Friday, February 06, 2004
The "Literal" Society
A recent blurb on News of the Weird:
In December, for example, the Bossier Parish, La., school board voted to uphold the year-long expulsion of a 10th-grade girl for "drug" possession, specifically an Advil tablet. And in January, a Rio Rancho, N.M., middle school student was drug-suspended for five days for possession of a Gas-X tablet.
For a society that is as individualistic as the United States, I'm always surprised how literally we apply our nation's laws. Obviously, the "zero tolerance" policies weren't intended to suspend kids for having tablets of Advil. However, that is way the RULE was written, and we will apply the law LITERALLY as if it was they were the word of god sent down on stone tablets.
When I returned from a Christmas vacation with my family a month ago, I got held up at the Dallas check-in for American airlines because the RULES stated that if I didn't hold a European passport, didn't have a return ticket back to America, and lacked a work visa, they couldn't let me on board. The problem, of course, is that you don't NEED a work visa to work at the UN. So, I don't have one.
Now, I've flown back and forth to Europe for years, and I knew for a FACT that Switzerland barely registered that I even entered the country, much less required me to have a work permit. Yet, the hysterical ticket agent was of the opinion that she would be fined 10,000 dollars (as the rule states) if she were to let me on board the plane because the RULES CLEARLY STATE that I needed a work permit.
Perhaps our literal approach is a result of our hyper-litiginous culture. Americans are bound to hew close to the literal interpretation of the law when roving bands of lawyers make the penalty for failing to apply the law literally particularly high. Similarly, there is the whole christian fundamentalist movement which is of the opinion that a 2000+ year old document should be taken LITERALLY as a guide for modern day life. Once the habit is formed in one part of your life, it's hard to change it in others.
I'm not sure what it is. But when I see kids getting expelled from school because they had some Advil in their backpack, you start to wonder why someone doesn't rediscover that lost font of eternal wisdom: Common Sense. You don't HAVE to apply laws literally when the outcome is stupid. Of course, if people start to think that way, judges would outright refuse to apply mandatory minimum drug sentences to college kids whose lives will be destroyed by them.
Oh, what a horrible world that would be.
A recent blurb on News of the Weird:
In December, for example, the Bossier Parish, La., school board voted to uphold the year-long expulsion of a 10th-grade girl for "drug" possession, specifically an Advil tablet. And in January, a Rio Rancho, N.M., middle school student was drug-suspended for five days for possession of a Gas-X tablet.
For a society that is as individualistic as the United States, I'm always surprised how literally we apply our nation's laws. Obviously, the "zero tolerance" policies weren't intended to suspend kids for having tablets of Advil. However, that is way the RULE was written, and we will apply the law LITERALLY as if it was they were the word of god sent down on stone tablets.
When I returned from a Christmas vacation with my family a month ago, I got held up at the Dallas check-in for American airlines because the RULES stated that if I didn't hold a European passport, didn't have a return ticket back to America, and lacked a work visa, they couldn't let me on board. The problem, of course, is that you don't NEED a work visa to work at the UN. So, I don't have one.
Now, I've flown back and forth to Europe for years, and I knew for a FACT that Switzerland barely registered that I even entered the country, much less required me to have a work permit. Yet, the hysterical ticket agent was of the opinion that she would be fined 10,000 dollars (as the rule states) if she were to let me on board the plane because the RULES CLEARLY STATE that I needed a work permit.
Perhaps our literal approach is a result of our hyper-litiginous culture. Americans are bound to hew close to the literal interpretation of the law when roving bands of lawyers make the penalty for failing to apply the law literally particularly high. Similarly, there is the whole christian fundamentalist movement which is of the opinion that a 2000+ year old document should be taken LITERALLY as a guide for modern day life. Once the habit is formed in one part of your life, it's hard to change it in others.
I'm not sure what it is. But when I see kids getting expelled from school because they had some Advil in their backpack, you start to wonder why someone doesn't rediscover that lost font of eternal wisdom: Common Sense. You don't HAVE to apply laws literally when the outcome is stupid. Of course, if people start to think that way, judges would outright refuse to apply mandatory minimum drug sentences to college kids whose lives will be destroyed by them.
Oh, what a horrible world that would be.
The fight is boosting the Democratic party's election chances
I've thought this for awhile, and this article merely confirms it. Of course, things didn't have to go that way. The negative attacks mostly went against Dean and Gephardt back when they were presumed to be the front runners. The attacks so hobbled both campaigns that none of the remaining candidates are doing it, leaving Kerry and Edward to fire mild attacks on each other while focusing most of their energies on Bush.
