People and Other Commodities 2: The Depersonalized Economy

"Have you heard? The government doesn't like the Kyoto Protocol because it was made in Japan, and they want something that's "made in Canada". Funny- we can buy products from halfway around the world, but there can be no global answer to global warming."- a Montreal Paul, "Have You Heard?"

A couple of months ago I was having technical problems with my computer, so I called the technical support line. When I got through to someone, I had tremendous difficulties communicating with him at first. Then it dawned on me- Indian accent- I'm probably talking to someone in India! You know, one of those outsourced Indian technical support call centres that are all the rage in the global economy. Well, why not? Many if not most of the componants of my computer are made in China:

La la la la la la la la lala la

It's all made in China

La la la la la la la la lala la

They must be rich in China...

A couple of years ago my brother, having just completed training to work in technical support, had the rug pulled out from under him when outsourcing became the "in" thing for companies to do. What could he do? Emigrate to India? He went back to the drawing board.

On the other hand, I suppose outsourcing has been good news to the Indians who have the requiredbackground and expertise- they've got jobs, and while they're paid a fraction of what people would be paid here, it's still much more than most other people in India would be making. Whether on balance this is the solution to India's problems with poverty is less clear. How does this helpthe impoverished farmers in the countryside? Will they all have to migrate to the cities to find any kind of opportunity?

In the end, such issues are of little concern to the people and corporations who are behind outsourcing and other wonders of "globalization". They're just into safeguarding their own positions in the economic system, which is so depersonalized that it is easy for all of usto deny responsibility for the consequences of our economic decisions. In fact, it takes real effort to take responsibility. This, I suspect, is a strongly seductive aspect of this system. You don't have to take responsibility, and should twinges of concern lead you in the direction of doing so, the system actually discourages you from going too far in that direction. In this system, the lives of most people are incidental- the bottom line is the bottom line- or more accurately, the bottomline is what allows the people in charge of companies to accumulate more and more wealth and power.

People say that capitalist globalization is efficient. It is efficient at seeing to the "bottom line" as defined above, but not when it comes to assuring a good quality of life for most people. In fact, it often seems to be making more and more demands of people- worklonger hours to be worthy of decent pay! Factor in these human costs, and then factor in the costs to the environment, and it doesn't look so efficient after all.

It seems strange that so many of our products must now be transported long distances- across giant oceans, across continents- at tremendous cost (especially to the environment). But it's profitable for the right people, so it's "more efficient" than making products more locally.

Once we consider definitions of "efficiency" beyond "that which most efficiently produces private profit',we may see things differantly. If we think in terms of quality of life, rather than just maximizing economic activity (which is what "economic growth" means), we might want to consider what sort of economic relations would be most to our common advantage. We might want to have them on a more human level, a more personal level.

I guess that over time, we shall see if we're still capable of thinking in such terms.