RBC replaces Canadian staff with foreign workers

[GostHacked]

Right - so you're in favour of trade theoretically but not in favour of any trade agreements that have happened.

Excuse me for being cynical about your support for trade, then.

Cynical is the wrong word. Skeptical would be the proper word to use.

I have told you exactly where I stand and what I want in fair trade. You keep twisting it and asking the same question over and over again to 'clarify' my position.

What would support my argument is looking at the trade deficits we have with the countries we trade with. Or we can look at the total trade deficit.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/balance-of-trade

Graph shows overall increasing trade deficit since 2001 to 2012.

Exports in Canada decreased to 38515 Million CAD in February of 2013 from 38730 Million CAD in January of 2013. Exports in Canada is reported by the STCA - Statistics Canada.

Imports in Canada increased to 39532 Million CAD in February of 2013 from 39476 Million CAD in January of 2013. Imports in Canada is reported by the STCA - Statistics Canada.

Mike, if you can prove to me that there is a benefit to sending jobs overseas while those who lost their job may never find a job with the same pay grade again in that field while there is no return of jobs coming here, please let me know.

[Michael Hardner]

Cynical is the wrong word. Skeptical would be the proper word to use

I have told you exactly where I stand and what I want in fair trade. You keep twisting it and asking the same question over and over again to 'clarify' my position.

Yes, I know where you stand and I don't think it's twisting it for me to say you support a form of trade that doesn't exist.

What would support my argument is looking at the trade deficits we have with the countries we trade with. Or we can look at the total trade deficit.

Yes and no - if you can show that we would have a trade surplus today in a world with liberalized trade had we NOT liberalized our trade agreements, then I would buy into your argument.

Mike, if you can prove to me that there is a benefit to sending jobs overseas while those who lost their job may never find a job with the same pay grade again in that field while there is no return of jobs coming here, please let me know.

You're basically challenging economic theory here. I'll just reiterate again: the idea is that two countries will engage in a trade agreement for overall mutual benefit. Each country will succeed in the areas in which they have a comparative advantage, but the overall benefit will be better for all.

Here's an extreme example that's not rooted in reality but will perhaps help you with the theory. Again, this is basic economics - I'm not an economist and if you're going to challenge the theory itself (as you appear to be doing) then you need to discuss with someone else.

Let's say Canada trades with a tropical country but we have tariffs on organges, and they have tariffs on maple syrup. In order to grow oranges, we have huge greenhouses that are expensive to run in Canada's climate. Likewise, the tropical country has to import and plant maple trees which are poorly suited to their soil and climate.

Oranges are hugely expensive here, and maple syrup is expensive there. By engaging in a trade agreement, they will buy our maple syrup and we will buy their oranges. The price of oranges in Canada goes down, as does the price of maple syrup in that country. Consumers save money, the maple syrup industry makes more money and each country benefits overall.

However - by your definition this is not fair trade, as we have 'shipped jobs' overseas by sending our orange producing jobs south. (This may sound ridiculous, but something similar has happened with wine over the past few decades. )

Anyway, GH, that's the theory. If you're going to challenge it, or go on a tangent about the theory of trade I'm not the one to help you.

[GostHacked]

Let's say Canada trades with a tropical country but we have tariffs on organges, and they have tariffs on maple syrup. In order to grow oranges, we have huge greenhouses that are expensive to run in Canada's climate. Likewise, the tropical country has to import and plant maple trees which are poorly suited to their soil and climate.

Oranges are hugely expensive here, and maple syrup is expensive there. By engaging in a trade agreement, they will buy our maple syrup and we will buy their oranges. The price of oranges in Canada goes down, as does the price of maple syrup in that country. Consumers save money, the maple syrup industry makes more money and each country benefits overall.

However - by your definition this is not fair trade, as we have 'shipped jobs' overseas by sending our orange producing jobs south. (This may sound ridiculous, but something similar has happened with wine over the past few decades.

Actually, thanks Mike !!!! This is more an example of fair trade. Meaning we get something of equal value back (price+oranges) as what we export (price+maple syrup). The jobs are not being shipped anywhere, product is.

Could it possibly be due to Canada's climate that we cannot grow oranges on the scale that a country in warmer climates can produce? This is why we do this?

The case with RBC is that there is nothing coming back to Canada with these jobs sent offshore.

Anyway, GH, that's the theory. If you're going to challenge it, or go on a tangent about the theory of trade I'm not the one to help you.

Well you are the one who brought up the trade thing in the first place, so I am actually challenging you on that. So maybe don't go into tangents and blame others.

[Canuckistani]

No you are wrong. No one here said they are against trade. People are against getting shafted with trade deals that do not reciprocate as much coming in as it does going out, resulting in a net loss for Canada.

