7 ms·

It is a very superficial, stereotyped statement (not any worse than those about Aussies, I guess), and people were obviously doing things other than laborers, g

It is a very superficial, stereotyped statement (not any worse than those about Aussies, I guess), and people were obviously doing things other than laborers, government workers, and homemakers. However, the BPO era has added a significant number of jobs of questionable worth and the statement does talk of a real sociological phenomenon.

hzay 15y ago
>It is a very superficial, stereotyped statement (not any worse than those about Aussies, I guess), and people were obviously doing things other than laborers, government workers, and homemakers. Yes. There were several statements that were plain false, and I picked that one because I had proof-of-falsehood. >However, the BPO era has added a significant number of jobs of questionable worth and the statement does talk of a real sociological phenomenon. I think it is entirely possible to write about this phenomenon without having to stretch the truth. EDIT: I just realized that the article doesn't really say anything about Aussies.
- rue 15y ago
  One anecdote certainly isn't “proof-of-falsehood”, be the veracity of the original statement what it may.
  - hzay 15y ago
    I meant proof-of-falsehood for myself. That is, I knew vaguely that a lot of things that were written in that article were not quite true, but I didn't have facts that showed them to be false, except for the quote in my original post. I didn't write all the facts I had against that because I felt that, if you do not believe my anecdote, offering more than one doesn't strengthen my case, and if you choose to believe it, I needn't offer more than one story.
- baltcode 15y ago
  The author/narrator didn't say anything about Aussies, the BPO trainer did.
wisty 15y ago
>> Men might have ..., and even the most ambitions women often ... So it doesn't really say anything for certain. It does bring up the common stereotypes of traditional Indian women being forced to stay home, and India's economy being two speeds - the wealthy Fabian socialist government, and poor labor-intensive private sector. BPO does add to the private sector, and bring in some easy money (as long as India stays poor). There are other elements of the private sector, such as software engineering companies, automobile manufacturing (Tato), and so on; and India's domestic demand (which is partly fueled by BPO) drives these. I doubt BPO can really poison India's economy, the way tourist dollars can deskill some places. BPO is too small, and India's too big.

hzay 15y ago

>It is a very superficial, stereotyped statement (not any worse than those about Aussies, I guess), and people were obviously doing things other than laborers, government workers, and homemakers. Yes. There were several statements that were plain false, and I picked that one because I had proof-of-falsehood. >However, the BPO era has added a significant number of jobs of questionable worth and the statement does talk of a real sociological phenomenon. I think it is entirely possible to write about this phenomenon without having to stretch the truth. EDIT: I just realized that the article doesn't really say anything about Aussies.

rue 15y ago
One anecdote certainly isn't “proof-of-falsehood”, be the veracity of the original statement what it may.
- hzay 15y ago
  I meant proof-of-falsehood for myself. That is, I knew vaguely that a lot of things that were written in that article were not quite true, but I didn't have facts that showed them to be false, except for the quote in my original post. I didn't write all the facts I had against that because I felt that, if you do not believe my anecdote, offering more than one doesn't strengthen my case, and if you choose to believe it, I needn't offer more than one story.
baltcode 15y ago
The author/narrator didn't say anything about Aussies, the BPO trainer did.

wisty 15y ago

>> Men might have ..., and even the most ambitions women often ... So it doesn't really say anything for certain. It does bring up the common stereotypes of traditional Indian women being forced to stay home, and India's economy being two speeds - the wealthy Fabian socialist government, and poor labor-intensive private sector. BPO does add to the private sector, and bring in some easy money (as long as India stays poor). There are other elements of the private sector, such as software engineering companies, automobile manufacturing (Tato), and so on; and India's domestic demand (which is partly fueled by BPO) drives these. I doubt BPO can really poison India's economy, the way tourist dollars can deskill some places. BPO is too small, and India's too big.