{I dedicate this bit to Berry, owner of this site, with much love and hopes for his success. I don't know Berry at all, but it seemed fitting - and y'all know what a softy I am deep down...I apologize to Berry in advance for how monstrously long this first message is...}
This is a thread about outsourcing and long-term economic planning. There are lot's of places you can get information on this stuff. A lot of the available information is "expert" op/ed crap from people that never held a real job in their lives.
In late 80s and early 90s people like Alvin Toffler ("Future Shock," "Third Wave") convinced me that Hi-Tech was an extremely important phenomenon and that our culture would tend to run somehow parallel to the trends in that "industry." Clearly, Hi-Tech is a dominant force in american culture. Some people even have "techno-lust" - which is sort of the desire for continually more and faster of their chosen favorite Hi-Tech gear.
I read a site called Slashdot from time to time because I need to be told what might be going wrong with my home network and I am a DIY kind of person. Slashdot "geeks" are continually discussing the ramifications of Open source Software, Linux, the GPL, and a whole host of other things too. They have been absolutely furious about the massive shift to send many jobs "offshore" - away from the U.S. and the other western countries. They have been discussing the offshoring phenomenon for at least three years at this point and many of the participants have refined their views to razor sharpness. Much of what you will see in this initial message is documented from that site (with hopefully correct URLs provided).
My statement of the facts:
An untold number of jobs are being offshored. These jobs range from simple manufacturing, textile, agricultural positions all the way to more complicated programming, accounting, engineering, and managerial jobs. H&R Block offshores sensitive tax return data to India. Deloitte and Touche offers offshoring services to prospective clients. U.S. states are offshoring call centers. Many federal jobs are likewise outsourced (or turned over to prison labor, but that's another story). And it goes on and on and on...
It is my opinion that everyone is training their future competition. H&R Block CEOs are all smiles today, but their myopia might mean future competition from their offshore counterparts. How soon before Deloitte & Touche is little more than an annoying middleman for services other corporations can get for themselves? Is there some reason that these foolish companies believe that people smart enough to compete with the likes of coders, accountants, engineers, and lower management cannot just form their own corporations and compete directly with them?
Call me crazy, but this all seems very "not smart" to me...
Let's have a look at some other opinions on the issue:
---------------------------
"Intel CEO: Let's end political games and compete"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...27-forum_x.htm
{Edit: These are statements made by Intel CEO Craig Barrett:}
Intel has had about 40% of its employees outside of the United States for the past two decades. What is new is that the character of those jobs is changing. It used to be mostly manufacturing production. Now it is increasingly white-collar or engineering jobs offshore as well. The big change is you've had a one-time-in-the-history-of-mankind event take place in the past decade. You almost instantly had half of the world's population pulled into the world's free economic system. If you take China, India, Russia and the other Eastern European countries, that's about 3 billion people.
Education is probably the most important - and I'd further refine it to K-12. The university education system is healthy. Another significant area is research and development (R&D) investment that is government funded.
The United States still is the world's biggest, most productive economy. But none of that guarantees you lack of competition. So when my grandkids come to me and ask, "What should I major in?" I tell them, "Get the best education you can; that's really all that you have to go on. Then go do something that you really like to do." So sure, it's so easy to find a guy from a steel mill or a textile mill, or a software programmer who has lost his job, but if you want to be competitive, you have to compete around the world. Jobs are going to be around the world. I don't have a solution to that one. It's also disingenuous to say that because this one person lost his job, you have to do something totally different.
You have to look at what it takes to compete. Until you're doing those basic things, I have relatively little sympathy on the issue of the competitive nature of the U.S. compared to other countries. We have to fix our education system. We have to invest more in R&D. And we have to be more consistent about our infrastructure if we want to be competitive. If you have a worse education, a worse infrastructure, and you spend less of your gross domestic product on R&D, what makes you think you should be in a pre-eminent position? So somehow we have to turn the debate around to say, "Life is tough. Life is not fair. You have to compete. It takes hard work to compete, so let's figure out how to compete." That's the debate we're not having.