I do wish Kerry would be more consistently pro-trade in his statements, but then again, Clinton struck a populist tone during the fight against Bush Sr., and he turned out to be one of the most pro-trade presidents we've had in awhile. I guess I have to count on the fact that Kerry's voting record in the Senate points to someone who understands the importance of free trade. Yes, he has been muttering something about labor and environmental standards in trade agreements, but he ALSO notes in an explanation of the "protectionist" label applied to Howard Dean:
Yes, it is fair, because Gov. Dean has said very specifically that we should not trade with countries until they have labor and environment standards that are equal to the US. That means we would trade with no countries. It is a policy for shutting the door. It's either a policy for shutting the door, if you believe it, or it's a policy of just telling people what they want to hear.
That's very insightful, and points to someone who realizes that growth in developing nations is important in its own right (and good for America).
I've thought this for awhile, and this article merely confirms it. Of course, things didn't have to go that way. The negative attacks mostly went against Dean and Gephardt back when they were presumed to be the front runners. The attacks so hobbled both campaigns that none of the remaining candidates are doing it, leaving Kerry and Edward to fire mild attacks on each other while focusing most of their energies on Bush.
I do wish Kerry would be more consistently pro-trade in his statements, but then again, Clinton struck a populist tone during the fight against Bush Sr., and he turned out to be one of the most pro-trade presidents we've had in awhile. I guess I have to count on the fact that Kerry's voting record in the Senate points to someone who understands the importance of free trade. Yes, he has been muttering something about labor and environmental standards in trade agreements, but he ALSO notes in an explanation of the "protectionist" label applied to Howard Dean:
Yes, it is fair, because Gov. Dean has said very specifically that we should not trade with countries until they have labor and environment standards that are equal to the US. That means we would trade with no countries. It is a policy for shutting the door. It's either a policy for shutting the door, if you believe it, or it's a policy of just telling people what they want to hear.
That's very insightful, and points to someone who realizes that growth in developing nations is important in its own right (and good for America).
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
The trials and tribulations of a failed dictator
This article on North Korea got me thinking about its "dear leader," Kim Jong Il.
What does he think when he looks at himself in the mirror? Normally, people like to think they are doing what they do well. When I write a program, I want it to be a GOOD program. When I write an article, I want it to be a GOOD article.
Kim Jong Il, however, presides over a regime where a large percentage of the population is starving. His people are at LESS than subsistence, and even worse, their mirror image in the South (where per capita GDP is half that of the United States) shows that SOMEONE made a bad a wrong turn on the way to a prosperous economic future.
He spends most of the nation's money (what little there is) on a military whose only purpose is to keep him in power. They certainly don't exist to defend a system of government that is demonstrably better than alternatives.
I can't imagine being so selfish that I would prefer to enslave 10s of millions of people in order to avoid having to release my hold on power. Yes, he might face some pretty serious consequences if he were to step down, as I don't think his people would think their dear leader was quite so dear anymore when they are free to voice what they REALLY think of him. Even so, is it really better to enslave millions in order that one guy can avoid having to face the consequences? Heck, I couldn't live with myself knowing I was doing that.
I guess that's why I'm not the North Korean dictator.
This article on North Korea got me thinking about its "dear leader," Kim Jong Il.
What does he think when he looks at himself in the mirror? Normally, people like to think they are doing what they do well. When I write a program, I want it to be a GOOD program. When I write an article, I want it to be a GOOD article.
Kim Jong Il, however, presides over a regime where a large percentage of the population is starving. His people are at LESS than subsistence, and even worse, their mirror image in the South (where per capita GDP is half that of the United States) shows that SOMEONE made a bad a wrong turn on the way to a prosperous economic future.
He spends most of the nation's money (what little there is) on a military whose only purpose is to keep him in power. They certainly don't exist to defend a system of government that is demonstrably better than alternatives.
I can't imagine being so selfish that I would prefer to enslave 10s of millions of people in order to avoid having to release my hold on power. Yes, he might face some pretty serious consequences if he were to step down, as I don't think his people would think their dear leader was quite so dear anymore when they are free to voice what they REALLY think of him. Even so, is it really better to enslave millions in order that one guy can avoid having to face the consequences? Heck, I couldn't live with myself knowing I was doing that.
I guess that's why I'm not the North Korean dictator.
