Slashdot Mirror


Offshore Outsourcing Threatens Offshore Outsourcing

theodp writes "India offshore tech support companies may soon face job losses as U.S. companies such as IBM, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle and PeopleSoft explore countries with even cheaper sources of technical labor, including Romania, Russia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Concerned that outsourcing might be outsourced from India in the near future, a Bangalore call center owner said 'It's hard to know where it will all end. Is there a country where people will work for free?'" There's a Newsforge story about the same subject.

859 comments

  1. Offshore outsourcing troubled? by mao+che+minh · · Score: 5, Funny
    Darn, and I was planning on using this year's tax return to fund my own Indian-based software company for a year. That could have paid for like, what, 8 Indian developers?

    Oh well. I can always fall back on that SCOX stock.....oh wait.....

    1. Re:Offshore outsourcing troubled? by ERJ · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Actually, I was kinda wishing I had bought some scox stock...Price is up 50% in the last few days. scox

    2. Re:Offshore outsourcing troubled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      just to be nitpicking on the subject wording

      offshore outsourcING is not endangered.
      offshore outsourceERS are troubled by cheaper competitors.

      offshore outsourcING is alive and well.

    3. Re:Offshore outsourcing troubled? by Delphis · · Score: 2, Funny

      ***WARNING***

      Sense of humor failure detected.

      ***WARNING***

      --
      Delphis
    4. Re:Offshore outsourcing troubled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Maybe you can beat the game by starting an Managment Outsourcing company? I expect you can get at least 12 Indian upper level managers for the price of 8 coders.

    5. Re:Offshore outsourcing troubled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just every Major Company is now Outsourcing, Today at work We where told that we (a well known Software company Known for there Tax Software) will soon start Outsourcing, They say it's because they can support Around the Clock 24 if need be, and last they said they will save money that will make the stock holders happy. What a bunch a bull, there just trying to save money And I'll be out of job. It's happening everyware I worked in an "Captial One" Building (The Credit card Company) They Shout down the Building laid off a Large Portion of people and are Outsourcing also. Damn Greedy companies,
      -digitaboy

    6. Re:Offshore outsourcing troubled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called capitalism. Get used to it pinky.

      And while you're at it, get an education and get a job in something other than tech support and customer service... ya doof!

  2. Captain Obvious Strikes Again! by Violet+Null · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's really hard to come up with anything else to add to this story. I mean, did anyone _not_ see this coming? Global companies will do what's cheapest...and there will always be someone who'll be cheaper than you.

    Now, when they start outsourcing management...that's when I'll be happy.

    1. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Maybe we'll get some call centers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Foreign occupation at its best!

    2. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again! by Organic_Info · · Score: 1

      Questions is will it all go about circle and the currently developed countries US/Western EU become cheaper than elsewhere or will the world economies stablise with economic wealth and labour dispersed globally.

      Excuse the spelling I'm tired and am having trouble thinking.

      --
      "Things that you own end up owning you" - Tyler Durden (via Diogenes of Sinope).
    3. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again! by murphyslawyer · · Score: 1

      In today's market, India outsources YOU - to Soviet Russia.

      --
      I ain't evil, I'm just good looking.
    4. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again! by battlemarch · · Score: 1

      Sure, people knew it would happen.

      Just as folks know that at some point when the all the jobs have left the U.S. that Americans won't be able to aford the goods and services that were once made here and now produced overseas.

      --
      Oh, come, come, come. Without a monster or two, it's hardly a quest... merely a gaggle of friends wandering about. - Owl
    5. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again! by JediTrainer · · Score: 1

      Global companies will do what's cheapest...and there will always be someone who'll be cheaper than you.

      Won't this merely lead to ruin? If all the work is going overseas, and North Americans are put out of work, then who's going to be able to buy the products?

      --

      You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
    6. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again! by swordboy · · Score: 1
      --

      Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    7. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again! by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      That's just it, not *ALL* the work is going overseas. Sometimes, it's cheaper to get parts made by the billions overseas, have them shipped to the U.S. in crates, and assembled. Hell, BMW does it with their X5, Toyota with many of their cars, and goodness knows how many Dells, Compaqs, HPs and other products.

      American laborers have become giant designers and lego-assemblers. We just don't build the legos. I see this all the time with foreign steel, subassemblies and the like, cheap consumer items like clothing and shoes, where human labor *IS* the single biggest expense, and there's no reliable and efficient way to make it go away.

    8. Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again! by Casca1 · · Score: 0
      Of course, the really big question no-one has clearly addressed... What happens when the jobs are outsourced, all your happy techs are now unemployed, and the business is making it's bubbly little profit at the expense of HR; What next? They will keep moving the outsource to cheaper and cheaper, but who BUYS their crap? I mean, especially here, where the outsourced road is well traveled, what the business cares about is profit... But there can be NO profit when no one can buy the product. Great, you outsourced your IT... Now who buys the hightech gadgets? Certainly not the UNEMPLOYED tech...

      Oh, and the otherside... Right now it's unethical (Mostly) to hack the former employer... but I think when the job is outsourced ethics have already flown out the door, don't you? Just some food for thought... never know when MY boss is reading. 8-)

  3. Price? by onion2k · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So stop competing on price and start offering a good, high quality, reliable service that people will pay a little more for.

    1. Re:Price? by ndogg · · Score: 1

      If a company can get the same or better quality at a lower price, why not?

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    2. Re:Price? by eggstasy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Allow me to ammend that:
      If a company can churn out the crappiest possible software at the cheapest possible price in the least amount of time, and then have their marketing department convince Joe CEO that their software is the "LEADING!!", "BEST-OF-BREED!!", "INNOVATIVE!!" solution... *shrugs*
      Will someone please illegalize marketing? kthxbye.

    3. Re:Price? by WeirdKid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trust me: quality is always overshadowed by price in the standard US meet-the-quarterly-numbers business model.

    4. Re:Price? by ndogg · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Is that Joe CEO or Joe Gullible? Can't be that hard to test software out yourself, can it?

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    5. Re:Price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just price. I would like to be able to talk to a call/tech center with someone who doesn't speak broken english for once. SMC's call center is so bad I have to ask "pardon?" or "I'm sorry, could you slow down a little so your words don't run together?" or "let me to speak to someone who actually knows the english language". But then, that's part of the reason I stopped selling SMC.

    6. Re:Price? by someme2 · · Score: 1

      A lot of companies decide like this: all bids that have a certain (minimal) quality level are considered. Decision between these bids is made by price.
      Once you have jumped over the quality hurdle it does not matter how high.

      To make things worse most of the times you are competing against companies whose quality of work is already taken for granted. They can skip the quality hurdle jumping and go directly to talking about the price.

      At the moment the quality hurdle you have to jump is pretty low -- because it is attractive for companies to get more bids into the price negotiation phase of things. Because more bids usually result in lower prices.

      Winning proposal of today: send a postcard saying "hi, we are so and so and we offer your system for 0,- $."

      --
      You can attach boosters to anything. It just costs more. -
      Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 07, @12:26PM
    7. Re:Price? by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      I guess you've never called any tech support outsourced to an Indian company.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    8. Re:Price? by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 1
      It's possible we all have. Other articles linked to in the referenced article talk about Indian call centers where the employees use Americanized names when talking to customers and are trained to pick up American speech patterns and cultural references to convey the impression they're American; lots of tech support customers in the US apparently haven't the remotest idea they're speaking to someone in India.

      In other words, one can't simply assume that one is talking to an American just because it's "obvious" the tech support person "is American," and therefore one can't easily determine whether the Indian workers offer the same quality, better, or worse.

      I'm assuming your post was meant to indicate Indian workers generally don't offer the "same quality or better" cited by the previous worker; given the info in the other articles mentioned, how would you know?

    9. Re:Price? by eggstasy · · Score: 1

      Clearly you haven't been dealing with a lot of CEOs lately. Your average CEO is incapable of defining "software", let alone installing it.
      They also think Windows comes indelebly embedded on the computer hardware, or that it IS the computer.
      If their computer breaks they say "windows is broken", or "windows has been acting up lately".
      If you ask them to point to the computer they will point to the monitor and not the tower. Some will even move the mouse around the desktop, indicating that the desktop IS the computer.
      They will refer to the tower as either the "disk" or the "cpu" if they want to sound tech-savvy.
      Of course if you want to talk about management and finance with them, they will probably 0wNz0r j00 with their very own kind of jargon.
      I actually asked a CEO friend of mine for a bit of banking advice... christ. My head started spinning very quickly and I gained a newfound respect for the "clueless luser" CEO type.

    10. Re:Price? by GlassUser · · Score: 1
      Of course if you want to talk about management and finance with them, they will probably 0wNz0r j00 with their very own kind of jargon.
      I actually asked a CEO friend of mine for a bit of banking advice... christ. My head started spinning very quickly and I gained a newfound respect for the "clueless luser" CEO type.

      Of course, I have a good idea that they don't know what they're talking about there either. Being in executive management is about kissing ass, not knowing how things work.
    11. Re:Price? by Anonymous+Struct · · Score: 1

      Indeed, there seems to be very little correlation between what's really high quality and what gets bought, at least in my experience. From what I've seen, decisions get made based on:

      1. Politics
      2. Price
      3. Sales pitch

      in that order of priority. There's always a grand plan to "evaluate all options", but we always end up buying what's cheapest or what some management fellow thinks will be best (often times it's just whatever the last company they worked for was using). It'd be nice if quality was the #1 deciding factor, but it'd have to be on the list of criteria first.

    12. Re:Price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      believe me.. you WILL know when you talk to a tech support rep from India.

    13. Re:Price? by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      Because I always end up providing tech support for my co-workers for stuff they bought for home use. They first all the manufacturer's tech support line, which is handled by someone with heavy Indian accent. They have hard time understanding my co-workers and my co-workers have hard time understanding them due to their heavy accent.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    14. Re:Price? by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      I actually asked a CEO friend of mine for a bit of banking advice... christ. My head started spinning very quickly and I gained a newfound respect for the "clueless luser" CEO type.

      Yes, it's a normal human tendency to equate intelligence with experience/knowledge in the same areas you personally have them in. Plumbers think most people are idiots because they can't fix basic plumbing problems, mechanics think the same because people can't fix their cars, professors think most people are idiots because they aren't professors, etc. My personal feeling is that this is why so many people seem to think that 'everyone else' in the country is dumb. They forget that to 'everyone else' *they* are everyone else. I saw a survey once where 100 people were asked 'do you think most people are dumb?' and then 'do you think you are dumb?'
      I wish I could remember where I saw this, because it was really funny. A large portion said that 'most people' were dumb, but about the same portion also said *they* were not dumb. So I guess what it comes down to is that most people think most people are dumb, but that they are not one of them. Kinda amusing, if it didn't have such damaging consequences. It's harder to make decisions for other people if you don't think you know better than they do.

    15. Re:Price? by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 1

      Amen! And the most surprising entry on the list of companies to try that approach is:

      Comcast.

      Yes, the cable TV/Internet behemoth. They had outsourced much of their tech support to India. Now they're bringing it back home, including building a customer service center a few miles from me here in Michigan.

      The last time my Internet connection flaked out, I called Comcast, talked to someone who told me that it was a problem on their end that should be fixed within the next few hours, which it was, and he called me back afterwards to make sure that my Internet service was working. No scripted questions trying to diagnose phantom problems on my end. Amazing! Sad that it should be amazing, but, there it is. I even got the impression that the support rep is clueful.

      It wasn't long ago that I was mad enough to wire up my condo complex for Internet and satellite TV service. Now I'm inclined to let the cable co. deal with it. Especially if the rumors on dslreports.com about Comcast upping their bandwidth limits to compete with DSL are true.

    16. Re:Price? by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I have spoken to tech support reps from India at least once or twice that I know of. I'm just saying it's not always evident. Check out some of the last few paragraphs of the article:

      That keenness is a concern to Padmajai Goenka, a 23-year-old technical support worker in Mumbai, India, who goes by the name of Pam when she's on duty troubleshooting problems for puzzled PC users in the United States who very rarely know they are speaking to someone who lives thousands of miles away.

      Goenka, who requested her company name be withheld, said that she was trained to "act American."

      "Even though there is a lot of yelling from the clients, I love this job." Goenka said. "I have been fascinated with America since I was a little girl. Now I get paid to pretend I am American -- it's wonderful."

      Indian call center workers receive meticulous training before they are allowed to field tech support calls. Farhat Gupta, owner of several Bangalore call centers, said that little attention is paid to technical training, as "all the answers are always on the computer screen in front of the workers. We exist for people who do not want to use the Internet themselves to find their own answers."

      Instead, instruction is centered on learning American culture, and "losing the British accents they all pick up in school," Gupta, who has an office in Jackson Heights, Queens, said.

      Trainees typically watch dozens of American movies and TV shows for the first week to acclimatize themselves to U.S. slang and accents.

      Better yet, check out this other article, linked from the above one.

      Obviously not all companies use these kinds of practices to simulate Americanness in their tech support people; some companies make no effort to disguise their people as being people someplace other than who and where they are. But apparently at least some companies do this, and apparently at least some of their US customers are indeed fooled by it.

    17. Re:Price? by The+Wing+Lover · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does anyone else have visions of the time that Apu got fake US citizenship documents?

      "What do you say that we take a relaxed attitude towards work and watch the baseball game? The 'NYE' Mets are my favourite squadron."

      --

      - In Capitalist America, law violates YOU!

    18. Re:Price? by infinite9 · · Score: 1

      Instead, instruction is centered on learning American culture, and "losing the British accents they all pick up in school,"

      Repeat after me: Indians do not have British accents. They have Indian accents. They may have been taught the British dialect of english, but that's not the same thing.

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    19. Re:Price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're kidding, right? People learn accents too. Ever speak to a european english major? Even if they are french or german they will speak with a strong brittish accent.

      A good foreign language class will try to teach you to speak with a native accent. Not only will it sound more natural but it makes it a lot easier to understand.

    20. Re:Price? by tigga · · Score: 1

      Well, european english and indian english are quit different - indian accents are pretty thick and hide british accent behind..

    21. Re:Price? by maxconfus · · Score: 1

      I bet a thousand times over that people wish they could stop competing on price. But the reality is that corporations have nothing really else to go on but the final price of IT services. Its tough to say to the CEO ya were bankrupt but the quality was excellent. Not too realistic.

      --
      A hand up and a foot on every chest...
    22. Re:Price? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I know someone who used to do tech support for India. If any worker had said anything negative, they are fired. So don't take the worker serious until there in a position where they don't need a job in India.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  4. Open Source is the answer by yatest5 · · Score: 1
    OSS programmers work for free, and their work is alot higher quality than those who are paid to do the job (due to them actually caring for the movement).


    Outsource *that*, you corporate nomarks!

    --
    • Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37
    1. Re:Open Source is the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      their work is alot higher quality than those who are paid to do the job

      FALSE.

    2. Re:Open Source is the answer by ndogg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Give it a rest. OSS isn't about working for free, it's about caring about what you're working on, and letting others give the same kind of care.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    3. Re:Open Source is the answer by onion2k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Open source only works if you want a piece of software that is good for everyone. Noone is going to come and write my factory control and admin system for free, even if they can give away the source afterwards.

      Whats more, I don't think I'd trust running a control system that someone had written for free. Where would I get support? Updates? Who would I complain to if it went wrong without running the risk of the OSS programmers saying 'Sod it. Can't be bothered any more.'

      As for the work being higher quality, you may well be write in the case of the big and famous OSS projects like Linux, OpenOffice, Gimp and so forth, but don't go thinking that OSS === Good Software any more than Pay For Software === Good Software. You get utter tripe in both camps.

    4. Re:Open Source is the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, I'm going to put my FRS out on the net now and see how long it takes for OSS programmers to organize themselves and develop my system for free so I can trun around and sell it for a profit.

      well, what are you all waiting for???

    5. Re:Open Source is the answer by szelus · · Score: 1

      Open source only works if you want a piece of software that is good for everyone. Noone is going to come and write my factory control and admin system for free, even if they can give away the source afterwards.

      You are messing up two different things. Nobody is ever goint to write something for free unless he has some other/personal usage/reason for it. So, yes, nobody is going to write some application for you for free.

      But the point of OSS, and especially GNU, is quite different. When you are going to pay somebody do write an app for you, and you decide to go OSS way, the developer can use a quite big building block base - existing OSS, and get things done faster. Then when the whole thing is released back into OSS, the community has even bigger building blocks database next time a new app is needed.

    6. Re:Open Source is the answer by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
      Noone is going to come and write my factory control and admin system for free, ...

      Not unless they happen to need it for THEIR factory.

      ... even if they can give away the source afterwards.

      I'd say UNLESS it's a libre program. They wouldn't do it free-to-you if you could lock them out afterwards.

      Where would I get support? Updates? Who would I complain to if it went wrong without running the risk of the OSS programmers saying 'Sod it. Can't be bothered any more.'

      You would get reliable, affordable support where you always find it: from well paid contractors who have the ability to deliver what you need. Some kid who wrote your system might say ``Sod it. Can't be bothered any more.'' (if he were British!), whether he'd written you a libre or a proprietary system. If the system is proprietary, you're screwed. If libre, you should be able to find another, more reliable contractor.

      Here's a thought: supplying software to your business is probably a tiny niche in the software industry. There is a good chance that someday, your supplier will be bought out by a competitor, who will stop supporting your software the day the support contract runs out. You can buy their new program. And the new kit which is the only thing in the world which will run that program. Or, you can shut down for good next time there's a problem that a reboot won't fix, because they won't let anyone do support on their old code.

      This is essentially what proprietary software is all about: the ability to gouge you right down to the bone. You can trust the proprietor to take you for every penny, right up to the point that it would be cheaper to buy a new factory, with software from some new supplier, who will start the cycle all over again. If the proprietor DOESN'T do that, his stockholders will quite rightly toss him out on his ear.

      If you are lucky enough to get some libre process control software developed for your process, hire that developer! Go in with some of your competitors who use the same machinery and make it happen if you can.

    7. Re:Open Source is the answer by easter1916 · · Score: 1

      I get paid for and take pride in my work. I care about the quality of my code. Up yours, asshole GNU hippy.

    8. Re:Open Source is the answer by symbolset · · Score: 1
      Because you require something (software) that you can't create and don't understand, you need someone to provide it for you. As you point out, trust is essential for this. In a modern world we all have to make this bargain since it's impossible for any one person to understand everything.

      Trust is a great thing, but with it comes risk. The ancient adage, "trust but verify" applies. If you can verify how your factory control and system works with a third party the recipient of your trust is less likely to violate it. If the provider denies you the ability to inspect its operation, it's more likely to compromise your trust.

      What's important then is not whether your factory admin and control system is open source, but whether the source is open to you. If its inner operation is not available for inspection then no method of testing can verify all of what it is (and importantly is not) doing.

      While this may seem like a commercial vs. FOSS issue to you it's actually much broader than that. Imagine you have a teen daughter and you trust her to attend a slumber party. Would that trust extend to the location/time/attendance of the slumber party being unavailable information? What purpose would the unavailability of that information serve?

      No, noone is going to custom build your specific application for free. If you pay someone to build it you have the option of requiring the sources and specifications in the contract. Required to provide this, the contractor may be motivated to do better work. If the contractor goes out of business (a possibility for any size business these days) you still have the work you paid for. If not, the next contractor has to start over.

      Sure, your contractor may offer a discount to avoid providing the sources and specs. You should consider this like any other workman's offer to give you a discount for cash up front and uncertain delivery. Some contractors don't provide sources at all. Think of this as an offer to take your money without offering you an opportunity to have the work inspected, ever.

      "Inspect what you expect" is a management key often said and seldom implemented. Certainly from your post I get the impression that you've been sold the idea that transparency is a bad thing. That cannot be more wrong. Whether you actually inspect or not is a separate issue but if you cannot inspect your trust will be breached eventually and the consequences could be disastrous for you.

      The need for inspection carries not just to the product itself, but to the tools used to build it. Since you're paying for the product it just makes sense to specify a product that can be thoroughly inspected. Since open source tools are freely available and just as powerful it makes sense to require them where they apply. Any contractor who says they cannot perform the task has clearly bought into the black box loop of trust and cannot provide the transparent solution that you need.

      FOSS solutions are transparent from end to end. This often results in less development time, more security and fewer bugs. Certainly a developer on a FOSS system does not have to rely on a different developer to explain some undocumented feature or spend time on hold waiting for some uneducated clerk in New Delhi to provide tech support. They should be able to just pull up the source and read it. If they can't understand the source code, you're using the wrong developer.

      Sure, your developers can probably provide good reasons why this is all a bad idea, why they need some secret widget, why FOSS doesn't fazzle the fumpus or some such. They might caution you against getting important decision making information from such an unreliable source as the internet. Their arguments will be persuasive. To that I can only say

      It's not me that's trying to get your money.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    9. Re:Open Source is the answer by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " Open source only works if you want a piece of software that is good for everyone. Noone is going to come and write my factory control and admin system for free, even if they can give away the source afterwards."
      Maybe, maybe not it depend on interest.
      I bet if a really hot viseo card company released there specs to there card, they would get some pretty good drivers written for free.

      Support? Hire someone. Who do you complain to if propritary software goes wrong and they decide your not worth the effort? or goes oput of business? Hell, depending on the software issue, you probably could find an answer online.
      If other companies are using OSS, then you can find out if they have delt with the issue. that goes both ways.

      Usually Closed software is written by people looking for a paycheck, and meeting bound. OSS is usually written by people whole love what that do, and take pride in there programs. Which one do you think is likley to produce better results?

      If companies started adopting an OSS attitude toward there software, it would save them a lot of money in the long run. Sure there is an up front cost for your factory control system, but what about the accounting software someone else had done that you can pick up? or the server software.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  5. There are lots of free workers by MongooseCN · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Is there a country were people will work for free?

    Yes, they are called open source developers and they are in every country around the world.

    1. Re:There are lots of free workers by Jerf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ever tried to force an open-source developer to change the design to meet your needs? Especially a large project not in a mode where they are begging for respect by pandering to anybody who will deign to email them.

    2. Re:There are lots of free workers by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      With proprietary models, you would have to sign a huge, exclusive contract to get that sort of service. In open source, just send pizzas. They'll love you forever. :)

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    3. Re:There are lots of free workers by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Ever tried to force an open-source developer to change the design to meet your needs?

      I hear that dropping bags of money on their heads can be effective.

    4. Re:There are lots of free workers by FatherOfONe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's compare the two types of devleopment.

      Issue: I have a software package that doesn't due what our company needs it to do and I need some modifications to it. The developers/company doesn't want to do it.

      Closed Source/Proprietary: - You beg the vendor to do it, and threaten to switch if they don't. This is generally a limited threat, because of the fact that it will cost your company a huge amount of time and effort to switch to another vendor (who will have other issues). You could offer to pay the vendor for the development, but unless they are a small shop this probably won't do the trick either, or you will be paying HUGE $$$$ to them. You could have your own developers, provide some type of workaround, but this will break when the vendors upgrade/fix their code. Basically you have no good option, except to pray that the vendor will address your issue. Also when the vendor does release the upgrade, it will probably contain code enhansements that you don't care about, but will probably cause you other errors... I have lived in this world for a long time... and still do with Oracle and Microsoft.

      Option 2, use Open Source: You quickly determine that nobody is going to work on the "patch/enhansement" that you want. You will need to now hire a coder that knows the language of the system (probably C). That coder will have to take some time getting up to speed on the program, and then fix it. The coder can then release that code back to the open source community, and it will "probably" make it in future releases. Now if you find yourself making significant changes to the code on a regular basis, then I would hire/contract development to give you what you want, and you wouldn't have to pay for time needed to get the developer use to the code. They can still release their code back to the open-source community, and it probably will get put in the main codebase, so you will be protected with future upgrades.

      Both options cost time and money, development isn't cheap, and some companies hate giving stuff they paid for away for free. However, at the end of the day THEY ARE IN CONTROL!!!, not some outside vendor.