---------------------------
These are my own opinions:
I think that it's stunning that a man that has made his fortunes on the back of american ingenuity and from the sweat of well educated americans can now claim that americans are just not educated enough. But let's face it, his whole k-12 argument is a wild goose-chase with no substance. Americans built this idiot's company, I think many of them are well educated enough. What he doesn't want to talk about is how being well educated will not save them their jobs. He has no solution for the well educated person that can't find a job because he cannot work for a "globalized" wage and still live in the U.S.
Seems like he wants more free R&D from the government too.
---------------------------
"The Chutzpah is amazing" by Anonymous Coward
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=...ad&cid=9028115
1. Intel demands that the US gov't needs to invest in more computer R&D and schools.
2. Intel demands that the US not change the stock rules. Strongly suggests to employees that they mail their congress critters their nice form letter.
3. Intel demands that the US help keep the China market open for it.
Intel repays these favors by:
1. Demanding generous tax breaks which keeps money away from schools. If they had to pay the going rate, the school district in my area with an huge Intel campus would have 75% more money.
2. Offshoring all jobs but exec board. 30-40% of all US Intel engineers (at least) are already from outsourcing countries(China/India). US based Technicians and fab employees are 90-100% US born citizens, but earn 1/3 to 1/4 what the engineers get.
3. Enabling groups that want to limit freedom because they can make money from it: China, MPAA/RIAA, Patriot Act, Microsoft
Corporations exist outside of states and countries and exist only to perpetuate themselves and the few that own massive quantities of the stock. Sure places like Intel grant stock to employees but the total amount is less that 10% of the total shares per grant period.
Sure globalism happens, but I am a citizen of the US first and an employee second. Corporations should receive no special treatment because once they get they will have the in and make the locality turn and turn until all the blood is out of the stone. Then leave and blame the community for not making it a good place to keep high tech.
Just leave me anonymous though, because as Intel employee, I can be terminated for speaking the truth. Being on the inside I see a lot more than most on /. can see, and I can tell you huge corporations care nothing for themselves first, second and third. Arnold switched sides for his own gain, these CEO are the exact same. They don't care who gives it to them, as long as they get theirs. And any location that counts on them will be burned when their loyalties switch as the money moves around.
yes I'm bitter because they have killed the spirit of my town and they don't care.
---------------------------
"Re:Hmmm" by Lemmy Caution
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9028668
It's three things: cost of living, cost of living, and cost of living. Until housing and such is as expensive in India and China as it is in the US and Europe, it will always be cheaper to employ people there, and always be impossible for labor in the US to compete on price.
The trouble is that the growing inequity in the US means that there isn't any downward pressure on prices in the US, either. The people who are making it can keep the prices afloat, and insofar as the primary equity for most American families is their homes, they sure as hell ain't gonna make the C.O.L. lower via reduced housing prices.
---------------------------
"It's not about quality, it's about cheap labor" by bangular
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9028146
The reason companies outsource to China, India, etc. is because they can get away with paying these people next to nothing. They literally wouldn't be able to legally pay these people those wages in the US because they are below minimum wage. It's not about quality or anything like that. It's because these people live in such poor countries they can be paid next to nothing. If they legally could, I'm sure these companies would have slaves. If they want to pay these people the SAME US wages I have no problem with that.
---------------------------
"Re:It's not about quality, it's about cheap labor" by composer777
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9029345
There is just too large of a difference in pay, and I think we need to regulate "free" trade if we are to have any hope of preventing disasterous economic consquences. It's like an article that I have read on the CWA Union's website said, those that promote free trade basically are presenting an article of faith. They have nothing, they have no evidence at all that this will be good for society. In the mean time, they are making boatloads of cash during the "jobless recovery", and simply want us to just believe, without any evidence, that things will get better. It's pure BS, and I see no reason to believe these people, they have given me every reason not to trust them.
---------------------------
"Re:Hmmm" by composer777
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9029249
Here's something to think about, when you hear someone from India on slashdot talking about how wonderful free trade is, remember that only a minority of people in India can access the internet, and they are relatively wealthy. The majority of people around the world cannot stand this exploitative form of trade. If democracy means anything to you, then you will be in favor of allowing people to govern their own lives, rather than have them run by the richest in that society.
---------------------------
"Re:Hmmm; And don't complain about overtime" by composer777
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9029270
Rights are whatever people want them to be. That's the only reason people have rights to begin with, is because at some point everbody agreed that things like democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of unlawful entry, right to bear arms, would be a good thing to have in a free society. So, if enough people want it, then yes, it IS a right. It's worth thinking about.
