421–424 of 424 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean? Unless you are living paycheck to paycheck stock is just as real as cash.
Or almost paycheck to paycheck, which is not as uncommon as one may think. And normally stock come with restrictions on when you can liquidate. This is basically money I don't have now and a promise in the future that may very well go wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's only hard to argue they aren't helping out Canadian companies' shareholders. Other Canadians' lives don't get better in obvious ways when yuppies move into the neighborhood.
I think, in the long term, their lives would get better. Their country would end up with more resources at their disposal, which (if we look at the countries around the world) seems fairly well correlated with quality of life of the inhabitants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, it sounds like the complainers about "cheap labor" are entitled brats living way beyond their means. sauce for the goose==sauce for the gander
"entitled brats" in this case being people who don't want to live in third-world conditions. These other countries are free to try and improve their conditions. Trying to drag us down to their level is pathetic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would salaries go up that much when you can just hire people directly in Romania or wherever? I think you are failing to grasp that this is a global market for talent. Sure, being local helps some, but if the disparity is too great, companies will move. Also, there is not a fixed lump of labor to go around.
I can grasp the concepts just fine. Being local helps immensely. The disparities are correspondingly immense. More so when you consider the high unemployment rates in developing countries. Also there needs to be sufficient talent available across all roles needed, to completely move the company to a new location. As opposed to just a lot at the low end of skills. The cost and other downsides of that move would also b…