      This flys in the face of "nobody ever got fired for buying xxx". :-) Those types of people are probably NEVER going to try open-source code and they will just live with whatever product the market leader produces for their needs. I have worked with many people like that, and thankfully most are no longer in positions of power. The rest are praying that nothing ever happens to Microsoft, or if it does it happens slow enough for them to move to another position.

      --
      The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
    5. Re:There are lots of free workers by Pave+Low · · Score: 1

      Your comparisons of open source vs. closed source development in theory makes a good case for open source.

      But socialism sounded pretty good in theory, too.

      Oh wait..

      --
      SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
    6. Re:There are lots of free workers by ftzdomino · · Score: 1

      No, but I have tried to force software vendors to fix small bugs. Even when paying $80k in licensing and support costs per year it's still tough get this done. For that same amount of money I could most definitely hire people to do the work or persuade the core developers to help me out.

    7. Re:There are lots of free workers by FatherOfONe · · Score: 1

      Wow!!! By no means did I say anthing about socialism being good! In the environment that I mentioned, there would be all kinds of capatalism. The core difference is that the client (YOU) would be in control of the software.

      I am still not saying that this fits for everything. Some people don't care about that control and are fine with what a vendor provides. Proprietary code works great for them. Heck that type of thinking is probably is what keeps Apple in business; people who trust Apple and it gives them what they want. They don't have to worry about what hardware works with what software. Most of their computing decisions are made for them. The same argument could be made somewhat for IBM and Sun.

      My experience is that with large custom software packages, vendors tend to srew their clients over time. Now those clients have a choice with future software packages. It may not be the best choice for them, but they do have a choice.

      Lastly, Socialism doesn't look good on paper either. Once you look at it, and debate it, you see where it falls apart. I am more than willing to debate the merits of open source vs proprietary code... I don't think it will fall apart, and unlike a government you don't have to choose just one.

      --
      The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
    8. Re:There are lots of free workers by Jerf · · Score: 1

      Y'all missed the point. The claim was that open source workers work for free. My point was that while that work for free, they don't work for you for free, and there is one hell of a difference.

    9. Re:There are lots of free workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, push a few thousand their way, and another paid programmer, and you will be surprised what an open source developer will do.

      If your idea does fit in with their philosophy, and within their skillset, you will find that they might do something about it.

      Keep it real kids.

  6. A country where people will work for free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is there a country where people will work for free? Yeah, the GNU.S.A.

    1. Re:A country where people will work for free? by EvilNTUser · · Score: 4, Funny

      But GNU is Not USA!

      --
      My Sig: SEGV
    2. Re:A country where people will work for free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More properly it's the GNUited States, leader of the free (as in speech) world, and shaper of the GNU/world order.

  7. The republican party has a solution... by Rush+Limbaugh · · Score: 1, Funny

    The Republican party has a solution for these companies to stop job losses and profit loss.

    1) Take away your rights with a new PATRIOT Act
    2) Give tax cuts to the wealthy
    3) PROFIT!!!

    1. Re:The republican party has a solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      Let me try the counter viewpoint:

      The Democratic party has a solution for these companies to stop job losses and profit loss.

      1) Take away your rights with the DMCA.
      2) Raise taxes and give the money to a bunch of scumbag welfare leeches.
      3) PROFIT!!!

  8. IS this what inspires terrorism? by aldousd666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This reminds me of the story of Saudi Arabia and mideastern oil. Way back around the turn of the century, there was no great oil industry in the Arabian Peninsula. They were trying to find something to do with this deset wasteland. Then, the US comes in, offers to pay the countries (then Saudi Arabia was the focus) 1 penny per barrel exported, all drilled by the US, worked mostly by US oil workers. Now, we see what has come of this situation... Should we be as worried about tennis shoes and cheap nylon jumpsuits?

    --
    Speak for yourself.
    1. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If it's Arab oil on Arab land, in all fairness, why should the US profit from it?

      What you're saying is you don't mind exploiting people, as long as you aren't among the ones exploited. Am I right?

    2. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      I don't really understand what you're getting at. Are you trying to say that Saudi Arabians are becoming terrorists because they feel "exploited"? Native Saudi Arabians are on average much richer than Americans.

    3. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by aldousd666 · · Score: 1

      no I'm saying it all started with the americans coming to industrialize, then the other nations, who are actully producing terrorists (like Iraq) get into it and resent our original involvement, esp after we leave.

      --
      Speak for yourself.
    4. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All this happened three years ago? Damn, feels like longer.

    5. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by Mr.+No+Skills · · Score: 1

      I don't think the same worry is there. Oil worked because Saudi was one of the few places with the oil -- a good chunk of it, anyway. If every country had the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia, the Saudis would not have the money they do and the ability that money has to keep their government in power and control. Once their oil is gone, they go back to being an undeveloped (or no longer developing) country since they have not done much to build up other industries (I think).

      Outsourced programming is just the process of capitalism at work on a global scale. Low end IT is outsourced where labor is cheaper, and the US workers go on to do other things with higher value if they want to maintain their lifestyle. Just like there is not much clothing being manufactured in the US anymore, but high-end special things still are.

      This is just the result of progress, whether through economic pressure (outsourcing) or technological advance (better machinery or automation). We learn other things and move on. Three generations ago my family ran a wool blanket factory. I don't miss it.

      --
      Sleep is for the Weak
    6. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by Talisman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "If it's Arab oil on Arab land, in all fairness, why should the US profit from it?"

      The Arabs didn't even know it was there until the U.S. (Saudi Arabia & Kuwait) and Britain (Iran & Iraq) showed them it was there. In addition, even if they knew it was there, they had no technology to get at it. The first oil drill was invented by Edwin L. Drake, an American.

      Now assume the Arabs knew the oil was there (they didn't) and had the ability to extract it (they didn't), who would they have sold it to?

      North America and Europe were the only two continents industrialized enough to need that amount of oil.

      So, we showed them it was there (all they saw was a vast, useless desert), gave them the technology to extract it, and gave them the markets to sell their otherwise useless oil to.

      And you don't think we (the U.S. and Britain) deserve a slice of the pie?

      Talk about unfair...

      Talisman

      --

      "Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
    7. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by Eccles · · Score: 1

      no I'm saying it all started with the americans coming to industrialize, then the other nations, who are actully producing terrorists (like Iraq)

      Name one anti-US terrorist "produced" by Iraq.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    8. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by aldousd666 · · Score: 1

      Ok. So technically you got me, but the people in general in the Mideast don't seem to like us (with the exception of the saudi's) Not any one country is producing the terrorists, but there are a bunch of angy people over there, and they are indeed angry at us. For what? I don't know, but they didn't have all the money or oil that everyone is fighting over until the US came in, industrialized, and left. Osama bin Laden himself doesn't like us because the Saudis are so nice to us. He thinks the gov't over there is kissing our ass.

      --
      Speak for yourself.
    9. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      North America and Europe were the only two continents industrialized enough to need that amount of oil.


      You seem to be forgetting those little events called World War.

      So, we showed them it was there (all they saw was a vast, useless desert), gave them the technology to extract it, and gave them the markets to sell their otherwise useless oil to.


      As opposed to be conquered by Germany, and having it stolen and their people raped and murdered... I can see why they hate the US and Britain...

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    10. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by OrangeGoo · · Score: 1

      The Saudis don't like us. :P

    11. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by thogard · · Score: 1

      They did know it was there, they did know where to find much of it and they know how to get to some of it. In fact Egypt has been exporting oil for over 4000 years. The Romans were importing oil from the middle east 2000 years ago. The Greeks used it as weapon.

      What the American did was go there and work at depleting the Arab oil before depleating their own as well as providing enough info to keep the ruling powers in powers. Those two things are what are upsetting the poorer Saudis as well as the millions of Arabs that work in the country.

    12. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're kidding right?

      Forget about all the over-generaliziations and skipped points... but you really think the US does something like that and leaves?

    13. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by Eccles · · Score: 1

      So technically you got me, but the people in general in the Mideast don't seem to like us (with the exception of the saudi's)

      15 of the 19 9/11 attackers were Saudis. You're confusing the attitude of the government with that of the people. Indeed, a key motivation of the kidnappers is that we help keep the Saudi government in power. I for one am happy we're pulling our troops out of Saudi Arabia.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    14. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by alienw · · Score: 1

      Nice logic. By your argument, if I teach someone to drive a car (and provide the car), I'm entitled to having them work for me as a taxi driver for the rest of their life, without getting paid. Sorry, that's not the way it works.

    15. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      Native Saudi Arabians are on average much richer than Americans.

      There are many rich people in Saudi Arabia, but most of the money is concentrated within a very small minority of the people who do business with American and European oil compnaies. The average Saudi Arabian is quite poor. This inequitable distribution of income only feeds the anti-Western sentiment.

      From the CIA World Factbook, GDP - per capita.

      Saudi Arabia: purchasing power parity - $10,600 (2001 est.)

      USA: purchasing power parity - $36,300 (2001 est

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    16. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by JonToycrafter · · Score: 1

      MY thought was:
      1) Open a store.
      2) Walk into people's houses, look under their couches for spare change.
      3) Insist that since I found this money they didn't know was there, and unless they spend it it's just useless metal, they're obligated to spend it in my store.

      I'll leave out 4, which is that if they spend it in a competitor's store, I launch a missile at their house and send in troops :)

    17. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The arabs didn't know that there was oil there?

      The knowledge about the oil is pretty well documented in 1001 nights and other old arabian literature. In fact, it was the white west who didn't know about rock oil before the arabs explained it to them!

    18. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by majestyk2000 · · Score: 1

      Not trying to provide any backing to an argument I haven't researched independently, but from what the original poster said your analogy is a little off.

      It seems like a more accurate analogy would be informing the person (who owns a large piece of land) there is something called 'driving', then building them a car and driving it for them on their land while they sit around in the back seat. I'm not sure how much they are entitled to because they own the land the car is driving on.

    19. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Saudi exports 60, 70 billion dollars worth of oil a year. There's about 22 million Saudis. That's about $3000 each. And most of that money goes to just a few people. Most of the jobs are held by foreigners (few Saudis deign to lower themselves to perform manual labor). There's no other exports other than oil, no other industry. Much (most?) of their water comes from desalinization plants, which (I believe) run on natural gas purchased from Qatar. All their food is imported or grown at tremedous expense. Your average SA citizen is *not* abandoning his Rolls Royce on the side of the highway when it runs out of gas.

      We "exploit" Russia, Mexico, Venezuala, Canada, etc. for oil and they're more than happy to keep the pumps running. The difference is they're not run by tyrants propped up by oil money, and the people in those countries know that it's *their* responsibility to get *their* govt to serve the general public. Something, apparently, the average SA citizen is to stupid to grasp.

    20. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      I work in the US for a European country. In all fairness, why should Europeans profit from my labor?

      The oil sold by Saudi is sold at market price. Actually, because of OPEC, that price is higher than what it would be in a real free market.

      Western companies supply the capital equipment and perform most of the labor. The Saudis could build the equipment and do all the labor, but that would involve Saudis doing manual work.

      The Saudi citizens are only being exploited by their govt. If the US refused to buy oil from SA, some other country would pick up the slack (the US doesn't import much oil from SA anyway).

      If the Saudi citizens feel that they're being taken advantage of, they need to take it up with *their* leaders. SA is a sovereign country.

      I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that you don't think the US was justified in going into Iraq. If you *do* feel that way, then you shouldn't have a problem with having a nation run by tyrants using the resources of their nation for their own advantage. So why should you have a problem with the situation in SA? At least the govt there isn't doing mass executions of its own citizenry.

    21. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      That's about $3000 each. And most of that money goes to just a few people. Most of the jobs are held by foreigners (few Saudis deign to lower themselves to perform manual labor).

      I have a hard time reconciling those two statements. The Saudis are poor but not so poor that they are willing to accept a job for pay? Sounds unlikely.

    22. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Why do you think they don't get paid? Where do you think Osama's money came from? Mowing lawns?

      They can stop selling oil anytime they want. They have before. They can charge whatever the market can bear. They're the main guys in OPEC (if they were American citizens, they'd be sitting in jail for collusion and price-fixing).

      Yeah, they're ruled by tyrants. About the only way to change that is to go in and overthrow them. Seem to recall a lot of the "civilized" world got their panties in a bind the last time that happened.

      I guess the US could stop buying the 10 or 20% of their output that we buy, but I'm sure that France would be more than happy to step up to the plate and take our place.

      And lastly, there's not a damn thing keeping them from developing their own oil extraction tech and from doing all the work themselves and keeping all that pay to themselves. Except for the fact that no self-respecting Saudi will tolerate being anything less than a mid-level manager.

    23. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Believe it. There's about 22 million Saudis, and about 7 million foreign workers.

      Saudi Arabia is home to Mecca and Messina. They're the keepers of the holy cities. Work is beneath them. Even other Muslim Arabs can't stand Saudis.

      Google on saudi unemployment. The first hit says their unemployment rate is 30%. About as many foreign workers in their country.

      I for one will not shed a tear when they run out of oil.

    24. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, we showed them it was there (all they saw was a vast, useless desert), gave them the technology to extract it, and gave them the markets to sell their otherwise useless oil to

      This is as stupid as saying "Without Chuck Berry there would be no rock'n roll today".

      There will always be another Chuck Berry if the first one don't show up.

      It's their oil. Not yours.

    25. Re:IS this what inspires terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tyrants? Let's not forget our history here. Most of them, including Saddam Hussein, were installed by the US government. It's not really in the Saudis' best interest to sell lots of oil for incredibly cheap prices, when they could easily jack up the price. You pretend that it's the Saudis who make the decisions as to what to sell and how much. It's really not. The world's oil economy is controlled quite tightly by the United States.

      Also, I don't think France or any other European country wastes oil in such prodigious quantities as the US.

  9. What is next? by Prince_Ali · · Score: 1

    Will they outsource tech support to a Venezuelan insane asylum next?

    1. Re:What is next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      BEHOLD!

      The merciless portscanner of GAUNMAP! Coded deep in the jungle primeval by the inmates of a Guatemalan insane asylum...

    2. Re:What is next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think AOL's tech support already is.

    3. Re:What is next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not directly related to the software industry, but there was a report the other day on CBC talking about a Toronto accounting firm outsourcing some of its work to...Uganda. Every evening, somebody in Toronto scans handwritten forms, receits, bills etc and then emails them to Uganda where cheap Ugandan accountants (paid 1$ per hour) read the documents and convert them into electronic format.

    4. Re:What is next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably would, if they could rule out the possibility of customer service improvement...

  10. Karma... by Eggplant62 · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Looks like Buddha is *not* smiling down upon the Hindu children. Pretty soon, techies in India will be doing what techies in America are doing:

    Slaving for low wages or searching for a new job.

    May "Bob" smile down upon them instead, may they quit their jobs and SLACK OFF!

    1. Re:Karma... by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      The idea that techies in America have so it so bad (or any worse than other Americans, at least) is as silly as the notion that Buddha would be "smiling down" on anyone (especially Hindus, who belong to a different from the Buddhists).

      --
      I do not have a signature
    2. Re:Karma... by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      FWIW Buddhism and Hinduism are two different things, like Christianity and Judaism. You can pick a Hindu god like Ganesha, etc.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    3. Re:Karma... by Jonsey · · Score: 1

      Right. Hindu != Buddhist. Buddha != Hindu

      of for you SQLers Hindu Buddhist.

      --
      I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
    4. Re:Karma... by Jonsey · · Score: 1

      And, in related news, my typing skills have reached an all time low.

      --
      I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
    5. Re:Karma... by saha · · Score: 1

      Not only do your comments show your gross ignorance of the Indian subcontinent, but it also reveals a bitterness to jobs being outsourced away from the US. I suggest that the management of these large US corporations take the blame for that. After all they are acting in their best interest to save money for their company. If the work is outsourced to Bangalore, Manila, Prague, Hanoi...it doesn't really matter to them, as long as their customers are happy and customer service costs are kept low.

      -Diganta

      PS. Buddha's children aren't Hindu. Buddha is integrated into the Hindu religion as one of the many deities. India isn't a country of a homogenous religion. There are many religions that have originated from that country. Hindus are the most prevalent, but Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs are also the indigenous religions. With Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism (refugees) being the imported religions that came to the country hundreds of years ago.

  11. Other reasons... by SerpentMage · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think there are multiple reasons here...

    Most of the countries named have an actual infrastructure. EG I doubt Romania, Russia, Hungary, the Czech Republic have electricity problems.

    Many of the Eastern European countries are not that far away from the Western markets, with some actually joining the European Union.

    All in all it just makes for simpler business....

    Funny though... (in an ironic sense)

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    1. Re:Other reasons... by Artano · · Score: 0

      Only Moscow and St.Petersburg don't have electricity problems in Russia. Most other cities do.

    2. Re:Other reasons... by DoNotTauntHappyFunBa · · Score: 1
      Many of the Eastern European countries are not that far away from the Western markets, with some actually joining the European Union.

      I'm not sure that will help them undercut on price. Doesn't the EU have minimum wage/minimum cost regulations? I seem to recall that this was one of the concerns over Turkey's candidacy for membership.

      --
      Well, hey, I didn't spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a little something about courage.
    3. Re:Other reasons... by doktor-hladnjak · · Score: 1

      Another interesting aspect is that far more people in eastern Europe have received formal education in technical fields than in places like Vietnam or probably even India. At the same time a lot of these skilled people are making very low wages. My impression is that this is most true in Russia. In parts of Romania (and more rural parts of Russia too) things can actually get quite primitive by western European and north American standards. We're talking about things like outhouses, no electricity, and people living off quite a lot off of the food they're growing/raising on their property.

    4. Re:Other reasons... by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      Nope that is one of the things they tried to get through, but it never REALLY made it. (Thankfully) And the next constitution is moving away from a federal Europe to more a Europe where we are one family with unique identities.

      The main "issue" with Turkey is its human rights.

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    5. Re:Other reasons... by heXXXen · · Score: 1

      The Euro is almost exactly equal to a US dollar, if tech companies were forced to pay their labor in Euros, they might as well be paying Americans to do the same thing. To my knowledge, the EU hasn't set it's own minimum wage, but Romania's is $5.50! Higher than it is here...

    6. Re:Other reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...have electricity problems.

      You donÂt have to leave the US for elec. problems. Last summer in California was quite a joy.
    7. Re:Other reasons... by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      Yeah things can get primitive. Just to point things out. Things can get downright primitive in Canada and the US as well. (Outhouse, no electricity) You just need to go into the boonies.

      [sarcasm]
      About the food and living off the land? Well there are those folks too in the US, but oddly they seem to gathering in places like Northern California ;) I think people call them tree-huggers! ;)
      [/sarcasm]

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    8. Re:Other reasons... by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      Language is also an important issue.

      In many of these ex-Soviet bloc countries, German and English were highly popular as second languages to learn. Therefore, there exists a potential work force that can handle phone tech support monkey work for a significant portion of Western Europe, at the very least.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    9. Re:Other reasons... by csteinle · · Score: 1

      It used to be. With the weak dollar, it's now about $1.17 = â1.00

    10. Re:Other reasons... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think that before companies go away from India as a tech support center they have to look at why they chose India in the first place. There was a 60 minutes report on this.

      For the most part India was a good solution because India has a large population of English speaking people. That's why Vietnam nor China was as favored. Most Indians speak multiple languages, and English is the official language. Now their English is different than American English as anyone who's ever used tech support can attest, but it's better than a non-English person trying to learn English. All in all it would be no different if tech support was located in certain counties in Ireland or England.

      I'm not sure what the language situation is in Eastern Europe, but I think that, though their population is educated, that they don't have the high percentage or number of English speakers that India does. Those who can speak English in these countries may cost more as they are more in demand.

      The move to Eastern Europe may be a pure cost cutting measure, but I think these companies should look at quality too.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    11. Re:Other reasons... by Ozan · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that will help them undercut on price. Doesn't the EU have minimum wage/minimum cost regulations?

      No, there is no such thing in the EU. That's what there are unions for.

      I seem to recall that this was one of the concerns over Turkey's candidacy for membership.

      Regarding Turkey there is basicaly one concern over their human rights record.

    12. Re:Other reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The Philippines actually has better English speakers than India. Never mind what you occasionally see on TV where they interview locals from the provinces.

      And the Philippines actually has a power oversupply !

    13. Re:Other reasons... by MSBob · · Score: 1
      EXCEPT:

      Czech Republic's per capita GDP is about the same as some of the EU countries (Spain and Greece come to mind). Czech employees ask for wages close to the EU average. While that is still cheaper than US workers it's still bound to be an order of magnitude higher than in India.

      I suspect that those companies that are retracting from India had no idea how much of a culture shock they were in for by doing business in a third world country with very loose structure to federal laws and no technical infrastructure to speak of.

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    14. Re:Other reasons... by x31forest · · Score: 1

      haha ... yea right , romania would have no problems if that would be the case. Your information is totally wrong. There is no minimum wage set, but I can tell you avg salary is around 150$, and that's per month. Very good tech people get around 600$.

    15. Re:Other reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually last summer in CA was a joy. You have to go back to 2001 to find rolling blackouts.

    16. Re:Other reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is ludicrous. Californians have no idea what electricity problems are. Compared to the third world, your electricity has been rock-solid. So you r prices fluctuated, boo hoo.

    17. Re:Other reasons... by easter1916 · · Score: 1

      Individual EU member states (possibly not all) have their own minimum wage standards. In Ireland it is currently ~$8/hr (or was last time I checked).

    18. Re:Other reasons... by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      Considering that about a year ago the tables were turned ($1 = â1.17), we've seen about a 30% swing in a very short timeframe. It will be interesting to see if the US Dollar depreciation slows down the outsourcing trend at all.

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    19. Re:Other reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, (and this is nothing against Ireland) but how many how many companies outsource to Ireland. GenericGlobalCorp, Inc. would much rather outsource to a country with no minimum wage and where the government can smash up the workers unions, providing that, as earlier comments have suggested, the primary interest of the company is not to make the world a better place, but to make money.

    20. Re:Other reasons... by Torp · · Score: 1

      Actually, the minimum wage here is about $80 per month. That's $0.50 per hour at a 'standard' 160 hour work week.

      --
      I apologize for the lack of a signature.
    21. Re:Other reasons... by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      We don't have electricity problems in Novosibirsk either... I dont know where you get your ideas about Russia but electircity, phone and intenrnet services including hihg speed access are perfectly avalible.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    22. Re:Other reasons... by easter1916 · · Score: 1
      Quite a few, as it happens. Many US Corporations locate there because it's part of the euro currency area, English is the local tongue and the education system produces plenty of highly-qualified graduates.

      You are right in that I don't think this really qualifies as outsourcing either, since the actual cost comparison would be against other potential European locations, most of which are more expensive to do business in than the US, while looking to establish facilities to support the EU market, rather than backoffice work for the US market.

      I was really just commenting on the parent post saying that there's no EU-wide minimum wage (which is true) and that it makes sense that this be dealt with on a national level, according to the EU principle of subsidiarity (i.e., that laws be enacted at the lowest level possible, rather than at the highest level).

  12. Free software by DrTentacle · · Score: 1
    Is there a country were people will work for free?


    What percentage of the contributions made to the OSS community are effectively made "for free"? While I approve wholeheartedly of the concept of open access to the source code, and the idea that once I've bought something, I can do what I like with it, the fact that the industry moves more towards no cost software makes me wonder what the job prospects are going to be in the future. Is there a better model of providing the freedom of source code while not devaluing the effort required to produce the software? I know support contracts work for some people, but is there a better way of rewarding all contributors directly for their input?

    1. Re:Free software by iabervon · · Score: 1

      OSS doesn't stop paid software development. It both enables and requires paid software development to be more advanced. Provided that the business recognizes the significance of free software and arranges to take advantage of it in the ways its licenses permit, the existance of a free program means that developers of other programs can skip to the next problem. Even where a free program isn't used by a company, it competes on features with commercial programs and prompts more commercial development to stay viable, which leads to more programmers working on the commercial program.

      It's not like there's some amount of software functionality that is the what the market wants, and free software, as it reaches toward that goal, diminishes the space of software which people are willing to pay for. There is, rather, some amount of money people are willing to pay, and they want to get the most out of that they can. The free portion is the baseline, and people will pay for functionality beyond that.

