The American Nightmare: No Exit, No Entry

Re: # 131

HP Sahib ... In addition to your #131, I would add this.

you guys coulda fooled me. I have lived in NYC for 2 decades, have voted in 4 presidential elections – yeah, I brought Bill Clinton to power. After reading these halfass essays by Canadians I have learnt so much about the system where I have been wasting my time for so long. I did not know anything after all these years. Oh well, you learn something new everyday.

I just want to thank my Canadian friends, in particular Romair Sahib, who knows more about my city both than I do, and than he knows about his own. Similarly, Saima Ji, seems thoroughly knowledgeable about the US politics, economy, corporate organizational structures, balance of payments, etc., than the WSJ.

I am now so scared after learning that I am an immigrant and that it is not nice to be an immigrant in the United States.

I just wana ask a simple question. Please don’t take it personally if you live in Canada. What the fk do they do to you there for people to turn out to be like these? I thought Pakis in England were bad, but I was wrong. Whenever I go back to England, my Paki friends there, who have never in their life traveled more than 60 miles outside of Brighton or some other cheapass place know so much about America that it puts me to shame.

Re: # 132

Hi--very interesting reply. I agree Corporations aren`t evil at all.

Re: # 129

Dear Zahra

I really don`t know what makes you so angry. You have made an assumption that I must be Canadian based on my criticism. It is interesting to see that to be considered American I have to subscribe to the same world view as the mainstream...which was also referred in the article--albeit imperfectly. There is terrible pressure to conform in America. Here is something fun for you to chew on. I am a global worker--an opportunistic one. And this sort of questioning of systems will be more and more common in a global world. I also think that your responses to my article are tangential. You have attacked me, rather than my ideas.

re # 55 and 57, Hi Saima Shah, I haven`t followed what went after the fifties posts, so apologize if this may have been stumbled on by someone already, but here are some of my thoughts to your response. When I said people recoup costs on an education in the long term, it wasn`t meant necessarily in their own field. A jobless scientist could find work as a shoe salesperson, and still be better employed financially compared to a regular high-school dropout shoe salesperson. S/He may not be very effective (ie. a better salesperson) but they would be more efficient at what they did (in things like sales reports, presentations etc). That would create value for their employers as well as making themselves better-off than in their previous unemployed state.
Likewise, corporations that offer training to their employees, if they outsource, do you really think they outsource everything? Including management? No, that stays at home, in controlling hands, that are better able to direct the use of such-and-such resources. So, if someone, including the most basic functionary in the corporate hierarchy- the factory worker - finds themselves out of their own job after being retrained, they still have the option of other jobs that utilize parts or all of their whole (new and old) skillset, either within the old company or next door. Companies very rarely like to lose good employees, esp. losing them to competition. If the payoff from retraining is less than the benefits from outsourcing, in the US atleast (where my work experience has been), they prefer to give employees the choice to be trained on something totally new, and still remain within the organization. Employees that have a history with their firm also bring understanding of company philosophy, corporate culture, work lifestyles, etc.. - the intangibles - that are often as valuable as their skillset itself. Good companies, that know how to make money - would rather hold on to those employees than lay them off. It`s easier, and may be good business, to layoff a factory worker pressing a lever 40,000 miles away than fire a staffer in the same building as the main centers of management, which is where all the business really gets done, where all the decisions really get made, the core. Effective management can not be outsourced. Yes, call centers and customer service desks in India have managers, supers, etc.., but they still have to answer to Corporate, and Corporate is always retraining its own people to stay cutting-edge. Plus, if a company becomes so ``mature`` in the economic growth stage, that it dies out, and its employees all find themselves out of luck getting work in their areas again, well, theoretically as well as in my experience, it`s a plus for the market as a whole. Obsolescence is obsolete, and new blood comes in, brings fresh ideas, technology, needed skills, etc.. People find themselves asking for new careers, seeking newer degrees etc.., and that cycle starts all over again. What`s old hat goes away, and new suits take their place, bringing with them new ways of doing things, more productively, more profitably - it benefits everyone in the end. It`s cruel but it`s necessary.
Ok about being an insider, all I care to say is, there is evil only if you choose to look at it that way. I don`t agree with the statement that Corporations are staffed by people who loathe each other, on the contrary, I firmly believe corporate philosophy drives the attitude of each and every employee, and those that don`t fit in, simply disappear (get left behind in the promotion circus, voluntarily leave or ultimately get fired, not because they don`t know how to do things, but because they don`t know how to do them right - or the Corporation`s definition of right, which varies from company to company). Direction from the top is imperative to achieving objectives and goals. Look carefully around you, your co-workers are working together on a corporate issued directive and may not even realize it. Even the worst of corporations have their agendas faithfully carried out by their minions, and that`s not evil, that`s teamwork. Those inefficiencies are an integral part of the makeup, they are there not because the top brass don`t know about them, but because they choose to ignore it. No, imo, corporations are never going to go away, rather, they are going to become bigger and larger and more gigantic, so huge that they will seem to explode and become tiny tiny tiny fragments of individual beings doing their own thing moving to their own rhythm singing their own songs... but that is all a grand illusion, one which Corporations are very good at, since the beginning of time. Enjoy.

