The Farmer and His Helpers: Who Was Right? -->

[Dr. Jones]

Life wasn't easy growing up in Sam's tiny impoverished town. Food was tough to come by, and his tin shack of a home was way too tiny for his wife and six children.

Sam had read the stories of how some of his people discovered a land of riches, a land where hard work paid off in the form of a steady salary and better living conditions. Often at night Sam would dream of this land, what it was like, and whether he would ever be there.

One day, Sam just about had enough. He could see his family was struggling just to get by, and life wasn't going to get any better. "If I could venture out to this land of plenty and send money home to support my family," said Sam, "well maybe that's what I need to do." So Sam set off on his adventure with nary the shirt on his back and his trusty walking stick.

A couple of days into his journey, Sam saw a farmhouse. "This is IT!" he exclaimed to himself. "This is the land of plenty I always heard about!" By this time Sam was starving and very thirsty. So he went up to the farmhouse door and tapped on the solid wood panels. A large fellow wearing suspenders appeared at the door and asked, "What can I do fer ya?"

"Hi, I'm Sam. I've come a very long way to find a better life. My family is in dire straits and I wanted to work to help support them back home. Do you have any jobs around the farm I can do? I'll work for anything, even four dollars per hour." The farmer furrowed his brows and began to think about the offer.

"Well, I dunno," said the farmer. "I've already got several helpers and things are pretty tight. But since you need work and you'll work for that price, maybe there's something I can do for you."

The farmer went back to his books and just didn't see a way to hire Sam. But then a thought popped into his head. He decided to fire one of his higher-paid helpers in order to get Sam on the payroll. This saved the farmer alot of money, but the human toll was unimaginable. And what was to follow was even worse.

Sam worked hard in the fields alongside his higher-paid counterparts. He was just happy to be working. Every week Sam would send some money back home to help support his struggling family. Eventually, word got out that this farmer was hiring non-local helpers at lower wages, and many more people from Sam's town came knocking on the farmer's door for work.

Amazed, the farmer didn't quite know what to make of it. He saw the hard work Sam was doing, and the economic benefit of paying Sam far lower wages. Hey, times were tough, right? So desperate times call for desperate measures. So the next day, the farmer announced to his workers that unfortunately, he won't be able to keep the farm going due to age and he must shut the farm down. So he laid off all his workers, then pulled Sam aside.

"Sam," said the farmer, "I'm going to reopen the farm in a month or so. I want you to be quiet about this. I'll put you up in our house until we can get the farm going again. At that time, Sam, you will be working exclusively with your people from the town you grew up in."

"Wow!" exclaimed Sam. "That's great!"

So the days went by and the farm reopened, and Sam and his friends worked on the farm for several years at four dollars per hour. Some even took on other jobs such as cleaning the farmer's house and taking care of his children. But on a daily basis, they endured shouts and protests from the group of laid-off workers who, after having built that farm into the successful operation it had become, now had to somehow support their own families even though there were no other jobs in town.

But after awhile, Sam and his friends began to grow discontent because the farmer would not agree to any increase in wages or shorter working hours. Furthermore, they weren't officially co-owners of the farm, and they wanted to be because they felt like they deserved it since they worked so hard.

And so one day, they went to the farmer and made their demands, and the farmer said no. "But we have to feed our families," they said, "and now we need higher wages, shorter hours, and to be co-owners of this farm. Come on, we deserve it. We pick your lettuce, we pull your turnips. We clean your house, take care of your kids, and we do the jobs those other lazy workers you had before us refused to do. And if you don't give us what we deserve, we're going to walk out right now and never come back. In fact, just to show you what we're worth, we're not going to show up for work at all tomorrow!"

The farmer didn't know what to make of it. Of course, he was nonplussed. Here he took in these people in out of the kindness of his heart, and now they're stabbing him in the back. He liked their hard work, but these demands were simply too unreasonable for him to sustain. So the farmer made the decision to fire Sam and all of Sam's friends, and re-hire his original crew.

Saddened and agry at the whole deal, Sam went back to his town as did all his friends. The Farmer? His lesson was learned, too: Never put the temptation of cheap labor over and above the locals who helped build his farm into the success story that it had become.

So who was right? The farmer or Sam and his friends?