    2. Re:Free software by zakezuke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How much money does a typical large company pay for software?

      500 clients at $80 a pop for the os = $40,000
      500 clients at $300 for some applications $150,000

      Every 3 years per major release of windows.

      Or?

      Pay one human who's part of a open source project who fixes bugs and submits fixes @ $63,333 yearly, only diffrence is, you get them first.

      Any company with 500 machines or more is going to have some form of help desk or software support contact. You could spend your money and actually buy a comercial product, or you could employ the people support open source.

      The "pay for people not for software attidude"

      Not to speak of the fact that having a viable project under your belt, rather then basic programing skill and bug fixing, would likely make you more desirable by employers.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  13. Newsflash! by frieked · · Score: 1

    ...and in other news, Unemployment hits 9 year high

    --

    I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
    -Xenocrates
    1. Re:Newsflash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats the reported unemployment figures. That doesn't include a single person who's benifits ran out who is going to the office every week. Those checks run out faster today than they did 9 years ago.

  14. "...a country where people where work for free" by icemax · · Score: 1

    Yes, its called OpenSourceania

    --


    __________
    Love conquers all... except CANCER
  15. Guess this means. . . by PhxBlue · · Score: 4, Interesting

    India offshore tech support companies may soon face job losses as U.S. companies such as IBM, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle and PeopleSoft explore countries with even cheaper sources of technical labor, including Romania, Russia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander. American employees hopefully won't lose any more jobs than they have already; but it kinda sucks for the Indian employees who are going to be out of work now.

    The biggest problem with a global economy is that it caters to the lowest common denominator. The second biggest problem is, you more often than not get what you pay for. I have to wonder if American IT companies are even concerned with the quality of their technical support anymore?

    --
    !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    1. Re:Guess this means. . . by Zathrus · · Score: 1

      I have to wonder if American IT companies are even concerned with the quality of their technical support anymore?

      That would indicate that most of them cared about it in the first place.

      My experiences say otherwise.

    2. Re:Guess this means. . . by doktor-hladnjak · · Score: 1
      I have to wonder if American IT companies are even concerned with the quality of their technical support anymore?

      I thought it was interesting how the article addressed this issue. There was some comment about how a lot of what the tech support does is just look things up online for people who can't find it themselves. These types of jobs require decent English skills and the ability to be polite and patient to often frustrated or angry customers. It's not usually the type of position which requires advanced knowledge of the products being supported. All the information is usually already there in a computer (or in days past a large book) sitting in front of them. They are in essence trained in how to deal with customers and how to find the answers from what resources they have available. I've had some pretty bad customer service experiences with North American employee, so I'm just skeptical how much more of a problem it is for somebody from India or Romania or wherever to be doing it instead.

    3. Re:Guess this means. . . by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      Companies still offer tech support? I thought those numbers just went to elevator Muzak services, intersperced with the occasional "We care about your call" spoken sentence.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    4. Re:Guess this means. . . by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Of course, what you're paying needs to be scaled. A simple dollar->rupee conversion isn't sufficient. Stuff in these countries is just cheaper, even taking into account currency differences. A man making $70,000 in the US is middle class. One making that much in India is very well-to-do. So even though you are paying less in American dollars, you're probably getting a developer that's just as qualified.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    5. Re:Guess this means. . . by davidhan · · Score: 5, Funny

      it kinda sucks for the Indian employees who are going to be out of work now.

      Maybe this will lead to an explosion of Indian blogging.

    6. Re:Guess this means. . . by TopShelf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "The biggest problem with a global economy is that it caters to the lowest common denominator. "

      Or put another way, one of the great things about the global economy is that jobs can migrate to those that want them most. This is an interesting phenomenon to see, really - after decades of IT/IS endeavors increasing efficiency and achieving headcount reductions across a variety of fields, American IS professionals are now facing the same pressures themselves (myself included). While the recent currency weakening might slow the tide, this appears to be a permanent shift.

      For those who wish to remain in IS, the high ground appears to be in the analyst realm, or heading towards smaller companies that haven't achieved the scale whereby outsourcing makes sense...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    7. Re:Guess this means. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree with you in principle, I feel that a free market requires not just free movement of goods, but free movement of labour and capital.

      At the moment we can shunt the intangible goods back and forth over the wire, the capital can be shifted almost as easily, but the labour is stuck.

      I would be very happy to buy a laptop and go work in Goa for a couple of years. If a lot of people did that, Indian prices would quickly rise to more US/EU-like levels, and the playing field would be equalized.

      On a slightly related note, I'm really surprised that anyone would replace an Indian engineer with a Russian. Most goods in Russia are pegged at EU+10% prices - a DVD player or a litre of OJ is about the same price in Moscow as it is in London. I guess the difference I've seen is in property prices (cheap renting), and the fact that no-one pays tax. People in the public sector are paid comedy salaries, but in the private sector pay is not unreasonable.

    8. Re:Guess this means. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work in an outsourcing operation in india. The basic pay is around 6000 Rs a month, if you do really well it comes to around 15000 a month. That is around 300 dollars a month. That is for an Engg. Graduate and if you are willing to work in shifts (need to work in US or UK timings)
      People are willing to work for cheaper salary? Man they must be poor.

    9. Re:Guess this means. . . by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Well, put it this way: If a product has outsourced tech support (and I don't care *where* it's located, the critical factor is that outsourcing means script monkeys), I consider that product to have ZERO tech support, and value it accordingly.

      As someone else pointed out, tech support now is for people who couldn't find the same info in the manual or on the web, and typically the tech dude doesn't know anything but what's in the script. How is that of any value?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    10. Re:Guess this means. . . by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      > I thought those numbers just went to elevator Muzak services, intersperced with the occasional "We care about your call" spoken sentence

      Don't forget the standard "we are experiencing unusual levels of calls today". How can they call it 'unusual' if it's part of their standard message?!

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    11. Re:Guess this means. . . by crazyphilman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not just the quality of their technical support that's going to fall. They're also outsourcing their development efforts, and they're trying to outsource some business functions. I said, months ago, that this would happen. In the future, non-open-source software is going to get worse and worse as companies hire cheaper and cheaper programmers to work on it.

      What worries ME is that it's not just software development firms that are outsourcing -- it's everyone. Banks, manufacturing firms, you name it. So what happens when all that cheap, bottom-dollar software starts screwing up? What happens when an engineer (also probably overseas) uses some buggy software to design the rear differential of a car, and it locks up at seventy miles an hour? What is the real cost of all this?

      Most companies are run by fools who think that a creative and technical endeavour like software development is a commotity like janitorial services. They're so greedy and cheap that they're ignoring quality for cost issues. And, sooner or later, we're all going to pay for it.

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    12. Re:Guess this means. . . by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      An A/C said: "I work in an outsourcing operation in india. The basic pay is around 6000 Rs a month, if you do really well it comes to around 15000 a month. That is around 300 dollars a month. That is for an Engg. Graduate and if you are willing to work in shifts (need to work in US or UK timings)
      People are willing to work for cheaper salary? Man they must be poor."

      Exactly. See, companies decided to get rid of all of us pesky American programmers because due to our cost of living, they had to pay us a reasonable salary (or we wouldn't work for them). On average, that was around 65,000.00 a year, or about 3700.00 a month after taxes. Companies HATED this. So, they went with India, reasoning that 300.00 a month is less than 3700.00 a month. So far so good, right?

      So, now, things are moving along in India, and companies are starting to think, "Well, 300.00 a month seems kind of expensive. Aren't there cheaper programmers in the world?" And, they start looking at countries like Russia, Romania, Vietnam, and so on. Maybe they can get their cost down to 100.00 a month in some of these places. So they do it, and India is SOL just like American programmers were when India ate THEIR lunch.

      This process will continue as long as there are countries where people are desperate enough to work for less than whatever wage is being paid right now. Eventually, wages will fall so far that no one will be willing to program for a living, and that will be the end of that. We'll all work as low-paid hourly-wage laborers, and work on open source software in our free time. Or maybe an equilibrium point will be reached. Maybe some new paradigm will arise, like the whole "rent a coder" thing, where people just do little freelance jobs from time to time for a fixed rate, and keep a "joe" job to pay their bills. Who knows?

      So, yeah, basically, as long as there are people poorer than you, eventually companies will hire them and fire you. Sucks, doesn't it?

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    13. Re:Guess this means. . . by mufasio · · Score: 1

      That is around 300 dollars a month.

      I'm completely ignorant of such things but I assume that the cost of living is much cheaper in india. Is $300/month reasonable pay over there? Is it about equivalent to middle class life in the US? Or is it just enough to have the basics?

    14. Re:Guess this means. . . by mufasio · · Score: 1

      How is that of any value?

      The way I see it from my experience with tech support is that it isn't of any value. Tech support is an illusion to make people feel more secure in their purchases. Most people won't ever use it and those that do are the one's that barely know how to use that e-mail thing. If the tech support people can't fix it over the phone, they just send the customer to one of their nearby locations or tell them to send it to them and charge them lots of money to fix something that a more in the know customer would have been able to fix on their own. The best thing is not to look for products with free tech support but to look for ones with warrenties that allow you to get a replacement if it breaks. Unfortunately this doesn't help less technically advanced people very much and their best bet is to get to know someone who is and call them if they have a problem, and preferably pay them a small fee for helping or at least bake them some cookies :)

    15. Re:Guess this means. . . by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      Many companies view tech support as an expense (not an investment), so yes, most don't really care much for it.

      (they already made their money on the purchase, tech support is just something that they're sorta obligated to do, but don't really want it to cut into their profits).

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    16. Re:Guess this means. . . by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      but it kinda sucks for the Indian employees who are going to be out of work now.

      India made the mistake of putting most their eggs in one basket: IT. If they diversified, then things may have gone a bit smoother. Now they have created a political stigma WRT taking others IT jobs, plus take the cyclical ride that IT has historical offered. They dot-com'd themselves.

    17. Re:Guess this means. . . by SFCHBryan · · Score: 1

      A man making 70K is not middle class, go look at median income sometime. It is about half of that for people 18 and over. Family of 4 median income (assuming both parents work is about $42K) aahh, the joys of stagnating wages

    18. Re:Guess this means. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is just enough to have the basic "respectable" lifestyle, for a single indiviual, living cautiously....

    19. Re:Guess this means. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What happens when an engineer (also probably overseas) uses some buggy software to design the rear differential of a car, and it locks up at seventy miles an hour? What is the real cost of all this?

      Surely, you can troll better than this.

    20. Re:Guess this means. . . by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Hi, First of all this person is just a call center monkey, actual programmer make $600+, $200 covers pretty much only the basics, $500+ is eqilent to probably around $25k/y in the US, so its more like lower middle class lifestyle in the States, but since most ppl around you make 3 times less you kinda feel like a rich person.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    21. Re:Guess this means. . . by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      I have to say I'm not pleased with your FUD, cheaper!=worse, as I Russian programmer I'm better educated, produce higher quality code and work faster than my amaerican counterparts. When american pupils start leanring diffrential quations and linear algebra in 6th grade than maybe we I will start taking "americaN quality" more seriously. Ftrom what I know US high-tech sector survives because of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants after that they become instutionalized turning into apathetic exuse for a human being with an attention span of 10 seconds and intelligence of a fruit fly.
      Sorry if this has turned out too much of a flame but I belive Americans have been taking their wealth for granted for far too long. You really out to shape up and learn how to compete again.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    22. Re:Guess this means. . . by be-fan · · Score: 1

      The middle class is usually defined as the 20-90th percentile. As of 1997, that 90th percentile boundry was at ~$63,000. So I guessed it would be about $70,000 today. Either way, even someone making $42,000 American dollars would be considered well-to-do. For example. In Bangladesh, a house worth 1,000,000 taka is pretty equivilent to $300,000 house here in the US. However, the conversion rate means that 1,000,000 taka is only about $20,000-$30,000.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    23. Re:Guess this means. . . by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Sadly, that's pretty much how I see it too. For my clients, I get parts that have mfgr warranties, and I'm the tech support, because it's either me or what for all practical purposes amounts to nothing. Hopefully I'm better than nothing ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    24. Re:Guess this means. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So, yeah, basically, as long as there are people poorer than you, eventually companies will hire them and fire you. Sucks, doesn't it?

      To the Indian guy in the article whining if there are people somewhere willing to work for free, I have two things to say:

      1) yes
      2) cry me a fucking river.

      Now you know what it feels like to lose your job to someone who can do it almost as well for far less money.

    25. Re:Guess this means. . . by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      Too bad you can't learn how to spell, or write using correct grammar. Or post to slashdot without trolling.

      If I had a nickel for every time some crazy Russian started spouting his fantasy wish-fulfillment stories about being smarter than Americans, I'd be rich. Pah. Just out of curiosity, can you tell me where Unix was invented? Or the modern automobile? Or the nuclear submarine? Or the programming languages you're probably fond of? Or any one of a zillion other products people all over the world take for granted every day? Or the INTERNET ITSELF? Or even electrical power and the light bulb? America. By the Americans you insult so cravenly.

      You're delusional. Better lay off the vodka.

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
  16. Stay with the times by Mattygfunk1 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This was always going to happen and it is a good thing. The Internet has opened up possibilities and struggles for every form of business (including being an employee).

    Kill or be killed. Always has been and always will be.

    You can't tell the RIAA to change its business model without by being prepared to do so yourself. Be flexible and keep with the times.

    __
    Cheap website reseller hosting Dragon Action Figures

    1. Re:Stay with the times by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1
      Agreed how does 200 a month sound?

      This is how much an entry level Russian programmer costs.

      Its be or be killed right?

    2. Re:Stay with the times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've apparently never been laid off in exchange for outsourced labor that's less qualified to do tech than a 3 year old.

    3. Re:Stay with the times by release7 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Gee, and all this time I though humankind was a step above a pack of wild dogs.

      "Kill or be killed" is not an enlightened guiding philosophy. It is not the principle upon which the United States or any other modern democracy was founded. It's unfortunate so much cynicism exists that this philosophy can become so widespread. It only leads to economic uncertainty, fear, and a life little better than living in a cave wondering how you are going to catch your next saber-toothed tiger.

      Aspiring to be a human is not a right, it's a responsibility.

      --

      <a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>

    4. Re:Stay with the times by Mattygfunk1 · · Score: 1
      Interesting post. Maybe I was a fraction too agressive with mine. Nevertheless business is business.

      These days when ethics clash with business they lose. It's nothing personal, and any "losers" out of a deal are not wished any harm. More often than not the people making the decisions are, at the same time, just doing their job.

      __
      Picture framing and art Massage, facials, and nails

    5. Re:Stay with the times by snarkh · · Score: 1

      Kill or be killed. Always has been and always will be.

      Damn, I have not killed anyone today yet! I better go put a clip in my AK47 in a hurry.

    6. Re:Stay with the times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Sir,

      You do bring up some valid points, but I must request you put your sig in the spot provided in your user preferences. Your sig will not be affect by the 120 char limit as far as I can tell, and it's just good manners as some people do not wish to see your ads.

      Best Regards,

      AC #330293

    7. Re:Stay with the times by snarkh · · Score: 1
      It only leads to economic uncertainty, fear, and a life little better than living in a cave wondering how you are going to catch your next saber-toothed tiger.

      Or rather when the next saber-toothed tiger is going to catch you.

    8. Re:Stay with the times by bmetz · · Score: 1

      >It is not the principle upon which the United States or any other modern democracy was founded.

      Actually, from the economic standpoint this is EXACTLY what the United States was founded on.

      We aren't some hippie commune utopia. There's no hand holding in the grand scheme of things. (Or at least, not unless some pork slips into the annual government budget) This is the real world where the lowest bidder wins. We're capitalists. Survival of the fittest. Market forces.

      --
      What did you eat today? http://www.atetoday.com/
    9. Re:Stay with the times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not only are the losers "not wished any harm", they aren't wished any good either.

      they aren't wished anything at all, because they aren't given one iota of thought.

      they don't exist.

      you see, your first post was absolutely correct...and actually didn't go far enough.

      *reads newspaper* mother and 3 childen killed by drunk driver, *keeps scanning* Nets lose to Spurs in game 1. "HEY WTF! MY TEAM LOST!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE IT!!! HOLY SHIT THOSE REFS ARE SCUM AND SHOULD DIE DIE DIE!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS"

    10. Re:Stay with the times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fascinating.

      But can you please take your .sig out of your comments and into the sig section of the user preferences?

      Thanks In Advance.

    11. Re:Stay with the times by fliplap · · Score: 1

      Wow, you _really_ suck.

      I can't be the only one that has noticed that this guy's "sig" (its not even a sig, he just sticks a different ad in the bottom of every post) changes everytime he posts. So really, he just uses Slashdot to spam his crap, or someone elses crap. Its not even relevant crap. At least Slashdot has a "foes" list now, so you can apply a huge down modifier to crap/spam posts from one person.

    12. Re:Stay with the times by fliplap · · Score: 1

      Oh _please_ there are so many times where various industries would have been completely screwed if the government hadn't stepped in to hold some hands *cough*corn farmers*cough*

    13. Re:Stay with the times by Ensonik · · Score: 1

      It is not the principle upon which the United States or any other modern democracy was founded

      Maybe not what it was founded on, but it sure as hell rules everything done in the US now. Read "No Logo". It will give you a clue. The phrase Kill or be killed will never sound so true. You really do kill people/children everyday so that you can wear your 100$ Nike and 100$ Tommy shirt. You're right though, it does lead to a lot of economic uncertainty.

    14. Re:Stay with the times by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      "Kill or be killed" is not an enlightened guiding philosophy.

      Unfortunately, idealism doesn't actually exist - it's just a concept thunk by us homo sapiens.

      That which fails to take adequate measures to ensure its own survival ceases to survive. Just another way to say the same thing.

      Think about this next time you eat a burger - you see thousands of plant seeds that have been killed to make the bun, a cucumber plant that sacrificed its progeny for the pickle, and a cow named daisy or something that was ground up for the hamburger.

      Now, if you didn't eat that hamburger, you'd die. Kill or be killed. However you disguise it, it's a fact of living in the great cycle of life, and jobs are no different.

      It's not barbaric, it's just true.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    15. Re:Stay with the times by release7 · · Score: 1

      If you are going to place cucumber plants on the same plane as human beings, there is no arguing with you.

      --

      <a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>

    16. Re:Stay with the times by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think what you wanted to say is:

      "More often than not, the people making the decisions are, at the same time, just lining their pockets."

      What hairbrain concocted the scheme whereby the guys inventing the cure for cancer get a measley $30-80K a year, but the CEO of MegaPharmaCorp gets $20million just for being a talking head?

      This country is going to hell in a handbasket because it values winning at all costs about winning with dignity and honor (please, it's just a metaphor)...

      -Chris Kaminski

  17. Perhaps.. by Gortbusters.org · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Many of these awesome IT and software development jobs are turning more to be like mechanic jobs. Sure you need some training, but just about anyone can do a half-decent job. Half-decent enough for someone to hire you for pennies in a foreign country!

    --
    --------
    Free your mind.
    1. Re:Perhaps.. by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      Actually, I would bet that many mechanics make about what I do, but they don't have a $26,000 debt for school, they don't get called in on weekends/days off, nor are they at all concerned about thier job being replaced by any breathing person in the world that will work for less money than they will.

      When I was in college, we were watching a film about the "Jobs of the future", and it was interesting which jobs were guaranteed to be good jobs. They were things like plumber, custodial work, food service, etc.

      Honestly, if I had it all to do over again, I would never of gone to college. Considering that I am a systems administrator for million dollar computers and have never taken a computer class, I think that I could be further along in my career with that extra 4 years of working and getting paid for it.

    2. Re:Perhaps.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mechanic jobs are increasingly difficult as vehicle systems become more complex, and you cannot outsource mechanics easily. Years of hands-on experience are required to make a proficient mechanic, and "just about anyone" cannot do a half-decent job.
      After being regarded as peons, mechanics, welders, plumbers, and other techs/craftsmen with mobile skillsets that are required on-site may have the last laugh. ;)

    3. Re:Perhaps.. by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Depends.

      I never went to school, but I got lucky and got a decent computer job paying $10 an hour (this was 94, and I was a 17yo two-days-out-of-high-school graduate, still unable to work OT). Thanks to a VERY VERY lucky break at said company, I got to prove that the 2 years of self-teaching I got in C/C++, and launched myself.

      I have friends who've gotten professional educations who haven't done nearly as well as I have in this field (no experience, only education), and I have some who are just now trying to emulate what I did (bad timing).

      Took me forever to figure out binary-trees though. :-)

  18. is cheaper the real answer? by ardiri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > explore countries with even cheaper sources of technical labor,

    this kind of thing haunts most developers - and, every company out there who needs to get something done is always seeking for the smaller cost/quick solution for all their projects. its also become common that a lot of developers are lowering their rates just to get work - its not looking good at all..

    meanwhile, i perform consulting services - and, i simply refuse to budge from my standard rate for employment. they pay a little more - but, they will get what they pay for. i have had many clients do development in india, then, come to me - and, for a little bit more they get the product faster, of higher quality - and, are very satisfied.

    the sooner these companies realize cheap labour has its down-falls, the better of they will be.

    1. Re:is cheaper the real answer? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The problem is IT is viewed as a commidty and a cost waster. You do not bring in the company money right? Then why should I pay you?

      Same is true with regular white colar employee's. Time magazine did an article last month about the shrinking pay check. Basically in the 1990's employee's as well as IT were both viewed as investments. Today they are viewed as worthless commidites that eat up costs.

      The problem is many IT managers may agree with you but the CEO is the one saying $300 a month for a programer is what I am willing to pay for. After all website design and IT support is just minimal maintanence costs. It provides no value to my shareholders.

    2. Re:is cheaper the real answer? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      this kind of thing haunts most developers - and, every company out there who needs to get something done is always seeking for the smaller cost/quick solution for all their projects. its also become common that a lot of developers are lowering their rates just to get work - its not looking good at all..

      Software development is not some special industry that is exempt from the laws of macroeconomics. If you don't have some competitive advantage over the next guy or the next country, then, guess what, you're going to have a hard time getting work. I hear that Buggy Whip manufacturing is an industry that's about to boom; maybe it would be a good time for a career switch.

      meanwhile, i perform consulting services - and, i simply refuse to budge from my standard rate for employment. they pay a little more - but, they will get what they pay for. i have had many clients do development in india, then, come to me - and, for a little bit more they get the product faster, of higher quality - and, are very satisfied.

      Well there you go. As long as your salary is justified by your productivity, then you're in good shape. Cheaper is not always better.

      I suppose there are activist types who think that the development of the third world is morally wrong--that they should be dirt poor forever. That's what's happening here. The high-tech industry in India is becoming sufficiently developed that it is starting to demand higher wages. For companies seeking the lowest possible price, they may begin to find it elsewhere, until 'elsewhere' becomes sufficiently developed also. But, there are more factors to consider than just price.

    3. Re:is cheaper the real answer? by horza · · Score: 1

      meanwhile, i perform consulting services - and, i simply refuse to budge from my standard rate for employment. they pay a little more - but, they will get what they pay for. i have had many clients do development in india, then, come to me - and, for a little bit more they get the product faster, of higher quality - and, are very satisfied.

      There is also the option, should you choose, of moving to one of these countries such as Czech. You will be able to lower your standard rate yet still be better off due to the far lower cost of living. Of course this is not a direct correlation to a better quality of life (other factors such as crime, closeness to family, etc, will determine if overall you are better off).

      Phillip.

    4. Re:is cheaper the real answer? by dogfart · · Score: 1
      meanwhile, i perform consulting services - and, i simply refuse to budge from my standard rate for employment.

      Lots of US blue collar workers had the same attitude in the early 1980's. The result was extended periods of unemployment that finally convinced them to accept poor paying service jobs.