In any trade deal, there will be winners and losers in Canada as regards the deal. If the winners outnumber the losers we should go for it, but the winners should have to contribute part of their winnings to help turn the losers into winners as well.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, thanks Mike !!!! This is more an example of fair trade. Meaning we get something of equal value back (price+oranges) as what we export (price+maple syrup). The jobs are not being shipped anywhere, product is.

Your previous definition fails, because the orange industry jobs have gone.

[Bonam]

Your previous definition fails, because the orange industry jobs have gone.

But other jobs were created. What new jobs is RBC creating in Canada as a result of replacing its current employees with temporary foreign workers? You keep trying to change the topic to general outsourcing, which it is not.

You're basically challenging economic theory here.

Theories exist to be challenged. If there is any science behind them in the first place. That's how science works, someone comes up with a theory that explains some phenomenon and makes some predictions. Than as new evidence is gathered, it can serve either to reinforce the theory or to falsify it. For all your usual bluster about needing statistics and references, you have not provided any in this thread. Rather, your tone has been... " YOU DARE TO QUESTION ECONOMIC GOSPEL???!" This tone is not productive and does not contribute to good debate, and, frankly, I would expect more from our forum facilitator.

I'll just reiterate again: the idea is that two countries will engage in a trade agreement for overall mutual benefit.

Yes, that is the idea. When one of the countries is no longer benefiting, it should re-evaluate its policies. Do you have any evidence to suggest that replacing bank workers with temporary foreign workers is a net benefit to Canada? By the way, which trade agreement requires Canada to open its doors to its workers being replaced, in Canada, with temporary foreign workers from India? What's that? None? Then why steer the thread on more tangents about trade agreements? Do you want to even address this issue? Or does this topic because of its emotional impact due to your past make you degenerate into an August-like repetition of meaningless slogans like "YOU DARE QUESTION THE THEORY?!?!"

Come on Michael, pick up your game a bit.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Bonam

[Canuckistani]

Workers have nothing to do with free trade anyway - we have no free movement of labor agreements the way Europe does, say.

We also don't have free trade with any Asian nation I'm aware of. We have it with the US and Mexico. Even that has restrictions, it's not totally free. Certainly a bad idea to have free trade with China. Even worse to have free movement of labor.

[Bonam]

Workers have nothing to do with free trade anyway - we have no free movement of labor agreements the way Europe does, say.

We also don't have free trade with any Asian nation I'm aware of.

Which makes it peculiar why MH is constantly talking about trade agreements.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Bonam

[Canuckistani]

He just seems delighted by the whole concept of competitive advantage. That we'll find our little niche to exploit and do just fine. If you're compteting with countries with no labor or environmental regulations, you're never going to have the advantage, so I guess our only niche would be back selling resources cheap, importing the goods that are produced from them at a markup. That's a ponzi scheme.

[Michael Hardner]

But other jobs were created. What new jobs is RBC creating in Canada as a result of replacing its current employees with temporary foreign workers? You keep trying to change the topic to general outsourcing, which it is not.

Are you talking about our trade situation with India ? I don't know specifically - maybe resource industry jobs, anything that we export to those countries.

Theories exist to be challenged.

So challenge it. This is the first time I've laid it out. I didn't say it couldn't be challenged.

This tone is not productive and does not contribute to good debate, and, frankly, I would expect more from our forum facilitator.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I can't defend basic economic theory - but from your response above it seems that you yourself see the correctness inherent in the theory.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm just telling you how trade liberalization works according to theory. Jobs are lost - that's a fact. If you don't ever want to lose a single job, then global trade is too rough a game for you.

But I'm just telling you this based. Don't shoot the messenger.

[Bonam]

Are you talking about our trade situation with India ? I don't know specifically - maybe resource industry jobs, anything that we export to those countries.

You keep saying the job losses are worth it because that's part of trade agreements which are net beneficial to us. But there is a problem with this argument:

1) No trade agreement requires us to allow the replacement of Canadian employees with temporary foreign workers, in Canada

2) No net benefit from said practice was ever demonstrated, or even attempted to be demonstrated

Your whole point in this thread, that you've repeated multiple times, is that "trade agreements" are beneficial according to "economic theory". That may or may not be the case, but has nothing to do with the practices being discussed here.

[Canuckistani]

He had to lose his career, why shouldn't everybody else too. It's beneficial. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

[Michael Hardner]

You keep saying the job losses are worth it because that's part of trade agreements which are net beneficial to us. But there is a problem with this argument:

1) No trade agreement requires us to allow the replacement of Canadian employees with temporary foreign workers, in Canada

2) No net benefit from said practice was ever demonstrated, or even attempted to be demonstrated

1) It seems that some of them do, yes.