Kerry and Explosions
Kerry's explosive progress in the democratic primaries is surprising. I remember thinking he was crazy to lend his campaign 8 million shortly before the Iowa caucuses. He seemed to have no chance against Howard Dean. I guess 20 years in the Senate, watching for a chance to run for president, showed him that you can't go on polls before the caucus in Iowa as basis for whether or not you are likely to win the nomination.
Anyway, I'm still surprised that Kerry is doing as well as he is. I CAN'T say yet that I would definitively vote for Kerry in a matchup between him and Bush. I can say definitively, though, that I would not have voted for Howard Dean. The fact that the Democratic party has decided to think with their head and field a credible candidate is encouraging.
Kerry's explosive progress in the democratic primaries is surprising. I remember thinking he was crazy to lend his campaign 8 million shortly before the Iowa caucuses. He seemed to have no chance against Howard Dean. I guess 20 years in the Senate, watching for a chance to run for president, showed him that you can't go on polls before the caucus in Iowa as basis for whether or not you are likely to win the nomination.
Anyway, I'm still surprised that Kerry is doing as well as he is. I CAN'T say yet that I would definitively vote for Kerry in a matchup between him and Bush. I can say definitively, though, that I would not have voted for Howard Dean. The fact that the Democratic party has decided to think with their head and field a credible candidate is encouraging.
Janet Jackson in the nude
Janet Jackson showed her bare breast on live national TV during the superbowl. Normally, I would just find that kind of funny. All the pictures seemed to indicate that she was surprised as everyone else. Ignoring for the moment whether or not it was truly an "accident" (rock stars get paid to be looked at and talked about, and there's no better way to do either than to get naked), the entire "episode" lasted for a split second, at least according to the news reports.
I didn't see the superbowl. I'm living in Switzerland. The game would be on in the middle of the night on a Sunday, the day before the start of the work week, and being the diligent and hard worker that I am, I just HAD to get my beauty sleep for that big important meeting in the morning. Or, if you don't like that excuse, I was busy saving Princess Kimberly in an all-night, and thoroughly macho, kung-fu fight with hoodlums from the Russian underworld. American guys aren't supposed to miss the superbowl for ANY reason.
The thing is, I haven't seen a superbowl since the Chicago Bears won in 1980-something (and even then I didn't watch the whole thing). I can't stand watching sports. I think I'd have a better time banging my head against the pipes in the bathroom than being forced to sit through a 2-hour football game (or basketball game, or soccer game, or...).
I have no idea why. When I first started my consulting career, someone recommended I read at least the front page of the Sports section every day so I could maintain interesting banter with my clients. I tried that, but discovered that reading the Sports page was like reading a book in high school you really didn't want to read. You end up getting through 4 or 5 paragraphs and realize you have no idea what any of them said. Not having a high threshold for boredom, I gave up and decided I'd just scare everybody with the weighty topics I tend to force everyone to talk about.
Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, naked breasts. Apparently, this was considered SCANDALOUS. LOTS of people called in the CBS offices to complain (I bet these are the same kinds of people who called to complain about that mythical gay Teletubby).
This makes no sense to me.
Perhaps my perspective is a bit warped from spending the last 4 1/2 years in Europe. If they think a half-second blast of Jackson boob is bad, they would be bowled over just walking by a newspaper stand in ANY city in Europe. Turn on the TV, and if your lucky, you MIGHT just catch a gratuitous shower nudity scene to advertise a shampoo product (your luck is higher if the channel happens to be Italian). My favorite was a washing machine ad (on an Italian channel) where the woman involved just HAD to wash every stitch of clothing she owned. Spend time on a European beach, and you will see acres of naked breasts.
Europeans grow up with nudity all around them, and yet somehow manage to create a society with low crime and low teenage pregnancy. Americans, by contrast, are OBSESSED with sex. MOST of the pornography in the world comes from American shores, which is a bit ironic for a nation terrified that naughty words and naked images might be broadcast to their radios and TV sets.
What really drives me nuts is the reason given for being so concerned: Superbowl is broadcast during typical "family hour," and KIDS are present. Janet Jackson should sell her half-second boob shot as a weapon of mass destruction. Set it off in an unsuspecting nation and blammo, a whole generation of children is spoiled rotten.