---------------------------
Re:"good for the economy" my ass.-outsourcing CEO' by Tablizer
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9028951
>Globalization where we don't insist foreign workers fall under the same EPA, OSHA, minimum wage, workman's comp, etc standards that we force on the employeers of our OWN workers. {edited back in for clarity} If you want to REALLY solve the problem, either force outside workforces to comply with OUR standards, or lower OUR standards of employment to meet theirs. CEOs and corporations are not "boogie men". We've set up a system that basically lays money at their feet and we complain when the bend over to pick it up. {end edited back in for clarity}
Amen! Dumping cheap products and services in the US is a PRIVILEDGE, not a right of these other up-coming nations. Plus, many of the nations guilty of dumping have plenty of barriers against US goods and services. We are boxing and they are street-fighting. (Simon and Garfunkle reference)
---------------------------
Re:"good for the economy" my ass.-outsourcing CEO' by swillden
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9028080
>If it was JUST about the shareholders, then CEO's would be outsourcing their jobs.
The CEOs are outsourcing their jobs, or, more accurately, they're outsourcing their successors' jobs, and I think most of them realize it.
How are they outsourcing their jobs? They're training a new crop of managers and workers overseas. How long will it take before those people realize that they have everything they need to start their own company and compete with their former employers?
---------------------------
"Re:A truly global economy" by the_2nd_coming
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9028012
um, no, a true global economy would mean that workers can move to where the jobs are and that there is a world wide rate of pay that differs little from one location to the next.
what we have is CEOs taking advantage of underpaid high tech workers in countries that have no labor laws.
---------------------------
"Yeah..." by cybermace5
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9027840
We are not competing on basis of skill here, we're competing on the basic cost of living. Today's CEO's are pocketing the savings from outsourcing, and will be retired when the house of cards crashes down because no one here has any more money to spend.
---------------------------
"Re:Yeah..." by cybermace5
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9027999
How does that help them? The U.S. is only 300 million people, and the world is six billion. So a poor, undeveloped country is going to improve by a few people receiving American money, while the actual work they've done has little value in their own country and is sent back to America? They are skipping the industrial development phase and going right to the knowledge worker phase, which means the infrastructure to support their way of life is located in America and not in their own country. This means that their economy can be kept artificially where it is, maintaining the supply of cheap labor.
These countries need self-supporting industries, roads, hospitals, and the high-efficiency agriculture lifestyles that allowed us to become knowledge workers in the first place. By luring developing countries to skip directly to the desk jobs, we are sabotaging the development of a strong industrial foundation that can make these countries economically independent.
---------------------------
"The Outsourcing Bogeyman" By Daniel W. Drezner
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200405...tml?mode=print
Long, complicated, and I don't really buy into the reasoning - but it's worth reading to understand how an opposing view might operate.
---------------------------
"This article is based on flawed assumptions" by puppetluva
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9028349
This author is using a series of flawed assumptions/myths that I'd like to debunk:
1) Outsourcing is only happening to menial jobs. The author first states that "the activities that will migrate offshore are predominantly those that can be viewed as requiring low skill since process and repeatability are key underpinnings of the work"
Software Development is not "low-skill". Repeatability for complex processes is a complex achievement. Nearly all of technology/science is concerned with repeatability.
2) What is better for the global economy is better for the American economy.
Let's say that China becomes even more of an economic powerhouse, the world economy becomes more efficent, and America gets beat out of many major corporate and employment deals to EU companies. America will go into decline. This is neither good for American business nor is it good for American workers.
3) What is good for American corporations is good for American citizens.
These two ideas are increasingly at odds. Let's say Joe CEO, an American citizen, starts a car-building company and outsources everything but the CEO spot. Let's then say that he beats out every major American car manufacturer and takes their marketshare. THIS WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR EVERY AMERICAN WORKER BUT JOE. Joe might get rich, he might make a bunch of foreign outsources rich, but he has helped suck both money and jobs out of the country.
4) Protectionism would hurt our economy because it makes the world economy less efficient.
WRONG! This would only be true if America was an equal consumer of goods world-wide. America is, by far, largest world consumer of most goods. Channeling that purchasing-power back towards American goods and services would be a huge boon.
