L’articolo ripubblicato da Community of Minds e apparso originalmente su The Guardian comincia bellicosamente:
“If you live in a rich nation in the English-speaking world, and most of your work involves a computer or a telephone, don’t expect to have a job in five years’ time. Almost every large company which relies upon remote transactions is starting to dump its workers and hire a cheaper labor force overseas.”
Gli impieghi nei servizi, quelli che dovevano compensare la perdita di impieghi nella produzione, vengono esportati in India dove costano un decimo rispetto a Stati Uniti o Inghilterra. E una società di supporto tecnico di Bangalore che cercava 800 addetti ha potuto scegliere tra 87.000 richieste di impiego.
Alcune società di consulenza predicono che l’inghilterra nei prossimi cinque anni perderà almeno 30.000 impieghi dirigenziali nei settori finanziari e assicurativi, tutti a favore dell’India. Gli stati Uniti prevedono di perdere 3,3 milioni di colletti bianchi da ora al 2015, la maggior parte a favore dell’India.
In tutto ciò l’articolo vede in azione una ironica legge del contrappasso:
“Britain’s industrialization was secured by destroying the manufacturing capacity of India. In 1699, the British government banned the import of woolen cloth from Ireland, and in 1700 the import of cotton cloth (or calico) from India. Both products were forbidden because they were superior to our own. As the industrial revolution was built on the textiles industry, we could not have achieved our global economic dominance if we had let them in. Throughout the late 18th and 19th centuries, India was forced to supply raw materials to Britain’s manufacturers, but forbidden to produce competing finished products. We are rich because the Indians are poor.”