Disclaimer: This is in no way related to the illegal immigration issue.
:hide:

[Richard Steele]

1. Dude, do you EVER do anything else?

[Dr. Jones]

2. Well, what do you think?

There's a caveat towards the end of this story, and I want to see if anybody picks up on it. Anyhow, what are your thoughts on the matter?

This is a fictional account.

[Richard Steele]

3. I think you don't ever do anything else.

[Dr. Jones]

5. What do you think about the story?

Again there's a twist at the end, and I want to see if anyone sees it. Hint: it has to do with whether the farmer honestly took in the workers "out of the kindness of his heart."

Do you have anything constructive to say about this fictional account, or are you stuck in personal attacks against me?

[bryant69]

4. Disclaimer : Who you gonna believe? Me or your lyin' eyes.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Dr. Jones]

6. Aw come on, have a sense of humor here! It's pure fiction.

This is a fictional account meant to generate some meaningful discussion on the morality of both the farmer and Sam and friends. I wrote it in such a way that one has to really consider the attitudes of both groups - and whether the farmer took Sam and friends in for moral or for strictly financial reasons (i.e., to save a buck).

So what do you think? Was the farmer justified? Was Sam and his friends justified? Who was right, and who was wrong? Or were both right?

Seriously, let's discuss this.

[bryant69]

9. I do have a sense of humor

For example, I find it humorous that you want to pretend this argument has nothing to do with immigration.

[idlisambar]

7. nice story

All characters in the story behaved reasonably -- did what was in their own financial interests. A more ethical farmer would have shown more loyalty to his original employees. In a private operation like a farm we might expect (though not always get) owners who put their employees above their own interests to some extent. Not so with an amoral entity like a corporation where "loyalty" is a means to an end, if it is present at all.

[Dr. Jones]

8. Glad to see somebody responding!

We do in fact expect small private operations to be more friendly and kind-hearted, as opposed to large corporations which are cold and which generally make decisions based purely on money.

In this story, the question is whether the farmer invited Sam and his friends to work on his farm for moral reasons or purely for profit (since Sam agreed to work for only $4/hr). In other words, humanitarianism versus corporate profitability and the bottom line.

But there's so much more to it than that. Were Sam and his friends justified for making such demands because they felt they deserved it due to their hard work? Was the farmer justified in rejecting their demands, firing them, and re-hiring his old crew back? Was the farmer even justified at all for hiring Sam in the first place, and what was his true motivation?

Takers?

[Bridget Burke]

10. Sam, Sam's friends & the original workers should have united.

And fed the farmer to the pigs.

[Dr. Jones]

11. Perhaps...BUT...

They all know that for better or worse, it was the farmer who gave them the jobs in the first place. The original workers were pissed off that Sam's lower-paid group agreed to work for far less. Sure they harbored hostility towards the farmer for allowing this, but the increasingly arrogant and insulting comments and demands from Sam's group became a lightning-rod for confrontation between the two groups.

If Sam's group had remained as humble and hard-working as when they first arrived on the farm, and not have "risen up," insulted the local workers through inflammatory comments, and made such crazy demands, they wouldn't have had all this trouble in the first place.

But back to the farmer. It would seem his decision to hire Sam was based on a moral decision, that he took Sam in "out of the kindness of his own heart." But did he really? Or was he overtaken by sheer greed?

[Bridget Burke]

13. I don't care about the farmer's motivations.

And neither did his workers--once they realized they had more in common with each other than with the stingy old miser.

The farmer tried to convince his original workers that it was "arrogant" & "crazy" to want a better lot in life. They should have been glad to crawl back to him & settle for the same old wage--even though he'd fired them. They should have been happy to have one hut per family--because Sam & his friends had been crowded into the huts.

But Sam & his friends learned the new language--even though the farmer had made it difficult. And some of the older workers picked up some of Sam's language. They all decided they could run the farm better than the old coot & have a bigger share of the profits than any of them had earned as wages. Things didn't run perfectly afterwards, but everybody did pretty well. (Those who were unhappy got jobs at other farms & had some interesting experiences.)

The pigs were happy. For a while, at least.

[Dr. Jones]

16. Refer to my post #15. As for his original workers,

they had been paid significantly higher wages, and yet they were laid off due to competition from Sam and his friends. They were re-hired at the same higher wages. Thus, the farmer did not tell his original crew that it was crazy to want a better life or higher pay, since they were compensated well to begin with.