5) Protecting globalization at the expense of American jobs will help american citizens by creating more jobs.
The author's whole argument about outsourcing of jobs towards America is completely false. His numbers are made up, as well.
6) It is the U.S. government's job to protect the global economy.
WRONG! It is the U.S. government's job to protect US citizens in both the short-term and the long-term.
7) It is patriotic to support free-market economies.
WRONG! It is patriotic to support the well-being of your fellow countrymen and women. Supporting slave-labor in China that forces inequitable economies of scale in labor is tantamount to economic treason.
People need to stop thinking in blindered terms of "free-markets are good" and need to start thinking at a more sophisticated level about these problems. I'm ashamed at the trite cliches and hackneyed arguments put forth in this poorly-written article.
---------------------------
"WRONG! (using caps like you)" by sulli
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9031382
>THIS WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR EVERY AMERICAN WORKER BUT JOE
NO IT WOULDN'T (using caps like you), unless every worker worked in his particular industry. Which every worker does not. We have a very diverse economy which survives these kinds of industry specific disruptions remarkably well.
America is, by far, largest world consumer of most goods. Channeling that purchasing-power back towards American goods and services would be a huge boon.
Import substitution, the strategy you recommend, has been a massive failure in all economies where it has been tried. Everyone's favorite bad guy India used this strategy for decades and hardly grew at all - after India modernized its economy in the 1990s it has experienced rapid growth. The same was true for Latin American countries like Brazil and Argentina.
Back to the outsourcing issue, the problem I see is the tax break favoring it. This actually provides an unnatural incentive to invest overseas that gives it more value than it really has in the marketplace. We should definitely get rid of that in favor of a fairer corporate tax structure.
---------------------------
These are my own opinions:
I think it's interesting that previous commentator refers to what were two "shining" examples of prosperity (under the guidance of the IMF, and Argentina esp. was the much touted example of what doing things the IMF way could get you). Both are now bust. Brazil is so naughty that it's new leftist leader is regularly in very hot water with the U.S. white house administration, and he even claims that the U.S. is trying to kill him. In Argentina the people are living hand to mouth.
Examples of boom and bust. Wait for it India...
---------------------------
{continued in next message}
This is a thread about outsourcing and long-term economic planning. There are lot's of places you can get information on this stuff. A lot of the available information is "expert" op/ed crap from people that never held a real job in their lives.
In late 80s and early 90s people like Alvin Toffler ("Future Shock," "Third Wave") convinced me that Hi-Tech was an extremely important phenomenon and that our culture would tend to run somehow parallel to the trends in that "industry." Clearly, Hi-Tech is a dominant force in american culture. Some people even have "techno-lust" - which is sort of the desire for continually more and faster of their chosen favorite Hi-Tech gear.
I read a site called Slashdot from time to time because I need to be told what might be going wrong with my home network and I am a DIY kind of person. Slashdot "geeks" are continually discussing the ramifications of Open source Software, Linux, the GPL, and a whole host of other things too. They have been absolutely furious about the massive shift to send many jobs "offshore" - away from the U.S. and the other western countries. They have been discussing the offshoring phenomenon for at least three years at this point and many of the participants have refined their views to razor sharpness. Much of what you will see in this initial message is documented from that site (with hopefully correct URLs provided).
My statement of the facts:
An untold number of jobs are being offshored. These jobs range from simple manufacturing, textile, agricultural positions all the way to more complicated programming, accounting, engineering, and managerial jobs. H&R Block offshores sensitive tax return data to India. Deloitte and Touche offers offshoring services to prospective clients. U.S. states are offshoring call centers. Many federal jobs are likewise outsourced (or turned over to prison labor, but that's another story). And it goes on and on and on...
It is my opinion that everyone is training their future competition. H&R Block CEOs are all smiles today, but their myopia might mean future competition from their offshore counterparts. How soon before Deloitte & Touche is little more than an annoying middleman for services other corporations can get for themselves? Is there some reason that these foolish companies believe that people smart enough to compete with the likes of coders, accountants, engineers, and lower management cannot just form their own corporations and compete directly with them?
Call me crazy, but this all seems very "not smart" to me...