      You worth is not how well you think of yourself, it is what the market will pay for your skills. Markets have a funny way of changing faster than one's skills. What commands a premium rate one day will get oursourced the next

      --

      "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

    5. Re:is cheaper the real answer? by amadeusb4 · · Score: 1
      I suppose there are activist types who think that the development of the third world is morally wrong--that they should be dirt poor forever.

      the oldest industrialized nations didn't benefit from bootstrapping themselves to nations already industrialized. what's wrong with having third world nations industrialize at a slower pace with their own efforts? you believe that just because england underwent the effort and pain of industrialization first that every country thereafter is owed effortless, pain free industrialization?

      why do the same people who want to eliminate state social policies always argue in favor of globalization in order to "help the world's poor"? i suppose greed has nothing to do with it.

    6. Re:is cheaper the real answer? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Well there you go. As long as your salary is justified by your productivity, then you're in good shape. Cheaper is not always better.

      Great.

      Now, will someone teach this to the current generation of corporate raider CEOs who don't care about rational behavior, don't care about the survival of the company, don't care about the product, don't care about the employees, don't care about the reputation, and just want to add another million to their paycheck and get the biggest gold parachute possible?

      is exempt from the laws of macroeconomics

      Laws? What laws? Show me one of your laws that applies where CEO A runs Company B into the ground. Every single one of your pretty little toy laws assumes -- no, requires -- that consumers act in their best interests, and companies act in their best interests. And yet, companies continue to pay out incredibly overinflated salaries to their CEOs, because everyone is on everyone else's board of directors. "Sure, we'll give you a raise, next week, just remember to vote for our raise over at supermegacorp!" "Wow, you swindled your company good! We're going to have to let you go from your CEO job, here's your golden parachute, don't forget to vote for my raise next week!"

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    7. Re:is cheaper the real answer? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I suppose there are activist types who think that the development of the third world is morally wrong--that they should be dirt poor forever.

      But they don't have to depend on just exports to get a higher standard of living. India should develop its own internal economy rather than try to suck off ours. Instead, India is mired in socialism that voters seem to want to keep. Odd how on the one hand locally they are into "fairness and equality", yet on the other hand don't care about their capitalistic effects on American workers. It is sort of "protect your own with socialism, but screw others with capitalism".

    8. Re:is cheaper the real answer? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      Ooooh, you must be sooo cool and smart and wise and all that. I'm sure that's because you're American, and the reason why it's a bad idea to give contracts to India or Hungary is because nobody there knows how to make a high quality product fast. With super-competent Americans like you, our economy will always be strong!

    9. Re:is cheaper the real answer? by danila · · Score: 1

      The idea is that salaries in India are lower because of the level of economic development and cost of living, not because Indian IT specialists are somehow inferiour to you. That's why cheap labout doesn't need to have down-falls just because it is cheap. After all, all computers and consumer electronics are made with cheap labour. Didn't do them much harm, did it?

      Your clients come to you not because you provide better quality, but because you have a unique capabilities.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    10. Re:is cheaper the real answer? by just+fiddling+around · · Score: 1
      I suppose there are activist types who think that the development of the third world is morally wrong--that they should be dirt poor forever.

      What is morally wrong is EXPLOITING those third world countries, making them wage-slaves because if they ask for fair payment for their services the "nice company" will drop them faster than a SARS-infected rock.(I know rocks don't get SARS, but you get the drift)

      There is a good way to develop 3rd world countries while getting cheap(er?) labor: stay in when wages go up. Do not close shop. Only this way can we bring those countries up to our standards. Of course this is as far as possible from corporate policies. Google up for "maquiladoras" or read this to educate yourself. ---------- In communist Russia, the company works for YOU!

      --
      You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
    11. Re:is cheaper the real answer? by ardiri · · Score: 1

      > I'm sure that's because you're American

      actually, its because i am Australian - Italian and Polish parents; and, i live in Sweden. whats nationality got to do with this?

    12. Re:is cheaper the real answer? by brilleaben · · Score: 1

      Almost the truth. India (f.ex.) has got some unique level 5 code laboratories. Factories, which, any given day, produces the amount of code you need. Fine .. you may think. What's missing (and what earned me my current "case" :o) is that the indians lacks skills in communications. Now, I am not about to piss a whole country off ...! But it is the same old story - east meets west. Their culture doesn't match well with mine (and my clients') I would be very surprised if I _ever_ got a case from someone in the "far east" based on "my unique capabilites". Well, I am unique - that is for sure :o) Still, FE people wishes FE vendors. EU people wishes EU people. USA people wishes USA vendors. This is not racism, this is not hate. This is fact - mainly based on your cultural preferences. It is that easy! Take care. Kind regards, The man with big Glasses: Brilleaben

    13. Re:is cheaper the real answer? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      What is morally wrong is EXPLOITING those third world countries, making them wage-slaves because if they ask for fair payment for their services

      It's strange how this 'exploitation' is carried out on a voluntary basis. The only explanation of this phenomenon is that being wage-slave sweatshop workers is a damn-sight better than any other option that is open to them. But no, the nut-job social-activist types would rather have them starving, picking through garbage dumps, and begging in the streets rather than subject them to the disadvantages of working for first-world corporations. If you listen closely to these nut jobs, you'll find that they have no solutions to offer, only criticisms of the manner in which the third world is being developed. Social activists would rather these people live in poverty forever than cede any credit to corporations or to admit that these 'activist' people have never accomplished anything. Their only cause is grinding their own political axes and breaking windows. A real humanitarian would find these people despicable.

      There is a good way to develop 3rd world countries while getting cheap(er?) labor: stay in when wages go up. Do not close shop. Only this way can we bring those countries up to our standards.

      This doesn't make either economic or humanitarian sense. Economics wants to find the greatest efficiency of production, and humanitarians should want to help those in the greatest need. The people of a third-world country are in greater need than those of a former-third-world-turned-emerging country.
      --
      Q: How many activists does it take to change a light bulb?
      A: None. Activists don't change anything.

    14. Re:is cheaper the real answer? by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      will someone teach this to the current generation of corporate raider CEOs who don't care about rational behavior, don't care about the survival of the company, don't care about the product, don't care about the employees, don't care about the reputation, and just want to add another million to their paycheck and get the biggest gold parachute possible?

      Presumably, if the company makes lousy products and treats its employees unfairly, then the company will have a hard time making money. Disciplined by the market.

      Of course, the company will then be bailed out by the politicians who received the company's campaign contributions. Later, the company will declare bankruptcy and the CEO will get his golden parachute and a new job at his buddy's company..

  19. Technical support dumbness... by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A quote from the original Wired article...
    Farhat Gupta, owner of several Bangalore call centers, said that little attention is paid to technical training, as "all the answers are always on the computer screen in front of the workers. We exist for people who do not want to use the Internet themselves to find their own answers."

    The only time I ever call technical support is when checking the manual and web doesn't get me the answer. If the person on the other end of the line has no more information available to them, what's the point?

    1. Re:Technical support dumbness... by joshv · · Score: 1


      The only time I ever call technical support is when checking the manual and web doesn't get me the answer. If the person on the other end of the line has no more information available to them, what's the point?


      Exactly.

    2. Re:Technical support dumbness... by jht · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And that's when they transfer you to "their supervisor" - who's back here in the US and actually knows the product.

      But the call center full of untrained people in India with computer screens guiding them? They're fine for about 99% of the clueless users out there who don't realize that the answer is in the documentation.

      --
      -- Josh Turiel
      "2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
    3. Re:Technical support dumbness... by jonbrewer · · Score: 1

      The only time I ever call technical support is when checking the manual and web doesn't get me the answer. If the person on the other end of the line has no more information available to them, what's the point?

      I'm not going to say you're unique or special, because you're not. You're just one of a small, insignificant percentage of consumers who tries to solve problems on their own before running to tech support.

      Try working a phone as tech support sometime. I did ages ago in college. You'll learn very quickly that the script to follow will solve over 80% of the problems you'll get. It's not like the people who wrote the script were idiots.

    4. Re:Technical support dumbness... by restive · · Score: 1

      The only time I ever call technical support is when checking the manual and web doesn't get me the answer. If the person on the other end of the line has no more information available to them, what's the point?

      It sounds this simple, but as you say, _you_ don't call support unless you checked the manual and web without getting an answer. I'm the same way. But I do 4th tier support for a software company, and I never cease to be amazed at the number of "qualified people" (network/system/UNIX administrators and so forth) who decide that they would rather whine to someone on a phone or over email rather than doing simple investigation or troubleshooting. And I mean *simple* like obvious filesystem permissions issues or questions like "how do I tar a file...I normally use this GUI utility, but I'm accessing the server through a console today". Goodness, where do these "administrators" come from!?

      If I were doing front line support, I would be tempted to tell some of these people they aren't competent enough to do their jobs...but hey, it pays our salaries...even my job is mostly lab-based research; nothing a hard-core techie wouldn't dive into.

    5. Re:Technical support dumbness... by zenyu · · Score: 1

      Try working a phone as tech support sometime. I did ages ago in college. You'll learn very quickly that the script to follow will solve over 80% of the problems you'll get. It's not like the people who wrote the script were idiots.

      The first time I ever called tech support was because a Power PC, mac compatible, had just electrocuted me and I wanted to send it in for repair. It ended with a lot of yelling after his script demanded I electrocute myself again.

      I recently called tech support because the PCMCIA port on my in-warranty laptop was fried. I did some meditation and then called up and pretended to be clueless. "So what is this hardware manager you speak of?" I got through the script and was transfered to level 2 where I was asked one question, and then given a work order number. It was a much more pleasant experience for all involved. The scripted questions aren't so bad and if they ask you to do something stupid you can just say "Now it's making crackling and popping sounds and there are little lightning thingies, and there is a foul smelling blue smoke. Do you want me to unplug it?"

      You don't actually have to plug it in again and witness those things again. In that first case I went out and bought some thick rubber gloves and gave them to my boss with the tech support number, then I took the rest of the day off. She managed to get them to send a new power supply by FedEx, I never asked for details.

      Moral: The script may work to get that return authorization, but you might just be being played by someone who very well knows what's wrong but knows that telling you will do no good.

    6. Re:Technical support dumbness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFM!

    7. Re:Technical support dumbness... by majestyk2000 · · Score: 1

      I never cease to be amazed at the number of "qualified people" (network/system/UNIX administrators and so forth) who decide that they would rather whine to someone on a phone or over email rather than doing simple investigation or troubleshooting.

      Amen amen. Where I work, I do the job of a senior sysadmin, mixed in with telephone-based tech support for clueless idiots. I don't have much of a problem with end-users who don't have a clue, but it offends me mightily to get calls from people who make FAR more than I do who ask simplistic questions. I've been tempted many times to send my resume to the corporations that hire these lusers, but if they hired those people in the first place I'm not confident they'd see that my resume was superior anyway.

    8. Re:Technical support dumbness... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Funny
      The first time I ever called tech support was because a Power PC, mac compatible, had just electrocuted me and I wanted to send it in for repair. It ended with a lot of yelling after his script demanded I electrocute myself again.

      That script does make sense. If the user is killed by the debugging procedure, then the user's problems are over and the service ticket can be closed.

    9. Re:Technical support dumbness... by yatest5 · · Score: 1
      But the call center full of untrained people in India with computer screens guiding them? They're fine for about 99% of the clueless users out there who don't realize that the answer is in the documentation.

      Insightful? INSIGHTFUL???? Shit, the call centre can only help 99% of callers? Gee, thats no good, better get rid of them. Jesus wept.

      --
      • Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37
  20. Not just the almighty $ by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1

    The almighty pound sterling too...especially for call centres. I'm not sure who really benefits from this trend long-term, apart from the people who get the jobs overseas (they're usually quite well paid compared to their fellow countrymen/women). The customers hate the thought of talking to someone thousands of miles away, so Indian call centre workers are taught British regional accents and given Anglicised names. You can fool some of the people some of the time but...

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    1. Re:Not just the almighty $ by isorox · · Score: 1

      I wish they'd enforce something where you can demand to know where your call is being routed. I'm sure that some papers would love to print lists of "Full blooded British companies" that employ British workers.

    2. Re:Not just the almighty $ by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't be racist or anything.

      And I'm sure you'd love the increased cost of hiring western workers reflected in your products.

      Artificial inflation, yay!

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    3. Re:Not just the almighty $ by isorox · · Score: 1

      No, it wouldnt be racist. Do you have any idea what racist means? I'm not saying that a company shouldnt outsource, I'm saying that it should say it is outsourcing. If people want to pay more to talk to someone in the same country, thats their decision. When you buy some lamb, it might say "New Zealand Lamb", or "Welsh Lamb". Thats not racist, its informing people of the origin of the lamb.

    4. Re:Not just the almighty $ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      call centre workers are taught British regional accents and given Anglicised names.
      I find this thought very amusing... Sounds like a serious company you can trust and rely on, right? It sounds more like a game.
    5. Re:Not just the almighty $ by dogfart · · Score: 1
      That wouldn't be racist or anything

      I'm sure much of the staff of "full blooded British" call centers is Indian as well. Why not provide work for the immigrants who have chosen to live in your home country?

      --

      "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

    6. Re:Not just the almighty $ by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't be racist or anything.

      There you go, pulling the race card. I don't care if the guy answering my call is black, white, brown, or green. What I care about is the wholesale exporting of jobs and the deskilling of my country, all to boost quarterly profits. It's bad for business.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  21. Cycle of Poverty by laetus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Personally, I think the multinats are on to something. They're cycling through countries, creating artificial "boom-bust" cycles in employment.

    Take for example, the automobile industry. In the early 1980's, the US auto industry had some of the highest wages/benefits for auto manufacturers in the world. Alot of those jobs went overseas to Japan/Korea who (at the time) had lower wages (and better quality). This depressed US wages. Now, the reverse is true. Both German and Japanese automakers see that US wages are lower and have located plants here.

    So goes it with IT. US coders were first to the trough and wages went up. Then the multinats moved to India who trained their people well and had low wages. Indian coder's rates go up and now the multinats are headed for Eastern Europe. As tech wages get lower in the US and we refocus on quality, the multinats will move coding operations back here and the cycle with start anew.

    --

    "We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
    1. Re:Cycle of Poverty by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yup. About the only way to win is to own your own business and screw your fellow Americans. We live in a society built around sociopathic greed.

    2. Re:Cycle of Poverty by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      I think you are describing the invisible hand of the market at work!

    3. Re:Cycle of Poverty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      The auto industry is not really a good example here. Overseas development was cheaper/US wages higher due to the huge negotiating power of the auto unions. When the Japanese automakers started expanding into the US, they did it in areas that weren't heavily populated by existing autoworkers (Kentucky, Tennessee, and further south to Alabama), paid the same or higher wages, but set up non-union shops. This eliminated huge costs in negotiating and retiree benefits.


      Software development/tech support has never been unionized, and never will.

    4. Re:Cycle of Poverty by CavemanKiwi · · Score: 1

      Well I always thought that was initially because there is a tariff put on all cars imported into the USA, may exclude the other north American countries because of the trade agreement (there is on in Europe too). Which seems to about 20% based on the calculations I made a while ago which would explain why the Germans and the Japanese have plants there. Altho in saying this, from want I understand Toyotas most efficient plant in the States.

    5. Re:Cycle of Poverty by samael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, at the end of each bit of the cycle, the areas are richer than at the start.

      Thre are now more educated people in India, they have a better economy and they've got moer infrastructure than before.

      As the money gets pumped from place to place, there's a gradual (and slow) increase in the quality of living.

      Eventually you run out of people who will work for rice and you have to step up to paying a slightly higher amount, and the big cycle begins again.

    6. Re:Cycle of Poverty by Thoguth · · Score: 1

      There is one striking difference here: Imported autos face high import tariffs that cut into their profit margins. Building autos in the States and cutting "international trade zone" deals with individual State governments saves on import tarrifs and other taxes and levies. (And oddly enough, U.S. companies have plants in the countries that have plants here, for similar reasons.) Not saying it's a purely good or purely bad thing, just saying that looks like how it is.

      As far as I know, there aren't import or export fees on technical services like programming or tech support. At least I hope there aren't, for when I start my Costa-Rica based IT consulting service in a few months.

      --
      The requested URL /iframe/sig.html was not found on this server.
    7. Re:Cycle of Poverty by dogfart · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yup. About the only way to win is to own your own business and screw your fellow Americans.

      No, you need to find a high-paying occupation that by its nature cannot be outsourced to foreign countries.

      This is why so many intelligent Americans end up being lawyers.

      --

      "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

    8. Re:Cycle of Poverty by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Leaves me wondering how soon the Nations of Africa will get a clue, quit killing each other en masse, and hang out their "Open For Business" signs. (I don't mean to unfairly over-generalize Africa, so I'll include an apology for my wording.) As far as I can see, the cycle has moved through Asia, it's moving into Eastern Europe, so that leaves Africa and South America, except I suspect South America is already too developed to submit to simple exploitation.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    9. Re:Cycle of Poverty by OrangeGoo · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Mississippi in that list. ;)

    10. Re:Cycle of Poverty by cybercuzco · · Score: 1

      I think you see too much of a conspiracy. The multinats are not "creating boom-bust cycles" boom-bust cycles are the natural effect of seeking the cheapest labor to maximize profits. All the multinats are doing is seeking to maximize profit. This naturally results in boom-bust. Also note that as a result of the cycles american companies become higher quality and more efficient to compete with cheaper overseas products.

      --

    11. Re:Cycle of Poverty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about all the bible thumping Americans? Didn't they read as far as the 10th commandment?

    12. Re:Cycle of Poverty by unixfd0 · · Score: 1
      The system seems to work something like this...
      1. bring the wages (standard of living) up in an area
      2. then leave
      3. people start getting desperate to maintain their current standard
      4. they turn to crime
      5. put them in jail
      6. use the prison labour at a nice low rate that never changes and will never have a union...
      #4 Could also be "Turn to terrorism"
      There's good profit to be made on steps 3 through 6.
      Works best when it's a big multinat on step #1 where the people aren't that mobile and it's a relatively small city.
    13. Re:Cycle of Poverty by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      No, you need to find a high-paying occupation that by its nature cannot be outsourced to foreign countries.

      This is why so many intelligent Americans end up being lawyers.

      You proved my point about screwing your fellow Americans.

      However, it is true that one doesn't need a business of one's one to screw people.

    14. Re:Cycle of Poverty by davesag · · Score: 2, Informative
      Eventually you run out of people who will work for rice and you have to step up to paying a slightly higher amount, and the big cycle begins again.

      An alternative is to artificially inflate your prison population and force people to work for their daily bread. The USA is the world leader in that game. I note with interest the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

      "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

      So the solution is simple: Crack down on the sorts of crimes techies revel in such as pot smoking, copyright infringement, terrorism; and bingo you have a well educated pool of slaves all primed to go. Of course that will lead to other techies comitting property crimes to buy food as they can't compete with free slave labour - thus adding to the stock of the 21st centuary slave pens you call prisons. It's happening now, you just need to look.

      --
      I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
    15. Re:Cycle of Poverty by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 1

      When i work for a company, i don't feel i'm getting screwed. It's my choice: either start my own company, which means accepting a huge amount of risk for a potentially huge return on investment, or go to work for a company, which means a steady, much more guaranteed income, but not as much as i'd have a chance of making as an entrepreneur.

      The system as it exists allows us to make that choice ourselves. I'm more than happy to make less money than the company's founder if it means there's zero chance i could lose my life's savings if business dries up.

    16. Re:Cycle of Poverty by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      I'm more than happy to make less money than the company's founder if it means there's zero chance i could lose my life's savings if business dries up.
      In general, I agree, but I hope to own my own business someday. It won't be anything in the tech industry, though.

      As an employee, though, you find that the corporation continues to take from you and doesn't return your contribution back in proportion. I offer 30% of my life to my employer. They do not recognize this. Eventually your time grows to be worth more than what they're willing to pay you.

    17. Re:Cycle of Poverty by samael · · Score: 1

      Well, Africa would be doing fine, selling crops to europe and the US if both of those didn't insist on massive subsidies to farmers.

      We're literally killing people by subsidising our farmers.

    18. Re:Cycle of Poverty by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Why can't we outsource lawyers or CEOs? I bet we could figure out how to do it...

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    19. Re:Cycle of Poverty by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 1

      As an employee, though, you find that the corporation continues to take from you and doesn't return your contribution back in proportion. I offer 30% of my life to my employer. They do not recognize this.

      So quit and start your own company. If you feel you're worth more than your employer is paying you, quit and find a job that recognizes your "true" value.

      Eventually your time grows to be worth more than what they're willing to pay you. ...at which point, you quit and find another job, or start your own company.

    20. Re:Cycle of Poverty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm more than happy to make less money than the company's founder if it means there's zero chance i could lose my life's savings if business dries up.

      This happens very, very rarely these days...only in privately held companies where the owners are self-investing.

      In large companies, virtually all executives have golden parachutes written into their contracts. These contracts are approved by other suits, who hope to be CEOs themselves with similar contracts. The board is usually packed with friends and allies, and is more than willing to rubber stamp anything in return for their $100,000 per year to attend a couple meetings.

      So...where is this mythical risk? What exactly are they getting that big fat check for? They are just another parasite on the backs of the people who actually have the ideas and do the work.

    21. Re:Cycle of Poverty by rrobles · · Score: 1
      Eventually you run out of people who will work for rice and you have to step up to paying a slightly higher amount, and the big cycle begins again.

      Or in other words: Now the demand is increasing for top coders in India but there is not an unlimited supply of premium quality people (even that India has a huge human resource pool, top performers will be few, as in every human activity), to attract them companies will increase the wages/bonuses (this is an unavoidable market force) to remain competitive, which will be reflected in the bill to the US customers. They are cheap now but that won't last forever.


      Also since IT is a knowledge based industry, US companies must release their "know-how" of their successful businesses to the outsourcing company (yes you have NDAs or contracts, but at the most that protects you for a certain period of time), losing their core competences, which will backfire them in the long term when that knowledge "appears" at their competitors hands.


      My experience tells me that outsourcing companies think first in themselves than in their customer, if they have an opportunity to make more business with the "know-how" acquired with your contract, they will contact your competence sooner or later.

    22. Re:Cycle of Poverty by JonToycrafter · · Score: 1

      It would seem to work that way, and I wish it did. Unfortunately:

      a) It takes equipment to start a call center. It can't be paid for in Indian rupees, they're too unstable. The telecoms vendors want American dollars, more than even a wealthy Indian has.

      b) So the wealthy Indian (or more likely, the Indian government, which the wealthy Indian has lobbied for subsidies, much like everywhere else) gets a loan in U.S. dollars.

      c) American jobs go to India. After a while, these jobs leave for, say, Vietnam. Loans haven't been paid back. Banks (usually the World Bank, often a private lender though) want their dollars back. No money? Tough shit. Good thing we made your government guarantee the loan. Government has no money? Guess you just need to start making scheduled payments, with interest.

      Result: A massive amount of the gov't budget in these companies is debt repayment. Their economies are stifled. Quality of life decreases, not increases, and infrastructure crumbles, because money has to go towards paying back private lenders or the World Bank. The country ends up MUCH poorer, because now they have loans in foreign currency.

      And this is the NON-manipulative version - there's also the, "You're going to be on the U.S. shit list if you don't take these loans - wanna get invaded? Or have the U.S. support a coup d'etat against you, like in Venezuela?". Or, "So you haven't paid back these loans. Your economy is wrecked by this corporation's behavior. People are starving and you need money so you don't have food riots. Hmm. You want an emergency loan of a few million? You have to agree to sell us your raw resources. And open your markets to our cheap goods, which your local economy can't afford to compete with since they don't have the capital to invest. Which destroys any chance of you having a self-sufficient economy in the future. Don't like it? Food riots for you, I guess."

      The U.S. Trade Representative (Robert Zoellick) spends quite a lot of his time talking to multinational corporation's execs, which influences his policy. His policy controls the IMF and World Bank, due to the way they were set up.

      I'm not against globalization - we need to move with the times, as another poster said. It's corporate-controlled globalization that gets a bug right up my ass.

    23. Re:Cycle of Poverty by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Why can't we outsource lawyers or CEOs? I bet we could figure out how to do it...

      India is working on moving into legal outsourcing also I hear. CEO's tends to be related to marketing and business wheeling and deeling, which requires knowledge of local culture. Like I said in another message, the best way to be safe from a flood of cheap brains is to depend on knowing your local culture. That is something you cannot readily master in a Bangladore library. Unfortunately, it is not something that motivates most geeks.