Those who were unhappy did not get other jobs because, as the story goes, there was no other work to be found in town and those who were booted from the farm had been doing this farmwork all of their lives and had no place to go as a result of the displacement.

Please read my post #15 for a most important consideration...

[Bridget Burke]

22. The original workers were laid off because Farmer Jones was greedy.

Both sets of workers were smarter than the old ingrate thought. The newcomers taught the original guys not to settle for what Farmer Jones paid them. Sure, it was better than the pittance they got. But Farmer Jones lived in a fine house--not a hut.

All the workers became acquainted & compared notes. So much for Farmer Jones's English Only rule.

The original story didn't mention anything about no jobs in town. If that was a problem, some of Sam's guys would explain that it was possible to look for work elsewhere. The next town over wasn't too far--much closer than Sam's hometown. Sam's pals had also learned to be adaptable--the original workers found out that they might not have to be farmhands all their lives.

The workers prospered. The whole area became famous for Farmer Jones Sausage!

[Dr. Jones]

24. Farmer Jones. haha! You underestimate me, my friend.

Hey, shhh, maybe since you have presented me with a unique business opportunity with Farmer Jones Sausage, I'll give you a cut. Say, 10%? Fair enough?? :) That reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where Kramer & Newman were busy at work making tons of sausages in Jerry's apartment...but I digress.

In my story, I did indeed mention that no other jobs were to be found in town for the original workers who were laid off: But on a daily basis, they endured shouts and protests from the group of laid-off workers who, after having built that farm into the successful operation it had become, now had to somehow support their own families even though there were no other jobs in town.

The Farmer was indeed greedy! Indeed, when Sam came knocking on the farmer's door and said he will work for $4/hr because he really needed work, the farmer was confused in his heart. He wanted to help Sam, but at the same time the dollar signs popped up in his eyes and would not go away. His greed called him to fire one of his hard workers, then the whole entire original crew. The greed completely overtook him, and he lost all sense of humanitarianism. So is it the farmer's fault for allowing Sam to work for so little in the first place? Should the farmer have paid Sam the going rate, even though Sam agreed to work for far less, and to boot, was EAGER to do so?

This is the moral question. Is Sam wrong to have asked to work for so little, undercutting all the established guys? Or is the farmer wrong for agreeing to this, and not paying him the going rate in the first place? At first glance, it seems like a mutually beneficial situation, but at the same time, it had very harsh consequences in the end.

Now for the most pressing question. If you can answer this, maybe we have a solution to the immigration problem, right here on DU. Here goes. How can we get two disparate, conflicting groups with deep-seeded resentment on both sides to drop their differences and come together to fight the real enemy, Corporate America?

You make it sound so easy, and yet it is not. It is very complex! But if it could be accomplished, as you put forth, maybe we could get somewhere.

[mccoyn]

26. It is immoral to profit off of someone elses hardship.

Whats so hard to understand about that?

[Dr. Jones]

28. No that's absolutely TRUE. However, there are different circumstances

at play here. In this story, the deal struck between Sam and the farmer was mutually beneficial. Sam got what he wanted (to work for money), and the farmer got what HE wanted (a hard worker who had asked for lower pay, thus saving the farmer $$$). So is this situation immoral? And in what way is the farmer taking advantage of Sam, who not only agreed but ASKED to work for far less than his counterparts?

I suppose you could make the argument that the farmer was taking advantage of Sam and his friends AFTER they made their demands and the farmer said no and laid them off. But could that really be said? Could it be said that the farmer was taking advantage of them, even though they were still paid what they originally asked for? Now maybe if the farmer cut Sam and his friends' salaries, you could say the farmer was taking advantage of them. But that is not in the story. Sam and friends remained at the same rate of pay the entire time. Some were even promoted to positions inside of the farmhouse, so they were treated increasingly well for the most part.

Where is that line drawn? And what is moral, and what is immoral?

[mccoyn]

19. Sam was hired out of greed.

"But back to the farmer. It would seem his decision to hire Sam was based on a moral decision, that he took Sam in "out of the kindness of his own heart." But did he really? Or was he overtaken by sheer greed?"

If the farmer had a moral fiber in his body he would have hired Sam at the same wage as the guy that was fired, instead he decided to exploit someones weakness.