Let's have a look at some other opinions on the issue:
---------------------------
"Intel CEO: Let's end political games and compete"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...27-forum_x.htm
{Edit: These are statements made by Intel CEO Craig Barrett:}
Intel has had about 40% of its employees outside of the United States for the past two decades. What is new is that the character of those jobs is changing. It used to be mostly manufacturing production. Now it is increasingly white-collar or engineering jobs offshore as well. The big change is you've had a one-time-in-the-history-of-mankind event take place in the past decade. You almost instantly had half of the world's population pulled into the world's free economic system. If you take China, India, Russia and the other Eastern European countries, that's about 3 billion people.
Education is probably the most important - and I'd further refine it to K-12. The university education system is healthy. Another significant area is research and development (R&D) investment that is government funded.
The United States still is the world's biggest, most productive economy. But none of that guarantees you lack of competition. So when my grandkids come to me and ask, "What should I major in?" I tell them, "Get the best education you can; that's really all that you have to go on. Then go do something that you really like to do." So sure, it's so easy to find a guy from a steel mill or a textile mill, or a software programmer who has lost his job, but if you want to be competitive, you have to compete around the world. Jobs are going to be around the world. I don't have a solution to that one. It's also disingenuous to say that because this one person lost his job, you have to do something totally different.
You have to look at what it takes to compete. Until you're doing those basic things, I have relatively little sympathy on the issue of the competitive nature of the U.S. compared to other countries. We have to fix our education system. We have to invest more in R&D. And we have to be more consistent about our infrastructure if we want to be competitive. If you have a worse education, a worse infrastructure, and you spend less of your gross domestic product on R&D, what makes you think you should be in a pre-eminent position? So somehow we have to turn the debate around to say, "Life is tough. Life is not fair. You have to compete. It takes hard work to compete, so let's figure out how to compete." That's the debate we're not having.
---------------------------
These are my own opinions:
I think that it's stunning that a man that has made his fortunes on the back of american ingenuity and from the sweat of well educated americans can now claim that americans are just not educated enough. But let's face it, his whole k-12 argument is a wild goose-chase with no substance. Americans built this idiot's company, I think many of them are well educated enough. What he doesn't want to talk about is how being well educated will not save them their jobs. He has no solution for the well educated person that can't find a job because he cannot work for a "globalized" wage and still live in the U.S.
Seems like he wants more free R&D from the government too.
---------------------------
"The Chutzpah is amazing" by Anonymous Coward
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=...ad&cid=9028115
1. Intel demands that the US gov't needs to invest in more computer R&D and schools.
2. Intel demands that the US not change the stock rules. Strongly suggests to employees that they mail their congress critters their nice form letter.
3. Intel demands that the US help keep the China market open for it.
Intel repays these favors by:
1. Demanding generous tax breaks which keeps money away from schools. If they had to pay the going rate, the school district in my area with an huge Intel campus would have 75% more money.
2. Offshoring all jobs but exec board. 30-40% of all US Intel engineers (at least) are already from outsourcing countries(China/India). US based Technicians and fab employees are 90-100% US born citizens, but earn 1/3 to 1/4 what the engineers get.
3. Enabling groups that want to limit freedom because they can make money from it: China, MPAA/RIAA, Patriot Act, Microsoft
Corporations exist outside of states and countries and exist only to perpetuate themselves and the few that own massive quantities of the stock. Sure places like Intel grant stock to employees but the total amount is less that 10% of the total shares per grant period.
Sure globalism happens, but I am a citizen of the US first and an employee second. Corporations should receive no special treatment because once they get they will have the in and make the locality turn and turn until all the blood is out of the stone. Then leave and blame the community for not making it a good place to keep high tech.
Just leave me anonymous though, because as Intel employee, I can be terminated for speaking the truth. Being on the inside I see a lot more than most on /. can see, and I can tell you huge corporations care nothing for themselves first, second and third. Arnold switched sides for his own gain, these CEO are the exact same. They don't care who gives it to them, as long as they get theirs. And any location that counts on them will be burned when their loyalties switch as the money moves around.
yes I'm bitter because they have killed the spirit of my town and they don't care.
---------------------------
"Re:Hmmm" by Lemmy Caution
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9028668
It's three things: cost of living, cost of living, and cost of living. Until housing and such is as expensive in India and China as it is in the US and Europe, it will always be cheaper to employ people there, and always be impossible for labor in the US to compete on price.