    24. Re:Cycle of Poverty by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      Sociopathic greed??? I'd call it progress. I suppose you'd prefer to turn the clock back to, say, 1900 or so?

      This is all about developing nations actually growing competitive IT/IS industries - where's the problem here? We should be cheering the fact that millions of people around the world are being lifted out of poverty and are gaining skills that will better their lives and the lives of their children. In turn, a middle class will develop that in time will add to overall global demand.

      In the end, this is about American IS professionals coming under the same pressure that their efforts have exerted on others (clericals, laborers, etc.) for decades. If anything, IS folks should be better prepared to deal with this change, since continuing education and adaptability are supposed to be hallmarks of the technical crowd...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    25. Re:Cycle of Poverty by moebius_4d · · Score: 1

      I read not that long ago that Indian lawyers were getting trained up on US patent law and doing patents for around 1/5 of the cost of a Silicon Valley attorney. When you think about it, there's no reason at all why most legal work can't be done overseas. Sure, you need an attorney who is admitted to the bar to actually go to court and litigate. And maybe a larger company needs a US attorney to review the documents created elsewhere just to cover its ass in the event that something is wrong and shareholders lose some money. But I don't see that law is any different then development - some advantages for local, and a substantial price discount for international. Since this is already happening I would think twice about law school unless my speciality (like trial law) prevented international competition.

    26. Re:Cycle of Poverty by Sinical · · Score: 1

      Uhm, no. Lots of companies are starting to outsource law work overseas. I saw an article last week that talked about a company that was using 4 overseas lawyers (3 of whom had degrees from American universities) to do some of their simpler filings and so on. There was more detail about the legality stuff about how they could practice law in this way, but I didn't really focus on it.

      It's coming to lawyers, too. About time, I think.

      Most of the rest of the article talked about how companies (like, say, Intel or whomever) were learning to streamline their use of outside counsel, etc., cutting legals costs by huge factors. So hopefully legal work will become a lot less profitable. That's my hope anyway.

    27. Re:Cycle of Poverty by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      Do mice breed cats? It's not progress to increase the number of people that can take your job, it's suicide. I don't give a fuck about the market, I'm not in sales. I'm not going to give anyone any rope to hang me with.

    28. Re:Cycle of Poverty by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Those lousy mutinationals. If they keep doing that, one of these days there won't be any more third-world sh*thole countries left to exploit. *Then* who's going to work in the shoe factories?

      You *do* realize, don't you, that the US started out as a colony exploited by England? How do you think Japan went from a country of burnt-out cities to the 2nd biggest economy in the world? They let themselves get exploited to the max.

    29. Re:Cycle of Poverty by mfrank · · Score: 1

      So then, the US should not allow investment in foreign companies, we should just exploit them for their natural resources?

      England did that to the US up until, oh, about 1776. I can think of at least two times in the last century that they're glad the US didn't remain a colony comprised of illiterate dirt farmers. Do you think England's economy suffered because the US prospered? The global economy isn't a zero sum game.

      Apparently you want to reap the benefits of living in a free market without taking the risks.

      Here's a suggestion for you. Get a job in a defense company. They can't outsource that.

    30. Re:Cycle of Poverty by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Which is why, I guess, it's a good idea to invest in those very same corporations, since they are (quite rightly) much more concerned about the stock price than with their employee. There's more than one way to "own" your own business.

      And good luck with your future business. One of my friends started out as a mechanical engineer; he'd mow lawns after work and on the weekends. He eventually figured out he could make more money doing it full time. He now has four crews and takes home well over twice what he would be making if he was still an ME. And now he spends all his time calling on clients instead of pushing mowers.

    31. Re:Cycle of Poverty by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      I didn't even mention natural resources. You must be lost, that argument's down the hall and to your left.

      I would prefer it wasn't a globally free market, myself. I would rather we attempt to create everything we need in the USA and only import things that it's impossible to build, mine, or grow here. I think there should be stiff federal civil penalties for any company that sells managerial control out to a foreign interest, and criminal charges should be considered against the board for doing so. It undermines the integrity of the US economy. I think that companies should be prohibited by law from using foreign firms that charge less than domestic ones.

      But it'll never happen. The money-worshippers and republidrones will scream "regulation" and "socialism" and the media will shit its pants in its rush to tear down everything good about this plan, and forget that corporations left untended will slash and burn until there's no Holy Market left to slash and burn. Some global economy.

      The USA has forgotten how to take care of its own.

    32. Re:Cycle of Poverty by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      I've read that there are a growing number of US tax preparers/consultants in India. Just because a job is related to US law does not mean the job must be done within US borders.

    33. Re:Cycle of Poverty by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      One day a nation will simply enslave an unpopular minority and sell their labor to multinational corporations for next to nothing.

      It's already happening in the US where prison populations are being contracted out to major corporations for dirt cheap but the US only imprisons about 2% of the population (sure it's more then anybody else but it's still a small number).

      The ideal would be some sort of an apartheid like system where the majority are slaves to a minority. maybe in africa, maybe in the middle east, maybe in china. I also don't discount the possibility of it happening here in the good old U S of A where it has been shown exactly how easy it is to demonize an entire race or religion.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    34. Re:Cycle of Poverty by mfrank · · Score: 1

      I guess you didn't understand what I was saying. When the US was a colony, the British used us for natural resources. It was illegal to have a loom in the colonies; we shipped them cotton, they shipped us finished cloth. They were preserving British textile worker jobs. Which is what you are proposing to do.

      Read your history. Protectionism like you suggest was one of the main things that caused the Great Depression and WWII. A global free market *stabilizes* the world economy. The best hope for economic recovery in the US right now is the dollar dropping, which will increase exports and encourage foreign travel into the states. Do you think exports would increase if other countries were as protectionist as you would like the US to be? And believe me, if the US goes back to being protectionist, other countries will too.

      Do you honestly believe the US can't compete internationally? Do you think we can't compete with Europe, with their bloated welfare state? Most countries are basket cases compared to the US.

      It's in our interest to do what we do best, and sell to the world, and let other nations do what they do best, and buy from them. You can buy a $5000 cheapo car from Hyundia if you want, Chinese can buy Intel processors. Maybe you don't remember what American cars were like before the Japanese got into the biz. They sucked. Hard.

      Taking your argument to the extreme, New Yorkers should be growing orange trees in greenhouses so they don't lose jobs to Florida.

      What you're proposing would harm the US economy, not help it. Globalization *is* the USA taking care of its own. There's a lot more to the US economy than IT. It may suck for you (and me, by the way), but the benefit to the customers and the stockholders of the businesses that are doing what you so despise will more than make up for it.

      And, guess what, in a few more years there'll be a couple hundred million more foreigners that can afford PCs, DVDs, etc. You know, the kind of stuff the US is good at making.

    35. Re:Cycle of Poverty by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      Please tell me you just forgot your sarcasm tags!

      "I think that companies should be prohibited by law from using foreign firms that charge less than domestic ones."

      A few years of that and you'd have some pretty lousy American companies that wouldn't stand a chance competing in international markets (presuming other countries don't enact similar calamities).

      "I would rather we attempt to create everything we need in the USA and only import things that it's impossible to build, mine, or grow here."

      I suggest you go study Economics 101 and learn about comparitive advantage - often called the only truly interesting notion to come out of the dismal science. When different nations focus their production on the things they do most efficiently (rather than trying to do everything for themselves), the result is more for everybody. And gee, while you're at it, why stop at the national level with the "do it all yourself" mindset? Why not take it down to the personal level, and churn your own butter, butcher your own meat, and build your own house? Why take the chance that specializing in a trade could result in an unpredictable future?

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    36. Re:Cycle of Poverty by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      ok, I know what you mean about natural resources now.

      I guess I think it's more important for a people to have a cultural identity than consumer goods and disposable income. I'm ashamed of the way our slash and burn corporate rape culture has infested the world.

    37. Re:Cycle of Poverty by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be opposed to the world returning to the way of the past when people did everything for themselves. It'll never happen because people are soft and like their conveniences too much.

    38. Re:Cycle of Poverty by mfrank · · Score: 1

      It ain't just about the "corporate rape culture". It's about having clean water, sufficient food, health care, and the opportunity to improve the situations for themselves and for their kids.

      The number one problem facing the world is overpopulation. The only way to prevent that is to get the nations of the world to get through the demographic transition. That means raising their standard of living. War, plague, pestilence, and famine aren't acceptable options, and, as can be seen in Africa, they don't reduce population, they just slow down the growth. You think you're going to stop a Brazilian from cutting down rain forest when his kids are starving?

      And as far as "cultural identity" is concerned, funny you should mention that in a thread about India. Just read an article in National Geographic yesterday about the Untouchables in India. 160 million of them, and they're treated worse than blacks were in the US deep south in the 1930's.

      Personally, I don't think American/Western culture is infesting the world nearly fast enough.

    39. Re:Cycle of Poverty by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      US meddling isn't the only way they can improve their situation. To assert so is arrogance in its most extreme form.

      And culturally, it's not our place to "correct" cultures that we find distasteful.

      The Indian caste system is tied in with religion; we'd have to destroy the Hindu faith to end that. Imagine if someone came over and told Bush that the administration would have to stop damning homosexuals to hell or they'd stop trading with the USA? They'd tell that someone to go to hell (or Texas) and probably invade them for the crime of questioning their religious beliefs.

    40. Re:Cycle of Poverty by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Trade isn't meddling. Improving their standard of living by increased trade isn't meddling.

      It wasn't too long ago when people in the US justified slavery by quoting the Bible. Abolishing slavery didn't destroy Christianity. Would you have objected if, 150 years ago, England or France had imposed trade sanctions on the US because we had slavery? Would you think it arrogant meddling?

      The Hindu caste system exists, at its core, for economic reasons (castes are segregated by the job you have). And I never said to impose trade sanctions on India for having the caste system. However, increasing their standards of living will better enable the Untouchables to effect change on their own.

      To withhold trade from other nations and keep them in poverty in the misquided belief that the world economy is a zero-sum game, now *that's* arrogance in its most extreme form.

  22. Pretending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Now I get paid to pretend I am American -- it's wonderful"

    -Pretend to be out of work then.

  23. Eastern Europe programmers cheaper than Indian? by aben · · Score: 0

    I have a hard time believing that Hungarian and Czech Republic IT should be cheaper than Indian. But then, the original article did not dtate that either.

  24. Free country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    >Is there a country were people will work for free?

    What about Irak? After all, these guys have been "liberated". They have the chance to share their useless oil ressources with the US ; they could work for free in exchange.

    Warning: this message contains some flaming content

  25. free work? by EZmagz · · Score: 1
    Is there a country were people will work for free?

    Does Russian Vodka count? Seriously though, this is interesting as it's always fun to see the current King Of The Hill get booted off by somebody who works harder or cheaper than the current "King". Honestly, I'm not going to feel too bad for anyone in India who loses their job because of some big company's management decision. All I can say is, "Welcome to my world, Assad."

    On a side note, at least in the gray-to-blackhat community, the Russians and company have definitely made their presence felt from what I've hear/read/seen/dreamed.

    --

    "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."

    1. Re:free work? by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      King Of The Hill get booted off by somebody who works harder or cheaper than the current "King"

      Come off it. Nobody works harder at selling propane than Hank Hill does. The guy lives and breathes the stuff.

    2. Re:free work? by axxackall · · Score: 1
      Does Russian Vodka count?

      I am not sure about vodka, but Russian Ruletka counts for sure :)

      --

      Less is more !
  26. Where it ends. by jetkust · · Score: 1

    'It's hard to know where it will all end. Is there a country were people will work for free?'

    It all ends when USA employees begin paying to work at companies based in India.

  27. About time... by bigattichouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now, the surprise on so many faces - "how can they do that to us", "how will our workers eat?", "We have so much labor, and they are moving operations to some backwater 3rd world country" ... will now be coming from New Delhi instead of New Jersey...

    When your business consists of undercutting others, and providing services to willfully "outcompete" someone out of a job, don't expect pity.

    As a piece of advice I once heard goes: "If you are stupid enough to date someone who dumped someone to be with you, don't be surprised when you get dumped, too."

    --
    meh
    1. Re:About time... by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 1
      So what should they have done? Should Indians simply not have accepted employment from US firms? Was it somehow wrong of them to work for "less," when the wages they make that wouldn't be sufficient for people here might be very reasonable pay over there? If it was "stupid" of them to work for someone who laid off someone else to hire them, what would have been smart - not working??

      Yes, it sucks for the original US workers who lost their jobs to Indian ones; it sucks just as much for Indians who lose their jobs to someone else. It's not the Indian tech support workers' fault that market forces are moving jobs elsewhere, any more than it was American tech support workers' fault. It just sucks all around, and the Indian techs don't deserve it any more than the American ones do, but there it is.

    2. Re:About time... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1
      So what should they have done?

      I don't know... Oh yeah! How about developing their own economy in other areas so they could support their own IT services, products, and infrastructure? And in the process bring jobs to many more of their people. But I guess it's too hard for any government to invest in any but the already rich and powerful and try to improve their lives (at the expense of other economic entities - both domestic and foreign) than to actually build an economy that - from the ground up - supports both the lower and upper classes well.

      --
      That is all.
    3. Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason the American economy is dominant has to do with a great many factors that interacted through history. Your simplistic statement doesn't add anything to the discussion. Similarly, innumerable factors may play a role in how India evolved (or Iraq). You make it seem like changing one dimension (with some heart) is all that it takes.

    4. Re:About time... by bigattichouse · · Score: 1

      The little guy always gets screwed, no matter what language they speak.

      I'm more talking about the executive level folks who are milking everyone, who will now be forced to try something else... who are "boo hooing" over the unfare treatment.

      --
      meh
    5. Re:About time... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1
      I am not saying that. All I say is that an economy that does not balance the needs of both foreign and domestic customers, as well as the needs of all classes, is an economy that cannot sustain itself.

      By selling services to foreign interests, a country increases the domestic price for these services as well. In the end, this stunts the growth of the domestic economy, especially when the service is vital for other companies to compete on the world market.

      Yes, the cronies in the outsourcing destination flourish, but at the cost of other people in the economy. And that's a bad idea.

      --
      That is all.
    6. Re:About time... by danro · · Score: 1

      When your business consists of undercutting others, and providing services to willfully "outcompete" someone out of a job, don't expect pity.

      Of course no American company would ever try to do this.
      After all it's only the fucking definition of capitalism.

      And, no, capitalism is not so hot when the pointy end is aimed at you. But judging by the bitterness oozing out of your post, you already know this.

      --

      "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
  28. There is a country where people work for free by LearningHard · · Score: 5, Funny

    Elbonia, lovely Elbonia

    1. Re:There is a country where people work for free by Peldor · · Score: 1

      No need to go that far. Just find the closest linux supporter.

    2. Re:There is a country where people work for free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those who aren't familiar with Elbonia, it's a reference to Dilbert. Dilbert's company outsources to the slave labor in Elbonia.

    3. Re:There is a country where people work for free by tigga · · Score: 1
      No need to go that far. Just find the closest linux supporter.

      Ha! That support will cost you. Unix/linux admins are not cheap. The only thing you win is a product cost - download from the Internet.

    4. Re:There is a country where people work for free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing you win is a product cost - download from the Internet

      Not if SCO has anything to say about it!!

  29. The Race to the Bottom by Omega · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's what's known as the race to the bottom:

    Once one company gets their employees to go along with a heath care cost increase or a salary cut, the other companies will rush to offer just as low pay and benefits. They call this "competitive" compensation. So if the jobs can be outsourced for cheaper, then the majority of businesses will all race to find where that is. It happened with manufacturing jobs, it is happening with service jobs. I don't really know what (if any) jobs are "safe."

    Also, don't think this automatically translates into lower prices. It doesn't make the products better or less expensive, just cheaper to make. How much in lower prices do you pay for your Nike tennis shoes made in Burma?

    1. Re:The Race to the Bottom by Varitek · · Score: 1
      I don't really know what (if any) jobs are "safe."

      I do. Jobs that need your physical presence at the location of the consumer. If you want to avoid having your job outsourced to someone in another country, you're better off becoming a plumber than a coder.
    2. Re:The Race to the Bottom by Dingel · · Score: 1

      Typically, in free trade discussions, the "race to the bottom" refers to the fear that companies will move to countries that have the lowest environmental standards and devastate those places. Of course, it hasn't been proven to actually occur very much.

      --
      ---- Live for Music. Die for Trance.
    3. Re:The Race to the Bottom by release7 · · Score: 1
      $100 = cheap Nikes??? Anyway, I don't care how cheap goods become, they're all expensive when you make crap pay. Also, if prices drop too fast for goods, you run risk of deflation which is beginning to rear it's ugly head.

      The bottom line is that all this job shifting leads to instability. Instability, of course, is not good for capitalism. It's good for the handful of high-powered investors who make a short-term killing, but for you and me, it's ruining our lives.

      --

      <a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>

    4. Re:The Race to the Bottom by harriet+nyborg · · Score: 1
      It doesn't make the products better or less expensive, just cheaper to make. How much in lower prices do you pay for your Nike tennis shoes made in Burma?

      It doesn't - it translates into higher profits and (hopefully) higher stock prices.

      Corporations are run for the benefit of their owners. It's as simple as that. As long as the owners demand it, greater profits is what management is supposed to deliver.

      Yours truly,

      Martha Stewart

    5. Re:The Race to the Bottom by viking099 · · Score: 1

      I can tell you which jobs are "safe".
      Those jobs that actually require a personal presence.
      I think you're incorrect in saying that businesses are outsourcing the "service" jobs. Coding is not a service, but rather a type of manufacturing. I would probably compare it more to a craftsman (like a smith from the days of yore).
      Service provider jobs by definition cannot be sent overseas, because the provider must be in a position to serve when service is needed.
      There will always be desktop support jobs because there are some problems that just cannot be solved by someone over the phone lines or network.

      You'll notice that when the auto manufacturing jobs went overseas, north, and south, there was one huge multimillion (probably multibillion) industry that stayed put. The auto service industry.
      Any time something is being produced, there will be a danger of the producing jobs being at risk for going somewhere else. You just can't say the same thing for a service provider job, be it auto, computer, or pool cleaning.

    6. Re:The Race to the Bottom by zzyzx · · Score: 1

      Yeah but if there are coders making money, no one will be able to afford the plumbers.

    7. Re:The Race to the Bottom by zzyzx · · Score: 1

      If there areN'T that is.

    8. Re:The Race to the Bottom by cybercuzco · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I was in nordstroms the other day (with the gf) and they had mens shirts on sale for $150 for a shirt! The shirt was probably made in india for $2 (tops) so the rest of it is profit to the various companies handling it along the way. Where is my benefit?

      --

    9. Re:The Race to the Bottom by NearlyHeadless · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      It's what's known as the race to the bottom:

      Once one company gets their employees to go along with a heath care cost increase or a salary cut, the other companies will rush to offer just as low pay and benefits. They call this "competitive" compensation. So if the jobs can be outsourced for cheaper, then the majority of businesses will all race to find where that is. It happened with manufacturing jobs, it is happening with service jobs. I don't really know what (if any) jobs are "safe."

      The largest manufacturer in the world is: the United States of America. The largest exporter of manufactured goods: the United States of America.

      Was there a "race to the bottom" in America after the NAFTA and WTO treaties? No, incomes rose in every quintile.

      Here we are in the worst recession in a long while and unemployment is: 6%. Not great, but better than most past recessions and better than most European countries even during the best of times. Meanwhile, wage growth has continued in the U.S. even during the recession.

      Yes, jobs in the IT sector are hard to come by, but that has more to do with there being hugely inflated demand during the late 1990s, with the confluence of the dotcom bubble and the Y2K "crisis", than it has to do with world trade.

      Also, don't think this automatically translates into lower prices. It doesn't make the products better or less expensive, just cheaper to make. How much in lower prices do you pay for your Nike tennis shoes made in Burma?
      During the last 15 years, inflation has been noticeably low.
    10. Re:The Race to the Bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Seriously, I was in nordstroms the other day (with the gf)

      Thanks for clarifying that, because we all know men never go shopping alone.

    11. Re:The Race to the Bottom by cybercuzco · · Score: 1

      we all know men never go shopping alone.


      except to radio shack and best buy ;-)

      --

    12. Re:The Race to the Bottom by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      >I do. Jobs that need your physical presence at the location of the consumer.

      Um... know of anyone hiring a certified chimmy sweeper. Times were pretty good about 150 years ago.

      There needs to be a demand for the job and low number of people who can do it for a job to be safe.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    13. Re:The Race to the Bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how you have no sources to back up your theory. I wish more people on slashdot would stop talking out of their asses, and back up what they say.

    14. Re:The Race to the Bottom by eaolson · · Score: 1
      I don't really know what (if any) jobs are "safe."
      Management, perhaps?
    15. Re:The Race to the Bottom by laura20 · · Score: 1

      Actually, cleaning chimneys remains a perfectly valid job. They just don't use 6 year olds to do it anymore. If you use your fireplace, your chimney will require cleaning occasionally.

    16. Re:The Race to the Bottom by mfrank · · Score: 1

      It's not a theory. He was stating facts. Facts that can be easily verified with google. I'm assuming you have internet access.

      Check out the stock price for pretty much any high tech company over the last 15 years. Tell me you don't see a bunch of investors who were acting like retarded monkeys.

    17. Re:The Race to the Bottom by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      yeah, I was confused about why he was in Nordstrom's until I read that part, too.

    18. Re:The Race to the Bottom by mandolin · · Score: 1
      Seriously, I was in nordstroms the other day (with the gf) and they had mens shirts on sale for $150 for a shirt!

      You know, there is this company called Wal-Mart. Maybe you've heard of it. I understand you can get a better deal there.

      Serious answer: if that's what the market will pay, that's what they'll sell it for, regardless of cost. Witness Microsoft.

      (But, whoTF would buy a $150 plain shirt? For that price, it oughta either be custom-tailored, or bulletproof.)

    19. Re:The Race to the Bottom by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Service Jobs. The next wave of millionars will be plumbers.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  30. This is a good thing overall by Pave+Low · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Face it, corporations are in the business of making money, if they can reduce their costs by taking jobs elsewhere, they will do it.
    Not that this is a bad thing, inefficiencies are weeded out, and companies can continue to make money.

    Plus, the outsourced country benefits more than the whiny liberals care to admit. These jobs pay more than the local average, treat their workers a hell of a lot better, and boosts their economy.

    So as a whole, this is not really a bad thing, except for the people losing their jobs. This is the free market at work.

    --
    SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
    1. Re:This is a good thing overall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all respect, I think this would be a fine time for this question:

      What will happen when the only people employed are Bush, Kennedy, and a few thousand of their close friends? How exactly will our economy work then?

    2. Re:This is a good thing overall by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      Face it, corporations are in the business of making money, if they can reduce their costs by taking jobs elsewhere, they will do it.

      Yes, this is true, but I think that it is up to our government to do something about this. I see the shipping of jobs overseas no different than shipping overseas goods to here. Imported goods are subject to a tariff to make the prices on par with domestic goods.

      It pisses me off to see American corporations, that have next to no tax burdon, that in the spirit of "making money", ship all of the money overseas. Think about it, every 40k a year job shipped over to another country is entirely a 40k a year loss to the American economy (usually the target audience for these corps products and services).

      And these American corps are using the roads that I paid for, and are protected by the Military that I paid for, etc, with no regard to giving anything back to me. And I'm supposed to think that this is OK? Very recently, almost all of my bills (rent, health insurance, cable TV, etc) have gone up. I'm surely not seeing the benefits of these corps "saving money".

    3. Re:This is a good thing overall by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the disparity between what the corporate heads makes and what the lowly staff makes gets even larger.

      The times are coming where we will once again be devided between the nobles and the serfs. The ultra rich lording over the destitute. And guess who's going to be among the destitue? Yep. You and me.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    4. Re:This is a good thing overall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said capitalism was sustainable?

      There's nothing that says it will continue to be a viable system 100, 200 or 1000 years from now.