It's the same argument we use for continuing our utterly useless war on drugs. It would be a BAD EXAMPLE for kids if the government were to say it is okay for ADULTS to have legal access to drugs. Apparently, it is NOT a bad example for adults to have access to alcohol, a drug which leads to reckless driving and violence. Similarly, it's not a bad example to turn Columbia and Bolivia into nation state-sized versions of Al Capone's Chicago.
Adults aren't walking billboards spreading sanitized slogans for the good of children. The world of adults is complex, and kids, as people who someday will be a part of that world, will naturally want to learn about it. Unfiltered exposure would be just as harmful as extremes of denial. hiding it from them until they're old enough to leave the home, however, just leads to a bunch of neurotic adults.
A half-second boob shot SHOULD be funny. Unfortunately, our obsession with keeping our kids in the cultural equivalent of plastic bubbles makes us take everything too seriously.
Janet Jackson showed her bare breast on live national TV during the superbowl. Normally, I would just find that kind of funny. All the pictures seemed to indicate that she was surprised as everyone else. Ignoring for the moment whether or not it was truly an "accident" (rock stars get paid to be looked at and talked about, and there's no better way to do either than to get naked), the entire "episode" lasted for a split second, at least according to the news reports.
I didn't see the superbowl. I'm living in Switzerland. The game would be on in the middle of the night on a Sunday, the day before the start of the work week, and being the diligent and hard worker that I am, I just HAD to get my beauty sleep for that big important meeting in the morning. Or, if you don't like that excuse, I was busy saving Princess Kimberly in an all-night, and thoroughly macho, kung-fu fight with hoodlums from the Russian underworld. American guys aren't supposed to miss the superbowl for ANY reason.
The thing is, I haven't seen a superbowl since the Chicago Bears won in 1980-something (and even then I didn't watch the whole thing). I can't stand watching sports. I think I'd have a better time banging my head against the pipes in the bathroom than being forced to sit through a 2-hour football game (or basketball game, or soccer game, or...).
I have no idea why. When I first started my consulting career, someone recommended I read at least the front page of the Sports section every day so I could maintain interesting banter with my clients. I tried that, but discovered that reading the Sports page was like reading a book in high school you really didn't want to read. You end up getting through 4 or 5 paragraphs and realize you have no idea what any of them said. Not having a high threshold for boredom, I gave up and decided I'd just scare everybody with the weighty topics I tend to force everyone to talk about.
Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, naked breasts. Apparently, this was considered SCANDALOUS. LOTS of people called in the CBS offices to complain (I bet these are the same kinds of people who called to complain about that mythical gay Teletubby).
This makes no sense to me.
Perhaps my perspective is a bit warped from spending the last 4 1/2 years in Europe. If they think a half-second blast of Jackson boob is bad, they would be bowled over just walking by a newspaper stand in ANY city in Europe. Turn on the TV, and if your lucky, you MIGHT just catch a gratuitous shower nudity scene to advertise a shampoo product (your luck is higher if the channel happens to be Italian). My favorite was a washing machine ad (on an Italian channel) where the woman involved just HAD to wash every stitch of clothing she owned. Spend time on a European beach, and you will see acres of naked breasts.
Europeans grow up with nudity all around them, and yet somehow manage to create a society with low crime and low teenage pregnancy. Americans, by contrast, are OBSESSED with sex. MOST of the pornography in the world comes from American shores, which is a bit ironic for a nation terrified that naughty words and naked images might be broadcast to their radios and TV sets.
What really drives me nuts is the reason given for being so concerned: Superbowl is broadcast during typical "family hour," and KIDS are present. Janet Jackson should sell her half-second boob shot as a weapon of mass destruction. Set it off in an unsuspecting nation and blammo, a whole generation of children is spoiled rotten.
It's the same argument we use for continuing our utterly useless war on drugs. It would be a BAD EXAMPLE for kids if the government were to say it is okay for ADULTS to have legal access to drugs. Apparently, it is NOT a bad example for adults to have access to alcohol, a drug which leads to reckless driving and violence. Similarly, it's not a bad example to turn Columbia and Bolivia into nation state-sized versions of Al Capone's Chicago.
Adults aren't walking billboards spreading sanitized slogans for the good of children. The world of adults is complex, and kids, as people who someday will be a part of that world, will naturally want to learn about it. Unfiltered exposure would be just as harmful as extremes of denial. hiding it from them until they're old enough to leave the home, however, just leads to a bunch of neurotic adults.
A half-second boob shot SHOULD be funny. Unfortunately, our obsession with keeping our kids in the cultural equivalent of plastic bubbles makes us take everything too seriously.