The trouble is that the growing inequity in the US means that there isn't any downward pressure on prices in the US, either. The people who are making it can keep the prices afloat, and insofar as the primary equity for most American families is their homes, they sure as hell ain't gonna make the C.O.L. lower via reduced housing prices.
---------------------------
"It's not about quality, it's about cheap labor" by bangular
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9028146
The reason companies outsource to China, India, etc. is because they can get away with paying these people next to nothing. They literally wouldn't be able to legally pay these people those wages in the US because they are below minimum wage. It's not about quality or anything like that. It's because these people live in such poor countries they can be paid next to nothing. If they legally could, I'm sure these companies would have slaves. If they want to pay these people the SAME US wages I have no problem with that.
---------------------------
"Re:It's not about quality, it's about cheap labor" by composer777
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9029345
There is just too large of a difference in pay, and I think we need to regulate "free" trade if we are to have any hope of preventing disasterous economic consquences. It's like an article that I have read on the CWA Union's website said, those that promote free trade basically are presenting an article of faith. They have nothing, they have no evidence at all that this will be good for society. In the mean time, they are making boatloads of cash during the "jobless recovery", and simply want us to just believe, without any evidence, that things will get better. It's pure BS, and I see no reason to believe these people, they have given me every reason not to trust them.
---------------------------
"Re:Hmmm" by composer777
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9029249
Here's something to think about, when you hear someone from India on slashdot talking about how wonderful free trade is, remember that only a minority of people in India can access the internet, and they are relatively wealthy. The majority of people around the world cannot stand this exploitative form of trade. If democracy means anything to you, then you will be in favor of allowing people to govern their own lives, rather than have them run by the richest in that society.
---------------------------
"Re:Hmmm; And don't complain about overtime" by composer777
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9029270
Rights are whatever people want them to be. That's the only reason people have rights to begin with, is because at some point everbody agreed that things like democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of unlawful entry, right to bear arms, would be a good thing to have in a free society. So, if enough people want it, then yes, it IS a right. It's worth thinking about.
---------------------------
Re:"good for the economy" my ass.-outsourcing CEO' by Tablizer
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9028951
>Globalization where we don't insist foreign workers fall under the same EPA, OSHA, minimum wage, workman's comp, etc standards that we force on the employeers of our OWN workers. {edited back in for clarity} If you want to REALLY solve the problem, either force outside workforces to comply with OUR standards, or lower OUR standards of employment to meet theirs. CEOs and corporations are not "boogie men". We've set up a system that basically lays money at their feet and we complain when the bend over to pick it up. {end edited back in for clarity}
Amen! Dumping cheap products and services in the US is a PRIVILEDGE, not a right of these other up-coming nations. Plus, many of the nations guilty of dumping have plenty of barriers against US goods and services. We are boxing and they are street-fighting. (Simon and Garfunkle reference)
---------------------------
Re:"good for the economy" my ass.-outsourcing CEO' by swillden
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9028080
>If it was JUST about the shareholders, then CEO's would be outsourcing their jobs.
The CEOs are outsourcing their jobs, or, more accurately, they're outsourcing their successors' jobs, and I think most of them realize it.
How are they outsourcing their jobs? They're training a new crop of managers and workers overseas. How long will it take before those people realize that they have everything they need to start their own company and compete with their former employers?
---------------------------
"Re:A truly global economy" by the_2nd_coming
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9028012
um, no, a true global economy would mean that workers can move to where the jobs are and that there is a world wide rate of pay that differs little from one location to the next.
what we have is CEOs taking advantage of underpaid high tech workers in countries that have no labor laws.
---------------------------
"Yeah..." by cybermace5
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9027840
We are not competing on basis of skill here, we're competing on the basic cost of living. Today's CEO's are pocketing the savings from outsourcing, and will be retired when the house of cards crashes down because no one here has any more money to spend.
---------------------------
"Re:Yeah..." by cybermace5
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9027999
How does that help them? The U.S. is only 300 million people, and the world is six billion. So a poor, undeveloped country is going to improve by a few people receiving American money, while the actual work they've done has little value in their own country and is sent back to America? They are skipping the industrial development phase and going right to the knowledge worker phase, which means the infrastructure to support their way of life is located in America and not in their own country. This means that their economy can be kept artificially where it is, maintaining the supply of cheap labor.