  31. working for free by davidhan · · Score: 1

    "It's hard to know where it will all end. Is there a country were people will work for free?"

    Hey, live by the lowball, die by the lowball. Why would tech be any different than shoes or clothes? I just hope they don't start using child labor. Could you imagine Mike Dell going over to the Phillipines and giving kids doing his tech support cash out of his pocket?

  32. Needful things by WeirdKid · · Score: 1

    "Trainees typically watch dozens of American movies and TV shows for the first week to acclimatize themselves to U.S. slang and accents."

    As employees gain exposure to the US' consumption-based society, this could ultimately work against the employers who count on keeping the salaries low. Heh, following that reasoning, all we have to do to start bringing the jobs back is open a Macy's or Niemann Marcus in Bangalore...

    1. Re:Needful things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't worry... we skip the commercials. ...and we're working on getting rid of the product placment.

  33. Competing on price by Mattygfunk1 · · Score: 1
    So stop competing on price and start offering a good, high quality, reliable service that people will pay a little more for.

    You're starting to think like Microsoft now.

    Be afraid, very afraid.

    __
    Wallpaper Borders Cheap web site hosting plans

    1. Re:Competing on price by Surak · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So stop competing on price and start offering a good, high quality, reliable service that people will pay a little more for.

      You're starting to think like Microsoft now.


      No, only half like Microsoft. Microsoft stopped competing on price a long time ago, but never started offering good, high quality, reliable products or services. They never had to.

  34. The Russians are coming! by Malc · · Score: 1

    I have a friend who runs a small computer business. He wanted to outsource to India, but he found them too expensive. Almost as expensive as hiring locally (Canada) or the US. On top of that, they seemed to be playing games that made him feel like they'd try to screw him later on in the project with unexpected delays or costs. In the end he hired a team from St. Petersburg. They gave him a solid quote upfront, have demonstrated excellent abilities and communications skills, and delivered what they promised on time.

    1. Re:The Russians are coming! by gearheadsmp · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see some Russian firms do designing for IT products. Remember the mirror they tried to setup in orbit? The whole stereotype during the Cold War was that the Russians used ingenuity to design their military hardware, while the US focused on electronics.

    2. Re:The Russians are coming! by glenstar · · Score: 1

      Typically the best Russian firms aren't bargain priced, while still being cheaper than traditional US contract labor. For example, on a long-term (6 month+) contract, you can get top-of-the-line developers for about $25/hr USD. That is a savings over $100/hr or $125/hr definitely. However, when you start to factor in things like travel to Russia (I demand to see the shop where my software is being produced!), communication gaps (even with the most fluent non-native speaker there are bound to be colloquialisms that slip through the cracks), and the time spent going over the turned-over code with a fine-toothed comb, those savings begin to evaporate pretty quickly.

    3. Re:The Russians are coming! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From a successful business owner,

      Your friend is an asshole. Don't exploit other people to make a quick buck.

  35. But, In Soviet russia... by aTMsA · · Score: 1
    er...
    nevermind.

    (Or: In Soviet Russia reflexive action goes undisturbed)

    In Soviet Russia undisturbed goes reflexive action?

    Whatever...

    1. Re:But, In Soviet russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually in Soviet Russia workers have full employment with free education and healthcare.

  36. Yes there is! by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Is there a country were people will work for free?"

    Yes, such a country exists. However, to be part of this country you need to have a big needle stuck in the back of your head and your whole body gets submerged in Astrolube. Your then stored in this "pod" where this "dream" of your life is pumped into your brain by a big computer.

    Now, in this dream your actually answering the phone and solving technical problems and you only "think" your getting paid for it. In real life, that money is getting collected so that more people can get plugged into the machine to make them more money...

    There was this dude who realized it was a dream and managed to wake up. He now cleans the floors in the building that holds all the people and the big computer. We hear him wanding around go "Damn Red Buritto..."

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    1. Re:Yes there is! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this is funny...

      BUT FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, GET YOUR SPELLING RIGHT!

      There's only so many times I can read "your" when you meant to write "you're" before I go insane and shoot someone...

      About the only thing worse would be if you managed to confuse "lose" and "loose" in your post as well.

      (sigh)

  37. Support is not valued by mao+che+minh · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Most companies don't value tech support. Therefore, they could care less if the person trying to tell you why your hosted database is on the fritz speaks English or not. All the while, near useless management people will continue to promote themselves and make more money, while the intellectuals that built the businesses have to go look for slave-wage work in another state.

    Don't you love corporations?

    1. Re:Support is not valued by provolt · · Score: 1
      Most companies don't value tech support. Therefore, they could care less if the person trying to tell you why your hosted database is on the fritz speaks English or not. All the while, near useless management people will continue to promote themselves and make more money, while the intellectuals that built the businesses have to go look for slave-wage work in another state.


      And which group is smarter?

    2. Re:Support is not valued by easter1916 · · Score: 1

      "Intellectuals"? Get over yourself.

  38. live by the sword... by supernova87a · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not pretty, but this is what globalization and capitalism is all about. As people get more prosperous and affluent, they're less willing to work for rock bottom prices any more. Others undercut them and take their place in the food chain.

    Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes a bad thing. It brings economic development to poor parts of the world that can do things better and cheaper. It allocates resources very efficiently. But it also creates a lot of instability and waste of resources at the same time. Look how fast the jobs can be created -- and eliminated. And what happens to the people who used to have those jobs. And do you notice how the countries that take the shittiest jobs often end up with polluted environments as a result?

    Someday, I hope we will come up with an understanding of how we can balance efficient economics and social good.

    1. Re:live by the sword... by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, a couple things here.

      You see, those folks in India that will be about of a job now have something they didn't have before the companies even came there, skills and infrastructure (sp?).

      With those skills they are now able to produce some software on their own. Also, the infrastructure that was put in place to allow these folks to have jobs will remain to a degree.

      Now, if we look at where they would be without the injection from these companies, it would be the same place, yet without the skills and infrastructure.

      Sure, it wasn't a permanent boost to the economy, yet it was an injection of money into it. That will allow clever folks there to take the bonus they recieved and work it into their own infrastructure and skills, perhaps to make their own econmy stronger.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    2. Re:live by the sword... by lpret · · Score: 2, Interesting

      will we ever get to a point at which everyone's lives will have been enriched? i mean, will we keep leaching off of the lowest paid people and finally have helped everyone?

      --
      This is my digital signature. 10011011001
    3. Re:live by the sword... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the problem is when you finally hit the bottom and those peoples standard of life goes up, someone elses has to go down because what they are producing will be more expensive.

      You think nikes cost a lot now? Imagine if instead of 50 cents an hour those workers got just 5 dollars hour instead!

    4. Re:live by the sword... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They now also have knowledge of banking, service, and technologies fields. Now they can start up their own Corp. and take away business from the dumbass company that hired them in the first place. It will be funny when the first enterprise ready Indian DB pops up and kills off oracle. You reap what you sow.

  39. Some thoughts about cash flow by Baumi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's look at a few trends:

    - Automatization leads to fewer and fewer workers being needed to do the same amount of work, meaning higher profits for the producer.
    - Outsourcing leads to those workers being paid less and less , meaning again higher profits.
    - This, in turn leads to higher unemployment rates and a higher number of workers with low wages.
    - While any individual company might profit from cost-cutting measures, wide-scaled implementation of these measures will lead to too few consumers with enough money to buy the products.
    - Thus, to keep the system going, those profiting from it - the producers - must eventually give back enough of the profits to keep the whole thing going, otherwise the distribution of wealth will be too uneven to allow the system to work.

    (If you happen to be immoral, other possible ways to boost the economy would be forceful destruction of goods and/or workers, which would a) create the need for rebuilding the destroyed goods and b) lower unemployment, because after the destruction there'd be not only more work but also less workers left. This process is commonly known as "war".)

    1. Re:Some thoughts about cash flow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      better productivity in farming did not create a world with 1% farmers with a job and 99% farmers without a job. It instead created a middle class.

    2. Re:Some thoughts about cash flow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (If you happen to be immoral, other possible ways to boost the economy would be forceful destruction of goods and/or workers, which would a) create the need for rebuilding the destroyed goods and b) lower unemployment, because after the destruction there'd be not only more work but also less workers left. This process is commonly known as "war".)

      This is also known as "agricultural subsidies"

    3. Re:Some thoughts about cash flow by GringoGoiano · · Score: 1

      Without technology, specialization of labor, and automation we'd all be taking a dump in the compost heap to fertilize next year's potato crop. There's no way the world could maintain the number of people alive today, and the current standard of living without those trends.

      Outsourcing happens in any industry where the product can be commoditized and packaged and the constraints of face-to-face communication and geography are removed. It's happened in farming (grapes from Chile), in manufacturing (Nike's from Burma), with call centers (telecom is cheap enough and the English language skills in India are good enough), and with software (supposedly better software methods, specifications, etc. -- I've usually seen it not work).

      The general trend of outsourcing becomes:

      • disruption in the lives of those whose jobs have been exported
      • some adjust and find newer work with lower wages
      • a few are liberated and discover other work that pays them much more than their old jobs
      • down the road others
        • enjoy the much cheaper cost of goods resulting from this outsourcing
        • get more interesting jobs under better conditions and better pay than the jobs they used to have or their parents had before outsourcing took place
        • everybody benefits, the "local" workers and the "foreign" workers that now have the outsourced jobs

      outsourcing generally improves everyone's standard of living (but with possible costs to the environment)

      if there's a problem now, it's that the newer "local" jobs that become available in greater quantity after outsourcing require too much education, and the trend will continue, perhaps even to the point where being smart in itself doesn't matter -- there are plenty of PhDs in History with low paying jobs (we have a BA in History as president, I think) -- it may become more a matter of who you know, or the resources/capital at your disposal

      in other days you could escape the trap of few assets and few connections through education and hard work, but perhaps that's less likely now

      even if education is still a means to improved standard of living, Americans don't seem interested in trying all that hard but instead give in to the mindless entertainment culture

      Jeremy Rifkin wrote "The End of Work" (haven't read it yet, but have looked at reviews) -- he believes we're reaching a point where full employment will no longer make sense and society will need to find a permanent way to pay people even though they do not work ever in their lives -- The End of Work

    4. Re:Some thoughts about cash flow by composer777 · · Score: 1

      You're describing a trend in a specific field, he's describing a trend in the general work force. As long as people have a new field to go into, it all works, as soon as everything gets outsourced and people have no place to work, is when the things that he is describing happen.

    5. Re:Some thoughts about cash flow by smallpaul · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      - Automatization leads to fewer and fewer workers being needed to do the same amount of work, meaning higher profits for the producer.

      Or lower prices for the consumer. Or research and development into new products. Or all of the above.

      - Outsourcing leads to those workers being paid less and less , meaning again higher profits.

      Or lower prices. Or R&D

      - This, in turn leads to higher unemployment rates and a higher number of workers with low wages.

      You missed some logical step there. How does outsourcing lead to unemployment? By definition, outsourcing leads to a shift in employment. Automation also does not, in general, lead to higher unemployment. If it did, nobody would have jobs today because we've been progressively automating the Western economy since ... I don't know ... the invention of the printing press? The loom? The cotton gin? The axe? Think about it. Automation creates new jobs just as it destroys old ones.

    6. Re:Some thoughts about cash flow by Baumi · · Score: 1

      Not quite true. Automation leads to higher productivity, meaning one worker can produce more.

      As long as there's enough demand, people can get new jobs. This happened ,e.g, when new technologies killed off many jobs in the agriculture sector: People went to the cities to work in factories.

      At the moment, however, I don't see the Next Big Thing that'll generate the jobs lost to automation. I don't the killer product that'll create a huge demand and'll lead to millions of jobs. Many thought, the internet would bring that on, but, as we all know now, that wasn't the case.

    7. Re:Some thoughts about cash flow by danknight · · Score: 1

      Yes and the average consumer wants not only to make as much money as possible, they also want thier goods as cheaply as possible. the vast majority could care less where the goods are produced and could care less weather or not their purchase contributes to the local or national economy. The same people are worried about the economy and their own job security. The only thing that could reverse this trend is if consumers care enough about where their product/service is made to refuse to buy on those grounds. I am in a union for a large company. we are all worried about job security but yet most of my co-workers are happy to buy foreign cars and shop at wall-mart

      --
      wanted: one clever sig,apply within
    8. Re:Some thoughts about cash flow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Of course, this is becoming even more like slavery. People cannot stop working or they will be thrown out on the street, and become crazy homeless people. As wages go down and down, company owners and their rich friends get billions and billions of dollars, and can buy whole cities, maybe even states. Instead of the little man driving the economy, it will be the big rich men driving the economy.

      Yep, companies REALLY know what's best for the country...

    9. Re:Some thoughts about cash flow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you happen to be immoral, other possible ways to boost the economy would be forceful destruction of goods and/or workers, which would a) create the need for rebuilding the destroyed goods and b) lower unemployment, because after the destruction there'd be not only more work but also less workers left."

      Wrong. This is known as the broken window theory, i.e., if someone goes around breaking windows, it will create more jobs for people who put in windows and manufacture windows. The flaw in this argument is that the money going to the window producers and installers would be more productively used elsewhere, so artificially creating demand for replacement windows provides a false economy.

    10. Re:Some thoughts about cash flow by QuackQuack · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Of course your assumption is there is a fixed number of jobs and automation and outsourcing will only reduce the number of jobs available.

      History has shown otherwise

      If the income for a large percentage of the population were to drop, as you predict, this would lead to deflation, which the government desparately wants to avoid. So the government/central bank would take steps to avoid deflation, such as letting the value of the currency slide (which the US is now doing to help stimulate the economy, but won't admit it). This makes foreign workers more expensive comparatively.

      The paradox though is offshoring labor to cheaper countries tends to raise your standard of living instead of lowering it, because you end up paying less for those goods and services, and new jobs spring up in new industries to replace the ones lost.

      --
      By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
    11. Re:Some thoughts about cash flow by QuackQuack · · Score: 1

      So we've reached the end of human innovation? There are no new fields to develop?

      I think Scott Adams illustrated the problem with this way of thinking best when he wrote in "Dilbert Future" that the "Trend of outsourcing will continue until all of the work on the planet is done by one guy, and the global economy would collapse if he took a sick day."

      --
      By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
    12. Re:Some thoughts about cash flow by QuackQuack · · Score: 1

      At the moment, however, I don't see the Next Big Thing that'll generate the jobs lost to automation. I don't the killer product that'll create a huge demand and'll lead to millions of jobs. Many thought, the internet would bring that on, but, as we all know now, that wasn't the case.

      Of course you don't. Most people don't. If you did, you'd be off inventing it and getting rich in the future.

      Don't write off the internet yet either. It will continue to be a boon for companies that have set up a successful business model around it. Yes, there really are some, Ebay, those travel sites, Amazon to a lesser extent.

      Look at what happened with video games. Around 1983, Video games had a huge amount of hype then. Every company in the world wanted to produce Atari VCS games, and the market was flooded with worthless games such as "Chase the Chuckwagon" (from a Dog Food company!)

      The videogame market crashed, and many game makers went out of business. The existing companies gave it up for dead, then just a few years later, Nintendo and Sega came in and started making a killing in videogames. Today the videogame market is bigger than ever, but it doesn't have the 1983-era hype surrounding it.

      I see the same thing happening with the internet. The "Chase the Chuckwagon"-type dotcoms have disappeared, but many others will thrive and prosper in the coming years.

      --
      By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
    13. Re:Some thoughts about cash flow by mfrank · · Score: 1

      What, you think that rich people are like Scrooge McDuck and keep all their wealth locked in a big vault? (I'm showing my age here . . .).

      They spend the money, creating jobs.

      According to *your* theory, over the last 50 years the US unemployment rate should now be at about 85%.

      The average price of a new car has continually risen (above inflation).

      The average size of a new home in the US is constantly increasing.

      A higher percentage of the people in the US own their own home now than at any time in the last century.

      More Americans are invested in the stock market now than at any time in the last century (well, maybe not counting the wimps who got out over the last few years).

      Sounds to me like the average working stiff is doing a lot better than you think he is.

    14. Re:Some thoughts about cash flow by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      Who is buying these products that are made faster and more cheaply because of automation? Not the newly created crowds of poor people. To continue making money, companies will need to either lower their prices (so poor people can afford the products) or raise their prices (to increase revenue from the few sales to rich people).

    15. Re:Some thoughts about cash flow by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      Not quite true. Automation leads to higher productivity, meaning one worker can produce more.

      Of course.

      As long as there's enough demand, people can get new jobs. This happened ,e.g, when new technologies killed off many jobs in the agriculture sector: People went to the cities to work in factories.

      Factories are not consumers. Factories make products. People wanted more and more products and therefore they built the factories to build them. People always want more products. There has never been a time in history where people said: "I don't want a newer, better car. I don't want a faster internet connection. I don't want a more sleek celluar phone. I don't want a bigger television. It isn't that the factories magically came along just in time to suck up the farmboys. It's that the farmboys became an available resource when they were no longer needed on the farm so the factories had access to them at a price they could afford.

      At the moment, however, I don't see the Next Big Thing that'll generate the jobs lost to automation. I don't the killer product that'll create a huge demand and'll lead to millions of jobs. Many thought, the internet would bring that on, but, as we all know now, that wasn't the case.

      There is no need for the next big thing. The process of automation has been ongoing for centuries and only seldom has their been a next big thing. For instance, today there is a trend towards "personal chefs" who cook a week's meals for you in advance. Was there a technological shift recently that made this trend possible? Not really. Not much has changed in the kitchen since the microwave. But automation has freed up some people from other jobs and they looked around, said: "what niche isn't being filled" and they filled it. I could list a hundred similar jobs. In the 50s, when you went on vacation you sent your dogs to the neighbours. Today we pay for "doggy hotels." Oh yeah, and paid dog walkers. That isn't the result of technology. It's just people pushed out of other jobs, using their brains and creating a new market. People buy $5.00 fancy coffees. How the hell did that happen? Was it the Internet? No. It was just an unfilled niche. There are an infinite number of unfilled niches.

      If the divide between rich and poor keeps getting bigger (which is a bad thing...don't get me wrong) then we will return to the days where middle class people had maids and butlers. It is the very nature of a moderately healthy capitalist economy to find jobs for most people most of the time. It has nothing to do with technological spikes.

  40. Ugh by KilljoyAZ · · Score: 0

    Looks like Buddha is *not* smiling down upon the Hindu children.

    Why don't you take "World Religions 101," then come back and post.

    --
    This .sig is currently on hiatus for retooling.
    1. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, if I only had mod points. It's like when I was watching Shanghai Noon in the theatre, and Owen Wilson says to Jackie Chan, "I guess this means sayonara." Like four people got the joke.

  41. same in goods manufacturing by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Mexico, Taiwan, and Korea now have "expensive" labor. So they outsource manufacturing to Malaysia and the Philipines.

  42. Who didn't see this coming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This is the way market economies work. As wages rise in one ares, corporations shift production to areas with lower wages. As work shifts to the areas of lower wages, wages rise. I'd be willing to bet that wages in India's call centers and software development companies have been rising since outsourcing to India first began.

    This doesn't mean that work will stop being moved to India. Look at manufacturing. As late as the 1990s some European manufacturing companies (BMW was one) were shifting production to the US to save on labor costs. As long as a countries wages are lower than somewhere there will be companies willing to move production to that country.

    The key elements are infrastructure and a skilled workforce. As long as a country can provide these at competitive wages, that country will be an attractive target for companies that want to save money.

    As for where it will end, that much is rather obvious. It will end when wages have more or less equalized across all areas with equivalent infrastructure. My guess is that this process of reaching equilibrium won't take more than a couple hundred years.

    The most interesting thing (to me) is that "third world" countries now have a tangible incentive to invest in quality educational systems. When the work being shifted across the globe requires technical knowledge, there must be a high quality system in place for producing skilled workers.

    The other interesting question that arises is where the US will fit into this new situation fifty or seventy years down the road. It seems to me that the only US jobs that will be secure in the not so distant future are those that require a warm body on site and those that require security clearance.

    1. Re:Who didn't see this coming? by deuce868 · · Score: 1
      The most interesting thing (to me) is that "third world" countries now have a tangible incentive to invest in quality educational systems. When the work being shifted across the globe requires technical knowledge, there must be a high quality system in place for producing skilled workers.
      You have to wonder about all the students that come here to learn and then go back to work. Would you consider the US education system "used" to produce some of these workers for the other countries in the end?
  43. country where people work for free by 10am-bedtime · · Score: 1

    that country exists w/o borders; immigrate today!

  44. Re:Will work for food... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who'd you think stitched your sneakers?

  45. Worried? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do people think cheap outsourcing is bad, while the GPL is great?

    Especially when GPL's goal is to take away programmers jobs(at least the high paying ones).

  46. Is there a country where people will work for free by green.vervet · · Score: 1

    Yes, there is - Burma!

  47. Southern tax incentives by nightsweat · · Score: 1, Troll
    This is very similar to what happened to a lot of towns in the South that offered big incentives to companies to relocate in their cities from the big cities up North. They were very successful by offering lower taxes, lower wages, and fewer regulatory burdens.

    Then a few years later, along comes NAFTA and now Mexico offers lower taxes, lower wages, and fewer regulatory burdens. So the companies pick up and move south of the Rio Grande, and these Southern cities are shocked that these companies have no loyalty to their new Southern US homes.

    In a race to the bottom, no one wins but the few at the top.

    --

    the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
  48. Outsourcing to a foreign entity = security risk by MrJerryNormandinSir · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm very surprised that the United States continues to outsource. Especially after 9/11. it will be
    pretty easy for anyone to bury a "back door" into
    the code they are contracted to write.

    Lot's of features get lost in the language translation and coded ends up getting rewritten.
    If I was a CEO of one of the large companies mentioned I would rethink my outsourcing.

    I'm all for open source, but when it comes time to develop applications for Government agencies.. we should employ American Citizens.

    1. Re:Outsourcing to a foreign entity = security risk by kzadot · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh I definatly agree, and so do most countries outside the USA. Since George Bush turned America into a facist war mongering empire, it has become even more dangerous than ever to rely on Microsoft software.

      Setting up a back door in Windows is definatly something I could see the Bush terror regime setting up in its fight for world domination.

      Yep I am glad countries around the world are switching from Microsoft to Linux.

      I mean, I am all for Windows, but when it comes to developing applications for Government agencies, we really want to avoid American products.

    2. Re:Outsourcing to a foreign entity = security risk by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      The US Gov rarely outsources to other nations. The unions won concessions on that years ago.

      US Corporations, which this article talks about, are free to outsource to their hearts content.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    3. Re:Outsourcing to a foreign entity = security risk by dogfart · · Score: 1
      My understanding is that foreign nationals are not allowed to work on ANY US Govt IT project - not just classified work, but even fairly innocuous systems for the Department of Interior.

      I call it the "Full Employment for Mediocre US Programmers" act.

      --

      "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

    4. Re:Outsourcing to a foreign entity = security risk by the_great_cornholio · · Score: 1

      That is false. I am on a project now for the Department of Defense and we have numerous foreign nationals on board. It is more of a hassle to bring them on, and they aren't allowed to do sysadmin type roles, but they can code, design, manage, and even look at production data.

    5. Re:Outsourcing to a foreign entity = security risk by Frallyth · · Score: 1
      This is correct. I work for a company that does U.S. Government engineering programs... one of the aftershocks of 9/11 was that we couldn't have non-U.S. citizens working on any of the "sensitive" programs anymore (which is pretty much everything).

      As a result, we don't even bother interviewing anyone without U.S. citizenship anymore, and even hesitate on naturalized citizens because getting them security clearances will be so difficult. The couple non-citizens we had in the company quit pretty quickly -- there was just nothing we could let them do that was worth their time.

      So, I'm fairly sure that the IT jobs in my company aren't going overseas... but that's maybe 5 or 6 people. Government work just isn't plentiful enough to make much of a safe haven for IT jobs.