[Dr. Jones]

27. True...however, in this story, Sam ASKED to work for $4/hr.

Sam was willing to do hard labor for only $4/hr, so essentially Sam set his own salary. So was it Sam's fault that he asked to work for so little? Or was it the farmer's fault for accepting somebody at such a low wage?

It's sorta like this. You have a chocolate fix at the county fair. The guy in the booth to your right says, "Chocolate ice cream cones, $1.50! Chocolate candy coating in the cone, chocolate shell topping on top!"

Then the guy in the booth to your left says, "Chocolate ice cream cones, 50 cents! Chocolate candy coating in the cone, chocolate shell topping on top!"

Which will you choose? And would you go to the booth on the left and say, "I'll buy that cone for the price that guy over there is charging - $1.50?" Or would you simply buy the cone from that guy at the cheaper price?

What is moral, and what is simply a decision made by market forces?

[El Fuego]

30. Once Sam & friends get equal pay, they lose their market niche

They have a edge over the competition because they're willing to work for less money. If they get higher pay in order to level the playing field, they're no more desirable than the original workers. Then they won't get as many jobs. It's a Catch-22 for Sam.

[Dr. Jones]

37. True, very true. The farmer wouldn't be able to afford

all those workers at the higher salaries. He would then have to cut some workers and unemployment would go up amongst Sam and his group. But all would be on a level playing field...

I wonder if the original group would be even more resentful though... Only problem is that unemployment would go up in both groups, and the original group may end up being even more resentful because more of them are unemployed as a result!

Hmph. How can this work out?

[treestar]

33. If your employer was struggling to stay in business, would you take

a wage cut?

If any large business you are making a purchase from could prove they are a marginal outfit and show you how many employees they have, and they don't want to cut their employee's wages because their employees need that money, do you have a moral and ethical duty to pay a higher price for their product? Even if some greedy capitalist down the road would sell you the same thing for less?

But at least that greedy capitalist can keep paying his employees.

The problem here is that everyone assumes "employer" always means some huge company with tons of profits it apparently just hides under a mattress. Most employers are smaller operations and have to make a profit or they go out of business. Can't pay the employees they have. Then these people lose their jobs. Even a big company will use its profits to expand. That means more acticity.

[mccoyn]

34. It doesn't matter whether the emplorer is large or small.

Any business that can't afford to pay decent wages should not be in business.

[El Fuego]

12. And then they could eat the pigs.

Mmmmm.... bacon!!

I love a good allegory.

[otherlander]

18. Workers of the world unite!

:toast:

[Dr. Jones]

29. How do you unite workers who have deep resentment on both sides?

This is what I'm trying to get at. If it can be accomplished we might be getting somewhere. Thus far nobody has come up with a solution.

It's very difficult to work through this deep seeded resentment, but if it can be done and the workers do unite, hey - maybe we can hold corporate america accountable.

[Bridget Burke]

31. Let the workers unite themselves.

They are grown men & women.

I haven't heard that much worker-to-worker resentment expressed. I've heard plenty of those above it all claiming that there's deep resentment.

[Dr. Jones]

35. Rats! Not the answer I was hoping for.

There is in fact deep resentment on the part of Americans whose jobs have been usurped by lower-paid illegals. And as more Americans are told that they are lazy and simply have refused to do the kind of work illegals are doing - by the illegals themselves - well, that breeds resentment. And then on top of that to make such demands as amnesty and citizenship, well that just tops the cake. When Americans hear all the rhetoric and insinuations that the illegals are the ones who are really doing the hard work and Americans are lazy, all of this breeds tremendous resentment.

And then you have the backlash. Americans rising up against this threat to their well-being and livelihood. Americans hearing the rhetoric and joining forces to oppose it. So whether you've heard it or not, it does truly exist. This is one reason why we heard the recent story that some blacks are joining forces with the Minutemen.

Your statement "Let the workers unite themselves, they're grown men and women" is unrealistic, and unless you have a plan in mind to unite two disparate ideological groups with deep-rooted resentment on both sides, it simply will not happen. If there's a way to do it, great! Let's go for it! But one simply cannot magically make it happen simply by proclaiming that they are grown men and women and they will somehow get over their resentments.

Seriously, think about this...

[Bridget Burke]

36. Who's blasting the negative rhetoric?

Not the workers.