Monday, February 02, 2004
A post from ZDNet
I liked how this came out, as it puts into words some of the reasons why I think it's a good idea to remain open to competition with foreign countries.
Yes, India does provide a bunch of tax incentives to set up facilities in India. It shouldn't surprise anyone, as they are a DEVELOPING nation. That means they are much poorer than the developed world, and thus, they have a huge interest in bridging the gap as soon as they possibly can.
America does some of the same kinds of things. States compete on tax cuts for foreign car companies, resulting in these companies often paying ZERO in taxes for MANY years (India's tax breaks last 5 years). This is part of competition. American States that are POORER attract companies from states that are RICHER by providing tax incentives for them to do so. The same applies at the nation-state level.
Why is this wrong? What is unethical about a poor nation deciding "hey, we want to make our people better off and LESS poor, so we'll cut our taxes and give foreign companies an incentive to invest in our economy?" Taxes were lower in America in the 1800s, too. America had a VERY low tax regime for most of its early history (compared to Europe), making it a haven for investment (though not near the levels of foreign nations, but then again, technology has advanced and investment flows easier).
Tax competition is just as much competition as competition between companies. Countries compete on economic policy, and the one that leads to the most growth wins.
That's right, if they work for a US IT company they pay nothing in income taxes.
Well, even if they did, they wouldn't be paying income tax to America's government. So, either way, that money is money not collected by the Indian government, who is trying to engage in competition with far richer, more successful and more capitalized America as a place for business.
Yes, that helps to make Indian workers even cheaper. Yet, we have plenty of advantages (see next section). India has its tax policy, and educated workers who are well-suited for the kind of development projects which work from a distance (the kind being outsourced, which as I said, won't likely include custom software development).
For all those people with small companies, imagine what you could do if the burden of all income taxes were removed from your shoulders! Heck, we might even be able to actually "compete" on a level playing field.
Software is an english language displine (Indians know english, but do they know it as well as an American?), and most of the money oriented around Software is American. Most of the biggest VC firms in the world are based in America. America is the biggest economy in the world, putting every american entrepreneur within striking distance of the richest consumers in the world (not to mention they have a very intimate knowledge of that market due to the fact they grew up there). More Americans get university degrees than in any other country in the world. Americans, again, are the richest people in the world, giving them more money to start companies in the first place.
America has STACKS of advantages. Developing nations can compete on cost. We CAN compete, and have done it numerous times before.
There is also another little thing IBM doesn't want anyone to know about and that's the health risk they put their employees through. IBM exposed pregnant workers to extremely dangerous chemicals for years, even AFTER being warned by the chemical manufactures of the dangers. In the US, they are getting their rear ends sued and will eventually have to pay up. However if they move those operations to another country, the problems some how seen to simply disappear.
Could you provide a link to this? I've only found cancer cases related to work IBM does in the United States (all the plaintiffs are American, as show here and here). Are you saying that IBM is not a safe company IN GENERAL, or that they abuse foreign workers in particular?
Either way, It is a FACT that some developing nations have lower environmental standards than Western nations. In response, remember that America had lower environmental standards when it was developing in the 1800s. Of course, the cost of environmental degradation is higher with 6 billion people in the world, so remember that cleaner technology is available today at low enough cost that even developing nations can afford it (in other words, they won't pollute as much as we did at comparable levels in our development). Lastly, remember that the surest cure for lax environmental rules is to have a people wealthy enough to have time to consider whether the air they breath is poisoning them.
Like I've warned before, don't exaggerate the environmental problems in developing nations. South Korea is a "developing" nation, but South Korea is about as polluted, from a sulfur dioxide standpoint, as Belgium (Belgium is actually WORSE). Recently, though, they've done things like lower the length of the work week (from 44 to 40 hours) and push through more environmental legislation.
The problem of lax environmental standards is one of poverty, and wealth gives people the money and interest to raise their environmental standards to the level of western nations. In the meantime, the west can certainly afford more stringent standards, particularly since they are the ones producing the most pollutants of things like CO2, and as the belgium example shows, sulfur dioxide.
As a final point, though, the environment really isn't a problem for software development firms. Software isn't a polluting activity. Companies aren't going to outsource in order to avoid American environmental regulations.
The only question in my mind concerning all of this is when will the American public say ENOUGH and force our elected animals to stand up and do what they should both morally and financially?
It's those who declare that human beings have the right to offer their services, irrespective of the spot on the globe on which they were born, which have the moral high ground.