  49. Cheap in US may not be cheap in another country by stm2 · · Score: 1

    The posting says
    "Is there a country were people will work for free?"
    I think this is misleading. Other countries have lower salaries because the living cost are cheaper. In Argentina (at least in my town) you can dinner out in a fancy restaurant for 2 people, for 20 pesos, that's 6 US$ (in the US, you just get a Mc Combo for that money).
    Most families in Argentina lives with less than 5000 US$/year.
    The only problem is the imported goods, they are priced in dollars and tends to have higher price.

    --
    DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
    1. Re:Cheap in US may not be cheap in another country by MrJerryNormandinSir · · Score: 1

      Dude.. you are wrong. When I went to write/debug code on site at Coproven Venezuala in 1986 I was
      shocked to see what people pay at McDonalds. At the
      time the money conversion rate was 50bisces/$1.00
      All McDonalds crappy food was at American Prices!
      So only the wealthy could afford to eat there.

      The local Engineer friends I made there took me to local restraunts. I enjoyed many bottle of Polar Cerveca (Beer!) And they wanted to see if they could bust me by substituting my Polar that I gre pretty fond of.. I caught them (I was drinking from a frosted mug at the time (Where my
      Polar?)... they laughed and got me a new mug full
      of Polar. You can't buy Polar in the United States, I think because it exceeds the alchol content that our beer has. I thought I was a lightweight since I after 8 24oz glasses of Polar
      I knew I had to slow down the beer consumption... well... they told me 8 240z = 16 24oz of any American or imported American beer.

      Anyway I got to go to local restraunts in Caracas. I was very surprised that I can get
      a meal that would cost $50.00 here for $6.00

      The company I worked for at the time was calling me Indiana Jerry since there were revolting in the streets because gasoline went up 5 bisces.
      but 5 bisces is a lot of money for a Venezualean.
      Engineers back then only made $450.00 bisces / month.

      I got to enjoy a venezualan keg part that featured my favorite South American Beer! The party as at Mercado (at the base of the Rancheros
      where American Tourists can get abducted or shot)
      But since I was trying to speak thier toungue and
      my Venezualan Engineer friends said they would
      take care of me I went. Thier friends were impressed that I was at least tryinh to speak their language and that they actually understood me. They get paid the third thursday of the month.. and man thay weekend is one long party for most people.

      The cost of living was pretty steep at the time
      I went to Venezala... Actually the way it panned out it was 25% higher than in Swansea, MA USA.
      then.

      Rent was high, if they wanted to plant a garden and grow thier own food they had to pay rent too.
      But they were forunate. All the truck Drivers, Mechanics, laborers.. they could not afford rent
      they live in the Ranchero Mountains in goverment
      provided clay huts with one free light bulb.

      Only 13% of the population there live as
      we or Europeans do. It's strange because
      Venezuala has an abundance of natural resources.
      Not only natural agas and Oil. When the coworkers
      I befriended took me to a beach you could see gold in the hills! I actually scraped some off
      a rock into a piece of paper... it wasn't Mica or
      Fool's Gold.. it was real Gold. And you see that
      throughout the Ranchero's. Also diamonds.. big time. Even Black ones.

      Anyway.. as for my Engineer friends.. Most of them made a little over $400/month in 1986

      Some of them worked 6months out of the year in the US for IBM.

      P.S. I was swimming at the beach during August (thier winter) and it felt like bath water.. but
      my friends lips were turning blue.. I can just imagine how warm that water gets in the summer)

    2. Re:Cheap in US may not be cheap in another country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent post was describing Argentina, not Venezuela. Two ENTIRELY different economies (and cultures, for that matter).

  50. Preemptive anti-xenophobia post by ndogg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Before people start complaining about more people overseas taking jobs, let's realize that this means more people in impoverished jobs having access at better jobs. They may not be getting the pay they deserve, but they will be getting paid a lot better than many of their fellow persons. That better pay in relativity means they will be able to give themselves and their families a better standard of living, which every human being on this planet deserves. This is the goal of free trade, isn't it?

    If we've been smart (this is slashdot, right?), we've been saving money to help us through tougher times. More jobs will always be created.

    --
    // file: mice.h
    #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    1. Re:Preemptive anti-xenophobia post by Chess+Cardigan · · Score: 1

      You know this is all very good, I'm all for impoverished people having access to better jobs. But don't you wonder where the savings made go? i.e. why don't things get cheaper? Let me give an example: I live in Australia, about ten years ago you used to be able to buy clothes that were made in Australia. Now it's nearly impossible to find clothes made here, even if it's an Australian brand, everything is made in China, Indonesia, Fiji, etc. Now given that companies are saving money on wages, wouldn't you expect the price of clothing to get cheaper? Yeah right, the prices have gone up. So where did the money go? The answer must be profit, bonuses for executives, etc. So Australian textile workers have lost their jobs, some poor people in developing countries have hopefully gotten slightly better off (which is a good thing) but some other people must be getting very rich. It's the same for Nike runners, did they get cheaper when they got made in sweatshops? My opinion is that the net result of what is happening is that wealth is gradually being shifted from the middle classes in developed countries, some of it is going to the poor in developing countries, but most of it is being concentrated into the hands of a relatively small group of very rich people.

    2. Re:Preemptive anti-xenophobia post by tx_mgm · · Score: 1

      Hey, Nike had to give LaBraun a 90 MILLION dollar shoe contract....that money had to come from somewhere, right?
      Isn't that sickeningly fantastic! Let's produce our shoes in 3rd world countries so we can throw more money than god at some high-school hoops player because he MIGHT be the next great thing in basketball!
      And lets not forget that the average CEO makes around 200 times more than the average salary at their own company.
      Doesn't it feel good to know that a select few in this country are fucking you over so that thay can have another TV in their H2 Hummers? Hell, lets give them another tax cut!

      --
      Gentlemen...BEHOLD!
      -Dr. Weird
    3. Re:Preemptive anti-xenophobia post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now given that companies are saving money on wages, wouldn't you expect the price of clothing to get cheaper? Yeah right, the prices have gone up. So where did the money go? The answer must be profit, bonuses for executives, etc.

      That's true, but not the complete story. You've forgotten that when you compare a price of an item ten years ago to its price today, you're not using the same measuring device. Inflation has changed the value of the currency the price is expressed in.

      If you factor in inflation, you'll find that the prices of great many things actually have gone down in price -- the reason you have to fork over more in currency for the item, though, is that the currency has been made less valuable.

      According to http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ $1.00 USD in 1950 had dwindled in value to $0.14 USD by 2000. That other 0.86 went, gradually, into the arms of the ones issuing the currency, in the U.S. it's the Federal Reserve.

      It's not just the CEOs raking in the cash. It's the bankers as well. Remember this when it's time to pick who to put up against the wall, come the revolution.

  51. Righto by Mattygfunk1 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Pretty soon, techies in India will be doing what techies in America are doing: Slaving for low wages....

    Yeah, those Indians sure are living the high-life financially at the moment.

    /sarcasm

    __
    Furniture, lamps, and antiques Australian medical couches

  52. Is there a country were people will work for free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elbonia!

  53. Why are you complaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is even better, now you can get even more developers for the same price, or the price for Indian developers will be cheaper. It's a win-win situation for you.

    1. Re:Why are you complaining by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      Whos you? lol,

      We lose because now we will NEVER be able to get a job here in the USA.

      So what if you can hire some Indian, Africa or Chinese programmer for $1 a day or something, I'm an American.

      Maybe it will be useful if I wanted to start a software company to be able to get cheap labor but its also known that these programmers suck at software design, so I'd still have to design everything, they'd just be cheap labor.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    2. Re:Why are you complaining by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
      We lose because now we will NEVER be able to get a job here in the USA.

      Everyone else will follow India's path: they'll become too expensive. Sooner or later, there will be no more new labour pools to open. We'll wind up with a teired arrangement of programming skills in descending order of both price and convenience.

      Your troubles will really surface when some of those countries build real economies around more efficient production techniques than America's. Admittedly, some societies will bind them in a morass of social inefficiency which rival's America's own layers of politics and red tape, but there will still be plenty left who can industrially outperform America at all levels. Then America will no longer be top teir, they will. And if America doesn't adapt, they'll go from superpower to third-world.

      Admittedly, "third-world" may not be such a bad status by then, if everyone's on the useful-technology bandwagon.

      --
      Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    3. Re:Why are you complaining by Beliskner · · Score: 1
      We lose because now we will NEVER be able to get a job here in the USA.

      So what if you can hire some Indian, Africa or Chinese programmer for $1 a day or something, I'm an American
      WHAT?? Dude, these Indian guys are amazing. They outclass all the top software engineers at Banks. There's lots of cleaning jobs available in USA for American workers. These guys show the true power of an integral atomic family unit - Father goes to work from 9am to 11pm, wife doesn't complain and quietly cooks breakfast and dinner and keeps the house clean. Selfish and lazy American women are unwilling to do this, they are an inferior working breed and therefore with this collapse of the classic supportive American atomic family unit the American workers become unemplyable. It's Capitalism dude, it's the American way. Unless you want to change the American way...?

      There's only 3 ways to stop the Indian programmers - bomb India, take so many programmers that the entire population of India ends up in the US, or create trade barriers and racism so that dumb and useless white American programmers with screaming selfish cook=divorcing wives get jobs in first preference, like Apartheid in South Africa.

      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
  54. Even Slaves Get Food, Shelter and Clothing by Baldrson · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Is there a country were people will work for free?

    Yes. They're doing it now. But not for long.

    Even slaves get food, shelter, clothing and medical care -- which is more than a lot of tech workers are getting these days.

    Someone will figure out that slavery is a superior system to the current con-game and also figure out a way to use the military against their own populations to enforce it. I think its already started in privatized prisons and their prisoner-labor programs and the exploding rate of incarceration in the Unted States -- however they really do have to figure out what to do about the prisoner rape problem before they can be considered good massah's.

    There are alternatives of course, but they require revolution.

  55. History is not on the side of business by diabolus_in_america · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The history of the textile industry, I think, gives a pretty clear indication where the future of IT is headed, particularly due to the big trend of American corporations to outsource to India over the past few years.

    The textile industry, at least what I consider the modern, industrialized version of it, began in and generated considerable wealth for England. Then, with the promise of cheaper labor, the bulk of textile manufacturing moved to the Americas, specifically the Carolinas, Georgia and a few New England states. The total generated wealth of the industry started to decline at this point, and another disturbing trend started as well. The distribution of the wealth began moving to a smaller percentage of people, namely the factory owners. Again, the prospect of cheaper labor induced the factory owners to move the bulk of textile manufacturing first to Mexico from the United States, then to the Far East from Mexico.

    The important things to remember is that the total wealth generated by the textile industry declined with each geographic hop around the globe, and that fewer and fewer people got a larger and larger percentage of the total wealth of the textile industry.

    How does this relate to IT? Well, considering that in the late 1990's we saw a mass movement of IT jobs for the US to India, and the associated wealth generated by the IT industry decline, I think the example of the textile industry is playing out again. Soon, the Indians who offered such low labor rates to win contracts and jobs away from American workers will be on the other side of the equation.

    Russia, Eastern Europe and probably some African countries will do to India what they have done to America. The sad thing is that while India has been "carpet-bombing" the IT industry in the United States over the past few years with cheap labor and low costs, ultimately they've been laying the ground work for their own, future demise.

    If all you offer is low costs and a cheaper price, then there is nothing to keep customers loyal. As soon as someone else comes along with a cheaper price, your customers will move to them. All because of the trend you started!

    1. Re:History is not on the side of business by cybercuzco · · Score: 1

      why is the total wealth generated by the textile industry decreasing? It certainly isnt because less and less clothes are being sold, people are hardly going naked. Its because prices of clothing are decreasing. This is not a benefit to the textile industry, but it is a benefit to the consumer. Because I can buy a six pack of socks for $10, I have more money that can be spent on other things, so there is no net loss to the economy, ony a new source of free cash that somone else can capitalize on.

      --

    2. Re:History is not on the side of business by RalphSlate · · Score: 1

      The distribution of the wealth began moving to a smaller percentage of people, namely the factory owners.

      Wouldn't this unequal distribution of wealth be the most "efficient" result?

      If there are thousands of companies making textiles, then the wealth is spread among those thousands of companies. But an industry with thousands of companies is viewed as inefficient. Several larger companies could do the job for less. That's why industries devolve into "bigger is better" mentalities -- not just textiles, but retaillers, banks, accounting firms, etc.

      So then, by definition, isn't a handful of hugely rich companies, and everyone else deathly poor, the most "efficient" solution that the markets are rushing towards?

      Is that something that we should be embracing? And isn't this at odds with the globalist claims, that globalization will make everyone richer?

      Instead, it seems to be reducing innovation (fewer companies means less chance for new ideas), creating social discord (when industries and careers are wiped out), and causing massive shifts to ways of life (cities and towns that don't "get bigger" wind up in a death spiral, where lack of jobs prevents employable people from settling there, so all that's left are unemployable people and the social ills they bring with them).

      Ralph

  56. The democratic party has no solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    other than
    1) Supporting the likes of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein by castrating the CIA
    2) Raising taxes on successful productive people and giving the money to lazy welfare bums
    3) Groveling to race hustlers and poverty pimps like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson

    1. Re:The democratic party has no solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You asked for it asshole...
      1) You mean giving 43 Million dollars to Afghanistan when the Taliban was in control for their "effective drug control policy"? Or, is it in only supporting the Taliban to fight against the Soviet Menace, then leaving them to themselves to take on the next super power? What about not supporting the Iraqi uprising during the first gulf war? You do know that Saddam did all of those awful things, like gasing his own people before the first war. Why wasn't that a good enough reason then? Did you see the pictures of the mass grave that contained the bodies of the people that the first Bush should have been supporting? Of course, the gassing was only a couple of years before the first war, and the Reagan administration actually blocked any criticism of the gassing in the UN...

      2) Local taxes support the infrastructure of the city that I live in. State taxes support my state. I don't believe that every cent that I give in taxes - as an American - goes to all "welfare bums". Obviously you have little respect for your fellow Americans who may be in a lower tax bracket than you. Do all of us a favor and please move to a different country. Right now. And take your friends, too.

      3) Makes absolutely no sense.

      Just one last question for you. How long did you actually serve in the public sector? You seem like such a giving individual that giving your time for a low paid job to support your country is something that you would consider. Of course, after you graduate from High School and leave your parents wallet, you may discover what an idiot you truely are.

    2. Re:The democratic party has no solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elitist fuck!
      If you can't be bothered to help out your fellow man, you don't deserve to be alive!

    3. Re:The democratic party has no solution... by TamMan2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1) Supporting the likes of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein by castrating the CIA

      Actually I think castrating the CIA would do a good bit to prevent the rise to power of types like OBL and Saddam. Ya' see both of them had a lot of help from the CIA earlier in there 'careers'. The CIA has a policy of supporting the enemy of our enemy, no matter how unsavory the character is, or what his motives are. Well, when you lie down with dogs you get fleas. And we are paying the price for our past actions now. And we are doing it again. We are, so hypocritically, allowing a terror group in Iraq to keep it's weapons and camps, because they are against Iran. I for one will not be surprised one bit when in 10-20 years we are dealing with that group forcefully after they blew up some Americans.

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    4. Re:The democratic party has no solution... by Pave+Low · · Score: 1

      Pray tell, how exactly did the US support of Bin Laden against the Soviet Invasion of Aghanistan lead us to the Cole bombing, 9/11, and other terrorist acts? Did our support in that conflict have anything to do with his hatred of the USA? Oh right, because it doesn't. In your quest to bring it back to 'America is at fault with everything', you've pulled out the tired lamebrained tripe that the fashionable leftists are spewing now. But since this slashdot, you are 'insightful'. Congratulations.

      --
      SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
    5. Re:The democratic party has no solution... by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      Nobody in his right mind thinks OBL hates us because we helped him expel the soviets, but what we did do is teach him how to recruit holy warriors to fight the infidels.

      While the reasons for his hatred of us are unrelated to our support for him, his strength in the region is not. We knew that he was a vicious character, but we supported him anyway, just because of a common enemy. And it bit us in the ass.

      Please attack my logic, or my data, if you can, but if you can't... Consider the posibility that maybe this is not leftist tripe.

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    6. Re:The democratic party has no solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You do know that Saddam did all of those awful things, like gasing his own people before the first war.

      You still peddling this horseshit? How about Bush bombing the shit out of the same people? Under the guise of "liberating" them?

    7. Re:The democratic party has no solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And let's say we did not help the mujahadeen in 1980's Afghanistan. The USSR would have rolled over Afghanistan, installed its puppet government, and then proceeded to conquer more territory. Rumor had it that they wanted an outlet to the Indian Ocean.

      And if that would have happened, we wouldn't be on Slashdot. We'd be working on some ditzy farm, Comrade.

      You never know how history would have turned out.

    8. Re:The democratic party has no solution... by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      You say this:You never know how history would have turned out.
      but you said this too:And if that would have happened, we wouldn't be on Slashdot. We'd be working on some ditzy farm, Comrade.

      Well, which is it? I think it is the former (not knowing about history...). My opinion is that the cold war might have gone on longer, but I think that the final outcome would be very similar.

      On another note:
      I was not around for much of the cold war, so maybe an older /. reader could help me out on a couple things. Did the cold war seem very similar to the terror war? You know what I mean, mostly hype designed to generate patriotic followers?

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    9. Re:The democratic party has no solution... by Pave+Low · · Score: 1

      consistency must not be your strong suit

      Nobody in his right mind thinks OBL hates us because we helped him expel the soviets

      Before that..

      Well, when you lie down with dogs you get fleas. And we are paying the price for our past actions now.

      BTW, it's probably more accurate to say that we lied down with dogs 20 years ago, and got fleas yesterday.

      but what we did do is teach him how to recruit...

      Oh horrors of horrors. We teach people how to recruit???!! By your logic, the US government is responsible for all the Tim McVeighs and John Malvos of the world because the Army teached them how to shoot and kill.

      --
      SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
    10. Re:The democratic party has no solution... by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      Nope I am consistent: We taught him to fight off infidels in Muslim lands through calls to holy war (lying down with dogs). Then in an unrelated incident we went to war in a Muslim land (our military presence in Saudi Arabia for GWI was the main beef). Suddenly we are the infidels in a Muslim land (getting fleas).

      Can you see the independence of the 2 events? By the way, I never said that everything was America's fault, you said I think that...

      By your logic, the US government is responsible for all the Tim McVeighs and John Malvos of the world because the Army teached them how to shoot and kill.

      Nope, it would be like if we had found they were wonderful leaders and made them generals with armies to command.

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    11. Re:The democratic party has no solution... by mfrank · · Score: 1

      You're right, the USSR would have collapsed eventually. You can pretty much say that about any tyranny. Saddam's govt would have collapsed eventually. NK will collapse eventually. The bad part is it can take decades, with multiple generations living their entire life under oppression.

      The cold war isn't very similar to the terror war at all. After all, as the Sting song goes, the Russians love their children too. Mutually Assured Destruction was able to work with them. There were *rules*. Not that way with the terrorists; if they had a nuke Manhattan would be a crater ASAP.

      I was born in 1962, and while I was growing up, I never really thought the US/USSR would start lobbing around H-bombs unless somebody somewhere pushed the wrong button, and there were extraordinary safeguards put in place to keep that from happening.

      Terrorists with WMDs would be a whole new level. No hype. Much worse than the cold war. The only long-term solution is to bring democracy to the Arab states. Well, that or kill them all and let Allah sort them out.

    12. Re:The democratic party has no solution... by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Which is why the coalition should have kicked Saddam out of power in GW1. No long-term bases in Saudi, no years of sanctions pissing off the Arab world.

  57. Enlish language and customs advantage by peter303 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    To some degree the former colonies of England and America will always have an advantage. These would be mainly India, the Philipines, and South Africa. These countries hve people who learned English at an early age and understand US/UK business habits. Jobs such as customer relations would work best there. Even software development involves a lot of communication. This is possibly why India seems to have beat China and Japan.

    1. Re:Enlish language and customs advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      the former colonies of England and America

      Mwhaha. America has no former colonies. It is a former colony itself. It has current colonies though: Afghanistan and Irak.

    2. Re:Enlish language and customs advantage by barcodez · · Score: 1

      To some degree the former colonies of England and America will always have an advantage.

      Shouldn't this be:

      To some degree the former colonies of England like America will always have an advantage. ;)

      --

      ----
    3. Re:Enlish language and customs advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he meant the former colonies, and America.

    4. Re:Enlish language and customs advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes it does - the Philippines.

  58. How much is your time worth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For support desks that offer a quality of service agreement (e.g. calls will be answered within a certain amount of time and questions will be answered correctly within another certain amount of time), calling the help desk could be faster than reading manuals and searching the web.

  59. Proves globalization works by Badger · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    There's no country where people will work for free - which is why we'll all be better off in the end. India has already moved up in terms of salary, and now Eastern Europe will get the same boost. As jobs overseas become more expensive, they'll move back to the US and Europe.

    End result? Everyone's richer. That's what gloablization is all about.

    jason

    1. Re:Proves globalization works by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      bullshit, Gekko-boy. it just proves that people get desperate and will indenture themselves for lower wages. What happens is that wages hit rock bottom and then companies move there. The wages might be higher than they were the last time they hit rock bottom, but that's just inflation at work.

      The only people getting richer are the board.

      Stop worshipping at the scrotums of businessmen and get a clue. Business is out to fuck you and they will fuck you.

    2. Re:Proves globalization works by thefinite · · Score: 1

      Man, how can you write such a strong-worded response without really saying anything? Have you ever asked a third-world worker what life was like *before* he got the job with GlobalCorp, Inc.? My guess is that you have no idea of how their standard of living improved.

      I *personally* saw a group of Romanian engineers designing car parts for an American company. Their average monthly salary was $400-500/month. The average Romanian at the time was making $100-150/month. That hardly sounds like indentured service. Their wages aren't just higher, their *standard of living* is higher. India's economy has been growing at 4% for over a decade. That is not a measure of inflation.

      Besides, rather than spewing vitriol against GlobalCorp, Inc. you might want to consider the question, what are *you* doing for these people?

      --
      Boom Shanka
    3. Re:Proves globalization works by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      I'm not doing anything for them, because it's not my fucking job to prop up Indians or Romanians. It's my job to prop myself up. If I have to do it for myself, they have to. If they don't want to, they suffer the consequences. That's how social Darwinism works in my world.

      You confuse corporations with charities. Corporations are not benevolent. They use what they can to increase the stock price and then dump it when it has no further use to them. The increase in standard of living is a side effect, not a goal, of globalization. The goal is to make the golden parachute worth something so that when the CEO makes his/her first mistake and gets shitcanned he'll still be able to keep the payments up on his house and Benzes. If they bring some Indians out of the slums, it's good PR and nothing more to the corp.

    4. Re:Proves globalization works by thefinite · · Score: 1

      So from your post, you and corporate execs are guilty of the same selfishness (quote, "It's my job to prop myself up"), only *they* are rich and at least help someone else, even if they don't mean to. Why are you verbally crapping on them, again? Seems like you should be mad at yourself for not making your selfishness more productive.

      --
      Boom Shanka
    5. Re:Proves globalization works by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      I don't claim that I'm not selfish. Sure, I'm selfish. This is business. My selfishness produces benefits only to me, but it doesn't hurt anybody else in the process. The Indian who would be doing my job will get a better job eventually, if their economy is growing like it's claimed. I'm under no obligation to help him do that, though, because he is the competition.

      The corporate execs' selfishness benefits themselves, too. The difference between me and them is that they're in a position where their selfishness harms potentially hundreds of thousands of their own countrymen. They don't stop to think about that. If I were the CEO of a global corp, you can bet that I would give a great deal of thought to the effect that overseas outsourcing would have on my home.

      The very fact that I would think about that will keep me from ever being a CEO, though. Execs can't have consciences.

  60. Is there a country were people will work for free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it's called China: Forced prison labour.