2) The balance of trade with India is sometimes positive, sometimes negative in recent years

Your whole point in this thread, that you've repeated multiple times, is that "trade agreements" are beneficial according to "economic theory". That may or may not be the case, but has nothing to do with the practices being discussed here.

The question here is whether something illegal happened or not - and I concur that that is the case.

How we got from the specific to the general is: people on the thread make blanket claims that foreign trade is bad because Canada loses jobs (also ignoring TimG's point that Canada also exports some services). From that, I started asking specific posters what constitutes an acceptable trade deal.

And that's how we got here.

[Michael Hardner]

He had to lose his career, why shouldn't everybody else too. It's beneficial. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

Who was the person on this thread that said I had my position because I wasn't affected by the situation ?

Don't be so concerned with my motivations - I'm sure you have motivations too.

[Bonam]

1) It seems that some of them do, yes.

Cite?

[carepov]

This is a pretty good discussion so far, there many good comments...

If we are a "global village" then shouldn't we be happy for our less fortunate citizens that are getting better jobs and improving their lives whether it's through outsourcing or the foreign worker program? Why is the quality of life of a Canadian more important than the quality of life of a non-Canadian?

Edited April 11, 2013 by carepov

[Bonam]

This is a pretty good discussion so far, there many good comments...

If we are a "global village" then shouldn't we be happy for our less fortunate citizens that are getting better jobs and improving their lives whether it's through outsourcing or the foreign worker program? Why is the quality of life of a Canadian more important than the quality of life than a non-Canadian?

Because we're not a "global village".

[Michael Hardner]

Cite?

I'm wrong here - I thought that HD Mining was bringing in Chinese workers as part of a pending trade agreement, but I'm wrong.

This is a domestic program enabling business to bring foreign workers here, I stand corrected.

[Michael Hardner]

This is a pretty good discussion so far, there many good comments...

If we are a "global village" then shouldn't we be happy for our less fortunate citizens that are getting better jobs and improving their lives whether it's through outsourcing or the foreign worker program? Why is the quality of life of a Canadian more important than the quality of life than a non-Canadian?

It's kind of a paradox - those who ostensibly dislike foreigners, foreign aid and the UN support heartless policies that do more for foreigners than they know... or would like to know, I suppose.

[carepov]

Because we're not a "global village".

If you say so. But still: Why is the quality of life of a Canadian more important than the quality of life of a non-Canadian?

[Bonam]

If you say so. But still: Why is the quality of life of a Canadian more important than the quality of life of a non-Canadian?

It is not inherently more important on a philosophical level, but it should be more important to the people making policy decisions for Canada. Nations should consider the security and prosperity of their own people first and foremost. If our government's goal was to give away Canada's wealth and bring up the world's average "quality of life" until the two equaled out, we'd be living in third world conditions pretty damn fast, and that is not something I want, nor I imagine do most other Canadians want that.

Some level of funding can and perhaps should be spent to help others, but if that is the recognized goal, then it should be classified and explained as such, rather than trying to pretend that something is a mutually beneficial trade agreement.

[kimmy]

If you say so. But still: Why is the quality of life of a Canadian more important than the quality of life of a non-Canadian?

If a Canadian gets that job, he starts paying taxes and stops claiming EI or whatever. He starts buying goods and services and some of the money he's earning will spin off to the benefit of other Canadians.

All other things being equal, it's simply better for me if that work is being done in Canada. Selfish, maybe, but "rational self interest" is a primary tenet of those who are advocating on behalf of the outsourcers in the first place.

-k

[TimG]

The only reason RIM is still a going concern today is because it has strong sales in places like India that compensated for its loses in the developed markets. If RIM was not able to sell phones into India to the middle class creating by the outsourcing boom then there is a good chance that all of those Canadian jobs at RIM would be gone today.

Trade benefits are never direct. It is wrong to focus on one example where Canada appears to be losing and declare that trade is bad or that Canada does not get any reciprocal benefit.

Edited April 11, 2013 by TimG

[Canuckistani]

1) It seems that some of them do, yes.

2) The balance of trade with India is sometimes positive, sometimes negative in recent years

The question here is whether something illegal happened or not - and I concur that that is the case.

How we got from the specific to the general is: people on the thread make blanket claims that foreign trade is bad because Canada loses jobs (also ignoring TimG's point that Canada also exports some services). From that, I started asking specific posters what constitutes an acceptable trade deal.

And that's how we got here.

Can you please point to one trade agreement we have with any nation that obligates us to let in anybody to work in Canada? I think you're very much mistaken here.