#129 by ZahraJ

It seems to me that Saima arrived in the US/canada in 1997 and now lives in Canada…I doubt that anyone can understand or really relate to the system in such a short time. Her ideas about the US corporations and the life in general are not fully developed.

I did not post anything here as I thought she was having difficulty with Freesoul’s excellent understanding of the life in the US, even though he has not spent a whole lot of time here.

I recommend you read the conversation between her and freesoul about Job security etc. You will figure out that she only has superficial knowledge of the US system and thats why this article lacks depth and authenticity.

Re: # 113

[As a friend pointed out long time back to me, the whole system has evolved over 200+ years to make it work like a well balanced ecological system which gets rid of old and inefficient and constantly encourages birth and development of new ideas. Political processes, popular culture and financial markets are all geared towards making this ideal system work.

Other countries may have raw materials or talented people or open minded cultures or competitive zeal, but rarely do they have all of the remaining elements needed to have a self-correcting progressive machine on auto-pilot attracting achievers from all over the world.]

Very well put.

I liked the analogy - ``self-correcting progressive machines on auto-pilot`` :) That`s a realistic and philosophical approach. Sweet. Let`s hope that it will provide some food for thought to the Canadians on board. They may be able to see beyond their cultural mosaics and health care benefits.

Re: # 127

Saima,

That`s an amusing post! You have invested over a 1000 plus words on writing about the American System from an observer`s perspective - a vague, incomplete, inaccurate and convoluted analysis. You do seem concerned. If you weren`t then you would have looked inside to write about the salient features of the canadian economy, cultural mosaics and healthcare benefits. I guess, since these subjects are already beaten to death by the resident experts on chowk therefore they wouldn`t add much to the revolutionary drama here. Overall this was a disappointing read.

Dost-mittar #124: ``The big difference though is at the political level. Visible minorities in Canada, especially South Asians...... The result is that we have some very incompetent visible minority members in the Parliament who are no credit either to the community or to their constituents.``

I am not sure if it is as simple as this. The number of affluent Indians I have met in USA far outnumbers the ones I have met in Canada. There is no contest. Just Silicon Valley alone, probably has multiple time the wealth under managment of Indians, as all of the Indians in Canada. Yet Indians, Sikhs and South Asians, in general, are a mini-political force in Canada. While they are almost non-existent as a political force in USA. It has a lot more to it than stuffing party meetings......The Canadian society views them in a different manner. And they, view their own position in the Canadian society differently........

As an example, I participated, at a grassroots level, in the political campaign of a Liberal Party candidate. The guy got elected and knows who I am, and calls me. I can go talk to him anytime I want. Now his campaign staff have asked me to become a more permanent member of their team. If I pursue this, I could become quite active in the party. All of this happened, before I had even become a citizen............There is no way I could done this in the USA, at this level.............Or in England or anywhere else (unless I supported someone specifically from a Pakistani or South Asian ghetto).............

By the way, the ability of a stupid member of a minority community to get elected, to me, is the ultimate sign of a country that accepts multi-culturism and supports minority rights. After all, any country may want Manmohan Singh as their Finance Minister. But only Canada will be ready to accept even Dullabhatti as their Finance Minister..........Speaking of which, this maybe why Bhatti Saab has chosen Canada as his home. As have so many other Sardarjis............

``BTW, Canadian States have premiers, not governors, and the wife of the health minister is not an M.P.``

You are correct on both counts. The Health Minister is Ujjal. And the husband-wife pair is Greywal. I will have to add another name to the Punjabi list of MPs.

Re: # 116

That was funny. LOL. Why would I be jealous of an American of all people!. Poor sod is what I think. Works all his life like a dog and at the end of the day isn`t sure if his insurance will cover his illness costs. Instead the market tells him leave your house and go to India for your operation.

Re: # 123

DM 123,

Right. However, ``wanting to collude`` and ``being able to collude`` are different things, more so when the number of producers are large. Modern markets, with fewer producers (corporations), MAY be more prone to collusion. Even then it is a difficult task, e.g. price competition amongst airlines in, at least, peak seasons.

But I was not talking merely about collusion amongst firms. When the ability to collude decreases then firms try to influence government policy. At times, corporations do succeed in doing so (say during the time of the robber barons or as you say Nehruvian India, maybe even today`s India). During such times, growth etc. may also increase (the Meiji restoration and the growth of the zaibatsus, the Korean experience, the 50s and early 60s in India and perhaps today`s China).