I liked how this came out, as it puts into words some of the reasons why I think it's a good idea to remain open to competition with foreign countries.
Yes, India does provide a bunch of tax incentives to set up facilities in India. It shouldn't surprise anyone, as they are a DEVELOPING nation. That means they are much poorer than the developed world, and thus, they have a huge interest in bridging the gap as soon as they possibly can.
America does some of the same kinds of things. States compete on tax cuts for foreign car companies, resulting in these companies often paying ZERO in taxes for MANY years (India's tax breaks last 5 years). This is part of competition. American States that are POORER attract companies from states that are RICHER by providing tax incentives for them to do so. The same applies at the nation-state level.
Why is this wrong? What is unethical about a poor nation deciding "hey, we want to make our people better off and LESS poor, so we'll cut our taxes and give foreign companies an incentive to invest in our economy?" Taxes were lower in America in the 1800s, too. America had a VERY low tax regime for most of its early history (compared to Europe), making it a haven for investment (though not near the levels of foreign nations, but then again, technology has advanced and investment flows easier).
Tax competition is just as much competition as competition between companies. Countries compete on economic policy, and the one that leads to the most growth wins.
That's right, if they work for a US IT company they pay nothing in income taxes.
Well, even if they did, they wouldn't be paying income tax to America's government. So, either way, that money is money not collected by the Indian government, who is trying to engage in competition with far richer, more successful and more capitalized America as a place for business.
Yes, that helps to make Indian workers even cheaper. Yet, we have plenty of advantages (see next section). India has its tax policy, and educated workers who are well-suited for the kind of development projects which work from a distance (the kind being outsourced, which as I said, won't likely include custom software development).
For all those people with small companies, imagine what you could do if the burden of all income taxes were removed from your shoulders! Heck, we might even be able to actually "compete" on a level playing field.
Software is an english language displine (Indians know english, but do they know it as well as an American?), and most of the money oriented around Software is American. Most of the biggest VC firms in the world are based in America. America is the biggest economy in the world, putting every american entrepreneur within striking distance of the richest consumers in the world (not to mention they have a very intimate knowledge of that market due to the fact they grew up there). More Americans get university degrees than in any other country in the world. Americans, again, are the richest people in the world, giving them more money to start companies in the first place.
America has STACKS of advantages. Developing nations can compete on cost. We CAN compete, and have done it numerous times before.
There is also another little thing IBM doesn't want anyone to know about and that's the health risk they put their employees through. IBM exposed pregnant workers to extremely dangerous chemicals for years, even AFTER being warned by the chemical manufactures of the dangers. In the US, they are getting their rear ends sued and will eventually have to pay up. However if they move those operations to another country, the problems some how seen to simply disappear.
Could you provide a link to this? I've only found cancer cases related to work IBM does in the United States (all the plaintiffs are American, as show here and here). Are you saying that IBM is not a safe company IN GENERAL, or that they abuse foreign workers in particular?
Either way, It is a FACT that some developing nations have lower environmental standards than Western nations. In response, remember that America had lower environmental standards when it was developing in the 1800s. Of course, the cost of environmental degradation is higher with 6 billion people in the world, so remember that cleaner technology is available today at low enough cost that even developing nations can afford it (in other words, they won't pollute as much as we did at comparable levels in our development). Lastly, remember that the surest cure for lax environmental rules is to have a people wealthy enough to have time to consider whether the air they breath is poisoning them.
Like I've warned before, don't exaggerate the environmental problems in developing nations. South Korea is a "developing" nation, but South Korea is about as polluted, from a sulfur dioxide standpoint, as Belgium (Belgium is actually WORSE). Recently, though, they've done things like lower the length of the work week (from 44 to 40 hours) and push through more environmental legislation.
The problem of lax environmental standards is one of poverty, and wealth gives people the money and interest to raise their environmental standards to the level of western nations. In the meantime, the west can certainly afford more stringent standards, particularly since they are the ones producing the most pollutants of things like CO2, and as the belgium example shows, sulfur dioxide.
As a final point, though, the environment really isn't a problem for software development firms. Software isn't a polluting activity. Companies aren't going to outsource in order to avoid American environmental regulations.
The only question in my mind concerning all of this is when will the American public say ENOUGH and force our elected animals to stand up and do what they should both morally and financially?
It's those who declare that human beings have the right to offer their services, irrespective of the spot on the globe on which they were born, which have the moral high ground.
