country to the North, Southerners began fighting for independence. This first civil war lasted until 1972 when the North and South signed the Addis Ababa Agreement, granting the South regional autonomy on all matters except national defense and foreign policy. The period of peace ended in 1983 when the Addis Ababa Agreement was abrogated.
Before the agreement was abrogated though, the peaceful period was still marked by protests from the South. In order to continue wielding power, President Nimairy enacted minimal Shariah law in 1977, provoking protests especially in the South. Fearing these protests would lead to another civil war where the South would secede and take the oil the North relied on for 30 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), Nimairy divided the South into three provinces.
Nimairy specifically targeted an oil-rich region called Abyei where a tribe of Southern cattle herders â€“ the Dinka â€“ grazed with Northern pastoralists. Because the Dinka had previously allied with Southern rebels during the first civil war, the North feared the Dinka would ally again with the South in protests over advancing Shariah. The North ordered attacks by the Northern pastoralists on the Dinka in Abyei. Nimairyâ€™s policies culminated in the enforcement of strict Shariah law. The enactment of complete Shariah law resulted in the break-out of a second, full-scale war for independence.
In recent times, oil drilling, mechanized farming, and severe drought had lead the Northern pastoralists to to raid grazing fields used by the Dinka. During these raids, Northern pastoralist militias have committed grave human rights abuses. The Dinka now hope for safety under the rule of the South.
Their hopes may be dashed though because the North will still want access to the grazing lands and the oil and so may employ militias to try to gain access to the land. The international community may need to step in to prevent these raids and help North and South find a way forward.
The International Communityâ€™s Involvement
Sudan cannot determine the border on its own. It needs an impartial international committee. Sudanâ€™s own Technical Border Committee (TBC), created in 2005 to determine the border, has been unable to accomplish the task because of partisan disputes.
The committee demarcating the border has eight hot spots to determine. These hot spots lie on oil-rich fields and grazing land. The committee will have the balancing act of distributing the land to its rightful owner (ie the North or South) while continuing to grant the North access to its livelihood should the land be demarcated to the South. If this task is not accomplished, the North will need access to other sources of livelihood. Development projects funded by the international community can help build those sources of livelihood for the North and the South.
Another way the international community can get involved is by encouraging the South to choose a leader that is politically adept and who understand the challenges facing Muslim Arabs in the South. Muslim Arabs in the South have an 80 percent illiteracy rate, as well as limited access to clean water, schools, paved roads, and health care. These poor conditions could be misinterpreted as discrimination against Arab Muslims and could set-off further conflict in the South. The new leader must reduce tensions by reassuring Arab Muslims in the South that they are not forgotten.
The international community can also prevent conflict from fragmenting the North by offering the current Northern Sudanese President Bashir incentives to implement policies that strengthen Sudanâ€™s democracy. Bashir relies on financial support from the international community to prevent his power from diminishing, especially when he is facing a loss of a third of the Northâ€™s GPD that comes from the Southâ€™s oil. Africans in Darfur, Beja rebels, Islamic supporters of Turabi, and the urban poor want Bashir out and will use these economic losses as the reason to get rid of him. To pay for these losses, Bashir may be willing compromise with the EU and US, who can offer him financial incentives.
The EU and Washington can ease economic sanctions, resolve funding issues to develop the North, and offer debt relief to Bashir on the condition that he brokers an agreement on arable lands and stops military raids into oil- rich regions. These efforts may be able to defuse the desire amongst non-Muslim, Africans to rebel against Bashir. The prevention of marginalization will counter any negative effects of South Sudanese secession in other regional conflicts.
As one Sudanese noted, â€œThe only way weâ€™ll go back to war is if the world goes to sleep and forgets us.â€
Of course, in a world with tight budgets and short memories, the source of funding for these initiatives has not been determined. Within the US, there already are many who would already like to further decrease the foreign assistance budget.
Although experts such as Hilda Johnson, who helped broker the CPA, are correct that a failure by the international community to achieve democracy in Sudan will likely spur other ethno-religious conflicts, experts fail to see the negative consequences of placing such a great responsibility on the international community. By making the international community responsible for preventing war in Sudan, other rogue states may get the message: If a country commits gross human rights atrocities, the international community will develop the abusive country.
Since secession was unavoidable, the international community is stuck in a predicament. On the one hand, the international community never wants another horrific war like the world has witnessed in Sudan. The only means of preventing future war though is economic development. Sudan and many developing countries need international assistance to achieve development goals. However, if the U.S. helps the Sudan now, some countries might get the wrong message.
Atleast 150 word respond
4. There is growing debate about globalization. It is occurring in many locations, most obviously in the streets of cities hosting the meetings of the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund and other global institutions. These street protests have some correspondence with discussions occurring in universities and governments, and in factories, homes and fields.
One important part of the debate about the interpretation of globalization concerns global income inequality. The question is whether income disparities are rising or falling. In other words, does global integration make the poor richer or poorer? Briefly discuss.
Atleat 150 word respond
5. What is the impact of globalization on the environment?
Please read the following article and write one page summary.
Atleast 150 words respond
6. How do you see the future of globalization?
Atleast 100 words respond
Question 3 and 4 links
Question 5 and 6