I thought your little fable had nothing to do with immigration? You seem to have blown your cover, once again.

[Dr. Jones]

38. You SO underestimate me, Bridget Burke.

The reason I blew my cover is because of something you mentioned that, in my opinion, would be a milestone in solving the illegal immigration problem. You alluded to the fact that we need to bring the two groups together against the real enemy, American corporations. This would be effective I believe, and it certainly goes along with your belief that it's the fault of the corporations, not the illegals.

My question to you remains. How do we get two disparate groups with deep-rooted resentment on both sides to come together against Corporate America? Hey, I'm giving you a carrot here! If we can work this out, that's great. I feel it is of great importance.

It seems you deny that the rhetoric is coming from the illegal immigration camp, but I have seen and heard it - on the news, in the papers, etc. This is how they come across, that Americans are lazy and won't do certain jobs, and that THEY are the only ones working hard, and thus deserve citizenship and amnesty. This is an affront to the American people. If they would only change this rhetoric into a humble humanitarian crisis issue, maybe the American people can get behind them and join up with them as you are saying. But exactly HOW to accomplish this is what I'm getting at. How do we do it?

Look, I'm not trying to be difficult. I think you've made a good point and I'm simply trying to run with it. If you want to work with me on this, great - if not, that's your perogative.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. That's great. Here's another story.

Adolf was a painter from a happy village in Austria. One day, Adolf goes off to fight in the war. And although Adolf fought very hard, his country lost the war. This made Adolf very sad. And it made all of the people very poor. So Adolf decided he was going to do something about it, he decided he was going to run for office. "Hmm," thought Adolf, "now how am I going to get those poor people to vote for me?" Now Adolf was very clever and he said, "I know, I'll blame the Jews!" And so Adolf set to work, blaming the Jews for migrating into Germany, and stealing all of the jobs from good German workers, and spreading nasty Jewish illnesses, and roaming around in nasty Jewish gangs. And do you know what those poor people did? They voted for Adolf! And Adolf became the leader and led the country in lots of preemptive wars, and while it ended up destroying the nation of Germany, at least they got rid of the jews.

Disclaimer: This is in no way related to the illegal immigration issue.

[Dr. Jones]

15. Very funny! However..

in my original story, we don't quite have that level of politics! The only relatable problem in my story is that we have two groups of workers divided: 1) The original workers who were laid off and replaced with lower-paid non-local workers; and 2) The new workers who began raising demands and making all manner of insulting, inflammatory comments towards the original workers such as "you were lazy anyway" and "we are doing the jobs you guys just flat out refused to do."

The question here would be, "How could the original workers overcome their utter resentment of the new lower-paid workers, when the new workers simply continue to make inflammatory comments and hurl insults at them - and on top of that, continue to boldly demand their "rights?" And how can we bridge this gap to unite the two groups against the farmer?

[Ksec]

20. Hopefully the lower paid workers have some sort of ethics

and wouldnt undercutt the established guys. If they dont have any morals then the farmer wins. The low paid stay low paid. The originals get nothing and the farmer gets richer. Someone has to draw a line that cant be crossed.

[Dr. Jones]

23. So then where would the fault lie, with Sam & friends or with the farmer?

It is interesting to me that you frame this in a moral perspective, which raises another interesting question. If you were Sam, how would you approach this any differently? How would you ensure you didn't undercut the lower-paid established workers? And how do you ensure the moral fabric of the group?

[El Fuego]

17. The Story of "Karl and His Magical Free Buffet"

Karl was the mayor of a village where there were many well-off people, but also lots of people who worked hard but were still poor. Karl wondered what he could door to help the poor people. One day Karl had a brilliant idea—he would form a cooperative! He decided that everyone would give money to the best of their ability, and the money would be pooled so that there would always be food and medicine for all. And there was much rejoicing in the village.

Karl even set up a free buffet for the people of the village with the money he had collected. The free buffet was very popular with all the villagers! It was a magic buffet, always plentiful! But then, poor people from other villages traveled to Karl’s village to eat at the magical free buffet. They ate at the magical free buffet even though they had not contributed to the village fund and were not part of the cooperative.

As word spread, more and more poor people traveled far and wide to eat at Karl’s magical free buffet! The villagers were a generous people, and shared their magical free buffet with all the other poor people from other lands. Karl was a kind man and would never deny anyone in need. The poor people from the other villages were so poor they simply could not contribute to the village fund, even though the wanted to. Karl didn't care, he declared that everyone from everywhere must eat.

