{{3. The ability to exploit those workers is much greater}} - Here we need to redefine exploitation. When the standards of living are entire different (that's why we have lower cost of living which faciliates producing "dramatically" high number of technical graudates).
What Americans and other "developed" nations take for granted are, in the perspective of a developing nation, unneccessary comforts (starting from SUVs to casinos). So the idea of eploitation is not well-set like in the case Nike employees in Indonesia. The technical professions, as some might think, are not your blue collar job just because they are paid in the scale (well, actually a little lower).
There are no human rights reports of an NGO assessment that suggests that service industry employees in India are "exploited". Of course they work, night shifts, fake accents and assume pseudonyms - all these, presumably, have negative effects on their psyhce. But the very idea of work has a negative effect on your psyche! There are enough studies that suggest that computer programmers (and other white-collar professionals alive) experience sever mental distress and fatigue just like blue collar workers. Now is that exploitation too?

I'm of the camp that outsourcing can be a really good thing, if it doesn't result in the degradation of living conditions.

Here are some of the biggest reasons why India is cheaper than the U.S.
1. The supply of skilled talent is dramatically greater
2. The cost of living is drastically lower
3. The ability to exploit those workers is much greater

People who get outraged about outsourcing should focus on #3, because that's where the problem really is. Outsourcing can be a tide that lifts all boats, but only if there is an emphasis on human rights and human dignity.

If we can push to ensure global rights of workers, the market wages will quickly equalize.

"Any anger or resentment for what is happening in this country shouldn't be directed at the Indians who fill out-sourced jobs; rather, it should be at the CEOs...."

I must say that I'm pleasently surprised by your perceptions. I'm an Indian and though I haven't worked in an "outsourced environment" I was under the impression that most Americans abhorred Indians for "stealing" their jobs.

"Where's the Outrage?" Did you miss the point? Who should we be outraged at? Not even the CEOs warrant our outrage since they're just trapped in a system that demands they make the most cost-effective decisions regardless of the human impact.

The takeaway point of the show for me was that Americans are fortunate to have such abundance (of jobs, of housing, of food, etc.), and losing a few jobs to a country that desperately needs them is no big deal.

I think that the show deals with life as it is. And I like that 30 Days covers issues and differences that people are struggling with in a real way. We spend too much time dividing with people over differences before we've had a chance to walk a mile in their shoes.

Of course even after we've experienced things from a different perspective, it doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to change our mind--the 30 Days show on immigration is an example of this. However, at the least we'll get to understand both sides of the issue in a personal way--the 30 Days show on immigration is also an example of this.

There's really no reason for Chris to be angry at the Indians he met or worked with because they have jobs that cost-cutting corporations sent over-seas. The Indians took the jobs because they were offered to them.

Any anger or resentment for what is happening in this country shouldn't be directed at the Indians who fill out-sourced jobs; rather, it should be at the CEOs and Boards of Directors for the US companies who feel that shipping the jobs to India is just the best way to do business.

Personally, I found Chris to be very engaging and level-headed. I have to say though, that I hope he was able to find a new job when he returned home.

I also have to say, I really don't see any or much political bias by the producers or Spurlock in this show, as others have hinted at. The episodes go where the participant takes it, and I certainly don't perceive any liberal or conservative slant to the show as it simply attemps to tackle important or hot-button issues of the day.

Chris shouldn't of showed anger towards them ...its not their fault. It is the douche bag CEOs and VPs that send the work over there, they are just willing to take it...

I don't think CEO or the head of a company would have worked. It would be interesting to see. Mostly due to the fact the they would be able to see how much money they can save their company.

This was a lousey choice for a 30 Days episode. Well rather a lousey choice of person to experience the difference. It should have been a CEO or EVP of a tech company or such, to give them a perspective. It hardly works for a dude that was a normal programmer and laid off to experience how the other half lives. He still has to go home to no job and bills.

I setup a graphics production department in India that my company was outsourcing too. It certainly opened my eyes to how this country lives, but once I went home three weeks later, I still went back to my 10hr a day job and personal problems.

I was looking forward to this episode but was disappointed when it was over. Chris was boring and really didn't show too much emotion about anything. This could have been much more interesting with anyone else.