These countries need self-supporting industries, roads, hospitals, and the high-efficiency agriculture lifestyles that allowed us to become knowledge workers in the first place. By luring developing countries to skip directly to the desk jobs, we are sabotaging the development of a strong industrial foundation that can make these countries economically independent.
---------------------------
"The Outsourcing Bogeyman" By Daniel W. Drezner
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200405...tml?mode=print
Long, complicated, and I don't really buy into the reasoning - but it's worth reading to understand how an opposing view might operate.
---------------------------
"This article is based on flawed assumptions" by puppetluva
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9028349
This author is using a series of flawed assumptions/myths that I'd like to debunk:
1) Outsourcing is only happening to menial jobs. The author first states that "the activities that will migrate offshore are predominantly those that can be viewed as requiring low skill since process and repeatability are key underpinnings of the work"
Software Development is not "low-skill". Repeatability for complex processes is a complex achievement. Nearly all of technology/science is concerned with repeatability.
2) What is better for the global economy is better for the American economy.
Let's say that China becomes even more of an economic powerhouse, the world economy becomes more efficent, and America gets beat out of many major corporate and employment deals to EU companies. America will go into decline. This is neither good for American business nor is it good for American workers.
3) What is good for American corporations is good for American citizens.
These two ideas are increasingly at odds. Let's say Joe CEO, an American citizen, starts a car-building company and outsources everything but the CEO spot. Let's then say that he beats out every major American car manufacturer and takes their marketshare. THIS WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR EVERY AMERICAN WORKER BUT JOE. Joe might get rich, he might make a bunch of foreign outsources rich, but he has helped suck both money and jobs out of the country.
4) Protectionism would hurt our economy because it makes the world economy less efficient.
WRONG! This would only be true if America was an equal consumer of goods world-wide. America is, by far, largest world consumer of most goods. Channeling that purchasing-power back towards American goods and services would be a huge boon.
5) Protecting globalization at the expense of American jobs will help american citizens by creating more jobs.
The author's whole argument about outsourcing of jobs towards America is completely false. His numbers are made up, as well.
6) It is the U.S. government's job to protect the global economy.
WRONG! It is the U.S. government's job to protect US citizens in both the short-term and the long-term.
7) It is patriotic to support free-market economies.
WRONG! It is patriotic to support the well-being of your fellow countrymen and women. Supporting slave-labor in China that forces inequitable economies of scale in labor is tantamount to economic treason.
People need to stop thinking in blindered terms of "free-markets are good" and need to start thinking at a more sophisticated level about these problems. I'm ashamed at the trite cliches and hackneyed arguments put forth in this poorly-written article.
---------------------------
"WRONG! (using caps like you)" by sulli
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106055&cid=9031382
>THIS WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR EVERY AMERICAN WORKER BUT JOE
NO IT WOULDN'T (using caps like you), unless every worker worked in his particular industry. Which every worker does not. We have a very diverse economy which survives these kinds of industry specific disruptions remarkably well.
America is, by far, largest world consumer of most goods. Channeling that purchasing-power back towards American goods and services would be a huge boon.
Import substitution, the strategy you recommend, has been a massive failure in all economies where it has been tried. Everyone's favorite bad guy India used this strategy for decades and hardly grew at all - after India modernized its economy in the 1990s it has experienced rapid growth. The same was true for Latin American countries like Brazil and Argentina.
Back to the outsourcing issue, the problem I see is the tax break favoring it. This actually provides an unnatural incentive to invest overseas that gives it more value than it really has in the marketplace. We should definitely get rid of that in favor of a fairer corporate tax structure.
---------------------------
These are my own opinions:
I think it's interesting that previous commentator refers to what were two "shining" examples of prosperity (under the guidance of the IMF, and Argentina esp. was the much touted example of what doing things the IMF way could get you). Both are now bust. Brazil is so naughty that it's new leftist leader is regularly in very hot water with the U.S. white house administration, and he even claims that the U.S. is trying to kill him. In Argentina the people are living hand to mouth.
Examples of boom and bust. Wait for it India...
---------------------------
{continued in next message}
Comment