But soon, there were so many poor people from other distant villages taking from the free buffet that there was none left for Karl’s people. It turned out it was not magical after all. There was no more free buffet.

Before long there was no food, medicine or money left in Karl’s village. Everyone was miserable. The poor people eventually rioted and dragged Karl to the town guillotine where they unceremoniously beheaded him.

After that, the rich people of the village decided they were finished with the “helping the poor” crap. The rich found a new leader, George, who didn’t give a damn about the poor people in the first place. And the rich lived happily ever after, and the poor --- well who gives a fuck about them anyway.


THE END


Disclaimer: This is in no way related to the illegal immigration issue.

[Dr. Jones]

21. Hey, you're usurping my story! But that was good anyways.

And very, very poignant.

[El Fuego]

25. Sorry!!

I got carried away... :hide:

[treestar]

32. Well if we have capitalism, then businesses are going to get

anything they need, including labor, as cheaply as possible.

The locals in your story weren't worth what they were being paid.

If a business makes a profit, it's not a sin. Unless that money ends up under a mattress, it is used and spent in other businesses. What is wrong with the farmer increasing the profit margin by getting the best labor he can for the cheapest price?

If you go out and buy a car, you don't pay the highest price you can for it to satisfy the interests of the car manufacturer's employees.

There's a problem with reality here.

None of us are worth more money to our employees just because of where we were born. Nobody owes us. If some employer in some other country was willing to pay you more than any American employer, you'd go there. (Probably even violating their immigration laws if you thought you'd get away with it)

Suppose the problem was the reverse - a brain drain. You'd support measures to force Americans to stay in the US?

Sam and his friends buy stuff. The locals might be selling it to him. They might have jobs because of that. Or the farmer now can afford another field because of his profit. He hires 10 more from Sam's village and two local people to supervise them. The local people who are supervisors are paid more. They spend more, creating more jobs. The supervisors now have a better resume for their next job.

Capitalism simply requires the bottom level of labor. Just dismissing it causes the farm to close down. The plant to relocate. Then the more educated people have nothing to do.

I bet we start seeing Americans move to India for higher level jobs eventually.

[Dr. Jones]

39. Yep, capitalism does entail

access to goods and labor at the lowest price possible. However, one thing you said made me wonder:

The locals in your story weren't worth what they were being paid.

The thing is, the locals were actually paid well and were comfortable in that pay. They worked hard, just as hard as Sam and friends. So how were they not "worth" what they were paid? Because also, the farmer had no idea that anybody would come knocking on his door, wanting to work just as hard for far less pay.

What is wrong with the farmer increasing the profit margin by getting the best labor he can for the cheapest price?

From a purely economic perspective, it makes perfect sense. But the human toll, i.e. the morality of the whole decision, is called into question. Should busineses make decisions based purely on the economics of it? Or should businesses also consider the moral/ethical factors as well?

Sam and his friends buy stuff. The locals might be selling it to him. They might have jobs because of that. Or the farmer now can afford another field because of his profit. He hires 10 more from Sam's village and two local people to supervise them. The local people who are supervisors are paid more. They spend more, creating more jobs. The supervisors now have a better resume for their next job.

This may have some truth to it, but the fact of the matter is that the locals ended up resentful that they were laid off and replaced by Sam and his friends. Sam cannot buy very much stuff because their salaries are low, and besides, they're focused on working anyway. The farmer got greedy, but didn't even consider starting any new farms. And if he were to hire new people from Sam's town, he would have promoted Sam as a supervisor, not a local who was previously laid off, and he'd only give Sam an incremental raise in pay. This all may have created a few new jobs, but not substantially, and not for the displaced workers And it certainly did NOT do anything for the original work crew, who were having a hard time getting by because there were no other jobs in town.

I bet we start seeing Americans move to India for higher level jobs eventually.

I HOPE NOT!! That would be tragic. What we need is for more kids to start getting interested in the sciences and also maybe in mathematics. We also need the media to help, and maybe create movies in order to generate interest. Movies like Dante's Peak and Twister to name a couple.

Also there's lots of reasons Americans would not move to India - family, friends, culture shock, etc.