My point is that, if one were NOT to focus simply on growth BUT on competition and welfare then reducing the possibility of firm to firm or firm-govt. collusion becomes important. A POSSIBLE mechanism through which this can be achieved is democracy. Suppose we agree with this assumption. I think you do, because you mention the US govt`s propensity to go after the monopolies (by the way an interesting aside is that the Sherman Act was first used to break up labor monopolies - unions!). Now, democracy can be used by all citizens - 18 year old mothers as well as drug addicts. And a majority of the citizens act as watchdogs. So far fine.

Saima is raising a red flag and cautioning us. She claims, and I am sympathetic, that the corporations are now getting to the citizens themselves through the media and such. The slogan is ``Corporations are good for competition, ...Corporations are good for growth.... end of discussion``. It is the ``end of discussion`` which is bothersome. How is growth just by itself good? To make my case, let me give an extreme example. One can achieve maximum growth by investing all present income (say in the neo-classical growth model). But with zero consumption - we have minimum welfare (as utility is assumed to depend only on consumption)!

Let us not forget yesterday`s Soviet Union or maybe today`s China. Saima`s point is further buttressed by the fact that today`s media is obsessed with growth and not welfare. Even in Chowk, growth figures are touted around as if that was the end of everything. Make no mistake, the strategy works because such messages are also accepted by people without much questioning. At least the set of people who benifit from such growth. It is here that the 18 year old mother and the drug addict become important. If their voice is not heard then a system which works fine for us can collapse. BECAUSE of democracy. Keynes, Roosvelt, Arrow, Sen, Nixon, Kennedy etc. were aware of this......so is perhaps Manmohan Singh and the Indian polity. But is Bush aware, are the US elites aware? If not, then I believe that they will be soon.

GT.

correction to #124:

To Romair:

Canadain provinces do have governors or Lt. Governors, but they are appointed, not elected.

Romair:

There are admittedly differences in the multiculturalism of Canada and diversity in the U.S. In Canada, it is a state policy to support multiculturalism and a multiculturalism act was passed, surprisingly, by a Tory government. In the US, it is left to the communities themselves as to whether or not they want to preserve their unique identities and most of these communities are preserving those identities to varying extent.

The big difference though is at the political level. Visible minorities in Canada, especially South Asians, and especially Sikhs have mastered the art of political nominations and influence. They have realised that all one has to do to get nominated as a party candidate is to sell a few hundred party memberships and pack the meeting where the candidate is to be elected. The result is that we have some very incompetent visible minority members in the Parliament who are no credit either to the community or to their constituents.

BTW, Canadian States have premiers, not governors, and the wife of the health minister is not an M.P.

GT#110:

That producers want to create monopolies is not a new phenomenon. Adam Smith said that when owners of companies meet, all they want to discuss is how to raise prices. The US system is quite alert to this fact. In my view, Americans are pro-capitalism but deeply suspicious of individual capitalists. Indians practically worship Tatas, Birlas, Azimji and Ambanis while Bill Gate has to constantly battle the anti-trust department, the sole purpose of whose existence is to check monopolies. One can debate whether or not it has always been successful in doing so but cannot dispute its powers. It broke the powerful Telephone monopoly and almost broke up IBM and Microsoft.

Re: # 110

Thanks GT.

Corporations are not motivated by altruism but by profit maximization therefore, the goal is to become monoplies--the corporation defends against competition. It uses all and every means to do that--from prices, to innovation in products to advertizing to ``capture the market``. Consumer surplus is a happy outcome of competition. However economic models at present do not capture the waste in resources from the needless production of goods. Corporations therefore flood markets persuading the consumer to buy. The original theory was that profits will reduce to 0 over time in a completely free market. However a corporation would rather that never happened. Therefore it seeks alternatives from cheap labour to ``innovative`` production methods to compromises in quality to achieve its ends--that are not necessarily quite what consumers may want. However, consumers have limited power to influence a corporation. Shareholders and consumers of the corporation are different entities. Consumer power in the current form of the corporation is dependent on successful information dissemination only. Enter media. Enter Corporate PR. Enter disinformation.

`` But when the lion’s share of the big house, and the big car goes to a finance company, and all the nice things have a higher price than what you paid, Americans feel the terrible trap of consumer debt. ``

I do not own a cellphone. I do not pay for Cable TV. I try to minimize eating outside. I drink rarely @ Starbucks. I rent an apartment when I lived in California. I do not have any debt.

`` The American dream of liberty turned into an American nightmare of debt. With falling or static incomes, debt is a nasty thing to have. ``

very true

`` The American nation created amazing Universities that Americans don’t have the money or time to attend anymore. An American’s life is a graph of lifetime earnings in which education is a terrible expense that reduces credit worthiness. ``

That is a mistake made by individuals

Re: # 114

The American melting pot is quite different from the Canadian mosaic. Each has its pluses and minuses. I agree that the Canadian mosaic is more advanced in its understanding and adjustment to immigration than America.