  61. it is not just price by john_uy · · Score: 1

    though majority of articles points to the price advantage, these countries provide good people (*disclaimer* - i am living in one of the countries mentioned.) though people may not know, companies are starting to put their r&d in these countries (most do not even know where products have been developed and you'll be surprised where it started from.)

    aside from the lower price good quality labor, there is also better manufacturing for products that need to.

    good and bad? i don't know the short, medium, and long term effects. well find out soon.

    my 2 c

    --
    Live your life each day as if it was your last.
  62. Modify the Chicken Catcher by Ted+Stoner · · Score: 1

    Outsourcing is a threat to us all. I would suggest that we modify a Chicken-catching machine (talked about in this thread) to gather up all of these outsourcers into a cage.

    They can then be driven around for awhile causing them to becoming disoriented, then be safely and humanely released into the wild.

    Bock bock bock
  63. Is there a country where people work for free? by pr0ntab · · Score: 1

    Yeah, right here. The USA. I'm not kidding.

    So many tech people get layed-off that there are people willing to work on projects for no compensation (or to secure a future position when the market turns around) just so they don't lose their edge.

    --
    Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
  64. Free work.... by cybermace5 · · Score: 1

    This is interesting. All I need to do is figure out how to work for free, and still make money.

    I think the only way to do it is owning a business, and selling stuff. Fruit stand!

    --
    ...
  65. Singapore?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Singapore's GDP per capita is US $24,700. India's GDP per capita is US $2,540. If you want cheap labor, you don't go to Singapore!

  66. and the market decides... by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

    people want high-quality products as cheaply as they can get them. Period. If a company can get a similar service for a cheaper price in another country, it makes them that much more competitive. If the company's new workers make cheap, substandard crap, people won't buy it, and the company loses... so you can't go too cheap.

    Also, don't overlook the fact that these moves often benefit the workers in the host country. Their people need jobs, and the industry needs people to do those jobs. Now, I'm not polyanna... you do have to look out for sweatshop-like exploitation... although just defining exploitation can be tricky (particularly if we apply western standards to a third-world subsistence-living standard).

    It's all about efficiency, and the market is driving this. Naturally, you non-capitalists may disagree...

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    1. Re:and the market decides... by cowbutt · · Score: 1
      If the company's new workers make cheap, substandard crap, people won't buy it, and the company loses... so you can't go too cheap.

      In my experience, that's a fiction. What really happens is that the company offering a quality service loses so much business in the first round of the competition that they go under. Then, despite the customers being disappointed with the substandard crap they bought last time, that's now all they can now find for sale, plus they've gotten used to the LOW! LOW! PRICES! and resent paying what was a reasonable price for a quality version, so they carry on buying the substandard crap. Rinse and repeat.

      --

    2. Re:and the market decides... by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that... I don't shop that way, and I'll bet you don't either.

      Bear with me for a second.

      When you know quality, and quality is important to you (and I work hard for my money, as I'm sure you do), you shop for it. I'll pay more for quality, whether it's cars, computer products, or expertise.

      I have my taxes done by a tax attorney every year... I could go to HR Block, but I'm willing to pay that highly-educated professional for his expensive expertise, and it's WORTH IT.

      I have several RAIDs, and I use 3ware cards for them. Yes, they are more expensive than the Promise/highpoint cards, but they are better, the drivers are open-source, and they are WORTH IT.

      If I'm going to have a LASIK procedure, I'm going to go to the best, most well-trained (and likely most expensive) eye surgeon I can find. You only get one set of eyes... It's WORTH IT.

      It sometimes takes a while to learn that little life's lesson... but I figured it out. I'll look for a bargain, but I don't go as cheap as possible for everything, and I'll bet you don't either.

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    3. Re:and the market decides... by thebigmacd · · Score: 1

      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes. It's WORTH IT!

    4. Re:and the market decides... by cowbutt · · Score: 1
      It sometimes takes a while to learn that little life's lesson... but I figured it out. I'll look for a bargain, but I don't go as cheap as possible for everything, and I'll bet you don't either.

      I tried doing that, but I stopped when I realised I was getting the same substandard crap, but in a prettier case and with a more recognisable brand. Now I buy the cheapest that does the job, and save the extra so that I can afford to buy another one when it breaks.

      (OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration, as I refuse to buy stuff like PC Chips motherboards, Tesco "Value" chicken and hard discs with less than 3 years warranty. OTOH, those are all examples of things that don't "do the job" IMHO.)

      --

  67. Holes in the Theory by mobileskimo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a nice theory but you forget that equilibrium may never be attainable. Skill and knowledge starts in a location just as it did with all these industries for autmobiles, programming, etc.

    So the cycle we have today, will be the cycle we have tomorrow, or hundreds of years from now, just with different industries, different technologies and different products. You'll benefit from the countries establishing better infrastructures, but did you really expect some countries to continue their civilizations on candle-power? The employment cycles and people wallowing in corporate migration-mires will continue. People will always be subject to the fear that they will lose their jobs to outsourcing. Infact it will be easier and faster every time as corporations establish a base of operations in all the potential countries, and have accumulated experience from making these shifts.

    One place will always be better than another, in the eyes of a profit-seeker. Making these evaluations and determining the best choice is what executive decision makers get paid big money for, isn't it?

    --
    "Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
    1. Re:Holes in the Theory by composer777 · · Score: 1

      Right, these decision makers are just doing their job, it's the job that needs to be questioned.

    2. Re:Holes in the Theory by evilviper · · Score: 1
      People will always be subject to the fear that they will lose their jobs to outsourcing.

      Have you ever heard of a tarriff? Apparently not. If you had, you'd know that this is quite easy to put an end to, assuming the government wants to.

      Personally, I think companies need to start looking at what they get for the extra money they spend on American workers. If they did that, rather than just doing the accountant thing and looking only at what is on paper, outsourcing would stop.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  68. No free programmers by jabbadabbadoo · · Score: 1
    "It's hard to know where it will all end. Is there a country were people will work for free?'"

    Sorry. A google search for "programmer from afghanistan" turned out blank, so there is no hope.

    1. Re:No free programmers by xutopia · · Score: 1

      well with the Bush administration we could expect some concentration camps in Iraq anytime now. They're close to free and the oil pays for them anyways!

  69. I live in Hugary... by little1973 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    and I do not think hugarian IT workers are cheaper than the Indian IT workers, to the contrary. One of the problems my coutry is facing currently is that the workforce is not as cheap as a few years ago. Many corporations plan to move towards east (Russia, China, etc) if the situation does not change. I think the same can be said on the neighbouring countries, too. Workforce in the eastern block is not as cheap as it used to be.

    --
    Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
    1. Re:I live in Hugary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but your porn stars are second to none.
      Here's to Hungarian outsourcing!

  70. Quantum Tech Support is Wonderful by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

    I have had the experience of talking to Dell tech support recently...it was a nightmare because the guy was hard to understand and very short with me. It seemed very much like a cookie-cutter, move-em-in-move-em-out operation, and I was left very irritated. Oh did I mention the tech support was in India? Just a few days ago, I had an issue with a Quantum DLT tape drive. I e-mailed their tech support, and got a number to call. I instantly got a guy with a German accent, but who was nonetheless entirely understandable. He was extremely polite, and walked me through the procedure to re-attach a tape leader on the drive. He was patient and even gave me 5 minutes to go get some "known good" tapes. I cannot say I have ever experienced such wonderful tech support before. It's what it should be. I'm not sure if the guy was in Germany or was just German. Irrespective, that's what they should be concentrating on...customer satisfaction, not how cheap they can get some guy to thumb through a trouble tree.

    1. Re:Quantum Tech Support is Wonderful by yppiz · · Score: 1
      Perhaps he was an Indian pretending to be German.

      --Pat

    2. Re:Quantum Tech Support is Wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps the first guy was a German pretending to be an Indian.
      Or perhaps they were both the same Estonian guy who likes to change voices on Mondays and Thursdays.
      Or perhaps...

    3. Re:Quantum Tech Support is Wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ever heard anyone from north east of india talk? you might think he/she is from somewhere in europe!

      maybe just because you heard a 'german accent' you were more patient and open!

      i am an indian and have been wrong half time (i try to ask each time) in guess the 'indian accent'

      get over it. quality is how much company stresses on customer's satisfaction not who (in cultural way) is providing it.

    4. Re:Quantum Tech Support is Wonderful by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

      Did I mention his name was "Yodl" or something like that? The accent was unmistakably German. I meant no cultural disrepect, but I am making an obervation. Indian customer support people are rude to me. Perhaps the difference is that Dell sells commodity boxes for cheap and Quantum had sold me a $3000 tape drive, and had a call center dedicated to that purpose. But in any case, the Indian at Dell (he told me he was in India) was rude, and the apparent German (maybe Belgian, maybe Sudeten for all I know) was beyond polite and patient.

    5. Re:Quantum Tech Support is Wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool. I have a friend who works for Quantum as an on site tech support/set up guy... Ill foreward him this :)

    6. Re:Quantum Tech Support is Wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever found the 'Shift' key on your keyboard? It's really quite useful and makes you look like less of a dickhead when you type.

  71. Acceleration and the Outsourcing Omega Point by Badgerman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This doesn't surprise me, though it's happened a bit faster than I expected. Then again, that is sort of the point I was going to make . . .

    A global economy and global communication accelerate things. The ever-increasing need for IT accelerates people seeking new products, ways to support old products, and development of new projects. Throw these things together and you have a recepie for change and unpredictability - and a chance for uniformity at relatively quick speeds.

    The Outsourcing Raget can't go on forever, and my guess is this is part of the last hurrah (or next-to-last) hurrah for Big Outsourcing Moves. At some point all potential markets will be explored, competition and increasing need will affect prices and skills, and you'll probably end up with the bizarre situation of a global market where IT resources seem relatively alike. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw it in ten years.

    I work for a company that tried outsourcing and got burned horribly (last I saw, 50% of all outsourcing projects fail). Ironically, they found that good organization, hiring good people, and careful cost containment actually saved them money over outsourcing's total costs. They hired more people (at very good wages) and ended up coming out ahead.

    Outsourcing has its place. But my guess is the enthusiasm for it will dip in time, because the speed of change will create homogenization.

    Just my theories.

    --
    "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
  72. I told you so... by composer777 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have commented on this before to the people on slashdot promoting free trade. I told them that this was not about helping the people of India, and as soon as they got too "uppity" the corporations would drop them on their face and move somewhere else. See, folks, this isn't about helping out poor countries, this is about making corporations rich. It's not about exporting capitalism, it's about importing a 3rd world standard of living, which is why so many people around the world are against this. It's about making a market place, a product out of entire countries, whose populations are shopped by corporations, much like individual slaves were shopped for in the early United States. The message in return being sent to Americans isn't,"Thanks for helping us get to where we are.", but instead was, "Other countries are out-competing us, you better start working more hours." Of course, what they don't state explicitly, is that you are simply competing with another branch of your employer in a different country.

    1. Re:I told you so... by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've got to raise a point here that really bugs me when I hear people talk about "Evil Corporations" versus "The People" (or similarly how most of the world likes "the American people" but hates our "Government". I'm not questioning that governments or corporations can do shitty things, what I'm saying is that "corporations" and "governments" don't do shit, PEOPLE do shit, and I don't believe that some people are better or worse than other people. Everybody is a nice guy and an asshole. I am the American government. I am the Democratic party and the Republican party. I am the CEO of AOL. I am the Nation of Islam. I am an Indian worker at a cheap plant in Bangladesh. What I mean is, what motivates me isn't much different from what motivates anybody, and all that seperates anybody from anybody is what opportunities you've been exposed to, good and bad. A homeless guy could be the President were he exposed to the same opportunities, and your grandmother could knife a gangmember, if she had to.

      In other words, find a better reason to bitch, that shit is tired and played. Everybody.

    2. Re:I told you so... by CommieLib · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Horsehockey.

      First of all, if anyone actually said business is about saving the world, then you were stupid for believing them. Of course its about making corporations rich! And let's not obfuscate things, it's about making individuals rich, stockholders specifically. Which is awesome! That means that they were able to present someone with a better alternative use for their dollars than anyone else at a moment in time.

      Anyway, the whole free trade thing...I live in Texas. I'm tremendously concerned about: <MASSIVE SMARM>
      • the orange grove picker jobs that have been exported to Florida
      • the snowmobile rental jobs farmed out to Colorado
      • the Chicago tourism jobs exported to Chicago...


      Come to think of it, I'm a programmer living in Dallas. I'm very concerned about all of the IT jobs that have gone to Austin and Houston. Perhaps I'll petition my local government to restrict companies from farming out jobs to them.</MASSIVE SMARM>

      Here's the point: I pursue those restrictive policies, and so Austin does too. Or Florida, or whatever. Of course, Florida wouldn't care about the orange grove jobs they'd lose to Texas, so they'd do something like Texas-produced steel, or something we specialize at, just like Chicago specializes (duh) in Chicago tourism.

      To an economist, this is a real head shaker. This whole sequence I'm talking about is called reciprocity. It's a solved problem in game theory. The only people who argue about it are people who haven't read and understand the solution, i.e., 90% of the whole world, unfortuately.

      Now that I've kind of dropped a nuke on this whole argument, I'm going to pull back a bit. There is such a thing as hidden costs in free trade. I obviously understand fundamentally that free trade is a Pareto optimal solution for nations, and yet, I don't think we should trade with China under certain circumstances. Why? Because the cost of goods carries a moral cost borne in production not represented by the price. If I buy a shirt from China, I'm not entirely sure it wasn't produced by PoliticalPrisonCo (motto: where products are made by people who think like Americans!) I'm open to the idea that that factor might exist elsewhere. I don't, however, see that factor in dealing with India.
      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    3. Re:I told you so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there are actions taken on behalf of a corporation, that would never happen on behalf of an individual.

      the driving force starts to become warped, as the ends justify the means.

      so i understand your point, you have a slightly different angle....but in the end, describing the megacorporation as some kind of beast/entity is far more accurate.

      you are wrong.

    4. Re:I told you so... by cybercuzco · · Score: 1

      Where theres a skill, theres a way. Now there are indians who are farmilliar with technology, who know how to use a computer at the very least. They can now put this to work for native companies that will inevitably spring up. The United states as little as 100 years ago was just as much a third world country as any out there today. American workers got paid pennies per hour (even adjusting for inflation) There were no unions, there was no health care, there was no 40 hour work week, there were no child labor laws. The united states was essentially a third world country. And like many third world countries we got exploited by nations like france, and germany, and england. But in that exploitation we got currency and skills from europe, americans also woke up and realized that we were being exploited and demanded all the things we have today. We couldnt have woken up without the jobs to feed out children, so that we could afford to demand more rights and benefits and pay. Yes, the europeans turned elsewhere for labor, africa, china, south america, but we had already learned the skills to manufacture our own goods and provide our own services. Using homebrewed goods we weaned ourselves off of european goods and services. Just like india and china are doing today. Look at the growth rate of india, its been above 4% for 9 of the last 10 years back to 1979. Its Real GDP has essentially doubled since 1979. I hardly think that this is a "victim" of globalization.

      --

    5. Re:I told you so... by composer777 · · Score: 1

      So, you are making the distinction that people running corporations are the ones that are making these decisions. That's true, but how does this distinction increase our understanding? Are you pointing out anything that wasn't know already? What I see this arguement as is a way of obfuscating the arguement by introducing terminology that doesn't matter.

      If you want to point out that people are doing this, then how about explaining WHY they are doing this. Then that extra terminilogy might have some use. The reason people behave this way when they run corporations is because corporate institutions select for those are willing to make "hard" (read, greedy, unethical, immoral, etc.) choices. The end result is that corporations are institutions that by their very nature encourage these kinds of decisions. Therefore, the properties of greediness, bad ethics, etc., belong more to corporations than they do to the people in them. So, other than explaining why people make these decisions when in corporations, we can for the most part ignore the people, and attack the corporations as illegitimate institutions. I'm not saying to ignore the people that are doing these things, they should be prosecuted to the fullest, but the root of the problem is corporation power, not people in and of themselves.

      Before starting off on a tirade, check to make sure that your arguement actually is saying something other than a thinly veiled "shut up".

    6. Re:I told you so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Dallas programmer, you can follow the jobs to Austin or Houston.

      I can't relocate to Moscow or India (even though I'd liek to, for a couple of years.)

      Free markets require the free movement of labour.

    7. Re:I told you so... by mattsucks · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am the American government. I am the Democratic party and the Republican party. I am the CEO of AOL. I am the Nation of Islam. I am an Indian worker at a cheap plant in Bangladesh.

      I am Stephens sense of moral outrage.

    8. Re:I told you so... by tshak · · Score: 1

      Although I appreciate your point, it is entirely valid to critique a corporation as a system, or unit of power. A corporation, albeit run by people, has more power and has different legal standing than any individual. So, although people make the actions, these people are part of a system, and the system is up for critique.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    9. Re:I told you so... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I obviously understand fundamentally that free trade is a Pareto optimal solution for nations, and yet, I don't think we should trade with China under certain circumstances

      .... and this is why free trade does not work and is inherantly unstable. It's a classic prisoners dilemma scenario - all it takes is for one state to restrict some trade to get a leg up over the other, before EVERYBODY has to do it in order to stay competitive.

      This can be clearly seen in the French governments illegal blockades on British beef. Years after they were taken to court and found to be blocking imports for no valid reason, they are still doing it, because otherwise their rural farming communities would go bankrupt (and agriculture is a powerful voter influence in France).

      The same is true of steel import tariffs imposed by Bush.

      So, we can see that fundamentally the concept of free trade is broken - like most of classical economics, it doesn not work in the real world, and to pretend it does is to deny reality.

      Most "real" economists have realised that free trade is not something that should be preached, because despite best intentions it has simply become an abused idea. "Free trade" in practice meant the ability for the US to freely export its goods, but not the other way around (and Europe is just as bad in many respects). This has led to crippled economies in the third world.

      So, to say it's a "solved problem in game theory" is correct - it's a solved problem in theory only. In practice, it's not a solved problem and people are looking at alternative economic constructs to help increase wealth and distribute it more fairly (see the work of Lietaer and Gesell for some examples).

    10. Re:I told you so... by ftzdomino · · Score: 1

      If I buy a shirt from China, I'm not entirely sure it wasn't produced by PoliticalPrisonCo (motto: where products are made by people who think like Americans!) You don't think that free trade is the best way to end this? What is worse, an evil communist society or an early stages industrial society utilizing child labor? Economic theories say that free trade leads to equalization of factor prices, which would mean better off chinese citizens. I only know what the western media has reported, but it seems as if the average Chinese citizen is better off now than they were in June of 1989. The biggest problem I've experienced with outsourcing is that it is very hard to communicate with people that are on a different schedule and far away. Usually this leads to software which doesn't do what it needs to, making all of savings of a lower per hour rate pointless.

    11. Re:I told you so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And all those solved problems in game theory have been implemented so successfully so far right?

      Even if that were the case, the solution in game theory operates in a small relatively closed world which doesn't take into account all of the issues with local governments, standards of living, and all the painful transitions that happen during the equalization process.

      Don't get me wrong, I support free trade as a whole, but it's not as simple as you make it sound, and corporations which are global in nature worsen the problem as their size and resources make it such that it's ridiculously easy to pick up and move huge amounts of capital in short amounts of time... thereby enriching and depriving entire regions very quickly. That kind of influx is dangerous, and the transitions are incredibly painful to the people involved.

      Your smarm examples are basically silly, as they're non-exportable jobs (with the exception of Chicago Tourism, parts of which could easily be done by someone in Texas).

    12. Re:I told you so... by composer777 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Horsehockey.

      First of all, if anyone actually said business is about saving the world, then you were stupid for believing them.


      That's EXACTLY what was said when NAFTA was found out in 1994 before the Clinton administration rammed it through Congress. It was marketed as being beneficial for Mexicans and Americans. It was pushed as a way of exporting capitalism and American values to Mexico. So far, Mexico has been devastated, and so have the Americans who have relied on those "bad" jobs.

      Of course its about making corporations rich! And let's not obfuscate things, it's about making individuals rich, stockholders specifically. Which is awesome! That means that they were able to present someone with a better alternative use for their dollars than anyone else at a moment in time.

      Stockholders represent a very small portion of the population, typically upper-class, since most of the lower and middle class can't afford to ride out the low points such as the dot com crash. The rich getting rich while the poor lose their jobs is not "awesome!" as you put it.

      Anyway, the whole free trade thing...I live in Texas. I'm tremendously concerned about:
      the orange grove picker jobs that have been exported to Florida
      the snowmobile rental jobs farmed out to Colorado
      the Chicago tourism jobs exported to Chicago...

      Come to think of it, I'm a programmer living in Dallas. I'm very concerned about all of the IT jobs that have gone to Austin and Houston. Perhaps I'll petition my local government to restrict companies from farming out jobs to them.


      You miss one crucial factor, and that is that all states have the same federal minimum wage. This has huge effect on how things work. Free trade would be great if Mexicans, Indians, et al. had the same minimum wage that we do. That way, they would have enough money to buy from Americans, not just foreign branches of multinationals that can afford to drop the price low enough. In other words, we would all benefit from such a scenario, although the rich would benefit less.

      Here's the point: I pursue those restrictive policies, and so Austin does too. Or Florida, or whatever. Of course, Florida wouldn't care about the orange grove jobs they'd lose to Texas, so they'd do something like Texas-produced steel, or something we specialize at, just like Chicago specializes (duh) in Chicago tourism.

      But, you miss the point. The difference in wages between countries, along with barriers to competition is having a disaterous effect on our economy. The labor market is being flooded, but barriers to competition are keeping the number of businesses relatively constant. The result of this is that labor is getting more and more desperate, while large multinational corporations(not small businesses) are profiting immensely. Things will eventually reach equilibrium, but only when the majority of Americans have a far lower standard of living.

      To an economist, this is a real head shaker. This whole sequence I'm talking about is called reciprocity. It's a solved problem in game theory. The only people who argue about it are people who haven't read and understand the solution, i.e., 90% of the whole world, unfortuately.

      I understand it, but they are conveniently leaving things out. I will comment on some of the headings in the article you sent.

      Trade Creates Wealth, Not Jobs

      I agree with this, which is why I'm against it. It's making a small population of investors rich. Note that the only investors making money off this are those with enough money to dip into profits, which typically are the billionaires that own over 50% of a company. Free trade does not necesarily promote growth, so typical investors aren't getting any of this. The rest of America, with almost 50% owing more than they own(which means that have negative net worth) are going to be left without a safety net, and with a very poor standard of living.

      We Trade for I

    13. Re:I told you so... by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good points. It's easy to point the finger at seemingly faceless corporations. Here's a question to ask ourselves - do we shop only at Younker's or Macy's, or do we feel it's better to save money and shop at Wal-mart? Probably not the best analogy since the exporting of labor brings about a patriotic argument as well.

      But that brings up yet another point - don't point fingers at corporations about how they have no loyalty to the US workforce, and then drive home in your fsckin' Honda or Toyota.

      Sorry, I wish I could have presented a more balanced and non-wandering argument, but, well, ya know...

    14. Re:I told you so... by bedurndurn · · Score: 3, Funny

      I am Stephen's appendix. I become inflammed and kill Stephen. w00t

    15. Re:I told you so... by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 1

      Come on, this benefits everyone. Yes, corporations will take their business to the cheapest source of adequate labor. So that means that the poorest countries will be lifted up until they surpass other countries, and then the other countries will be willing to work for less. Meanwhile, everyone gets better educated, gets cash flowing, and basically prosperity springs forth.

    16. Re:I told you so... by pubjames · · Score: 1

      Wow. You Texans have obviously got the solution to the worlds problems all figured out! We should have a texan as world leader. Oh, wait...

      Seriously, everything you say is fine, but I bet you won't be so enthusiastic about it if America starts losing it's superpower status to, say, China.

    17. Re:I told you so... by pubjames · · Score: 1

      Great post. Sorry I've got no mod points.

    18. Re:I told you so... by errxn · · Score: 1

      As an Austin resident, gee, I sure would like to know where all these IT jobs that you claim have come here are. All I can seem to find is a bunch of bogus postings from companies that want to appear to be doing better than they really are to pacify their shareholders' fears or recruiters who don't really give a rat's ass because they are looking for the bigger better deal. Meanwhile, the few listings that are posted get on the order of 300 applicants...per hour.

      In the meantime, the dumbasses on our oh-so-esteemed city council are busy wasting time voting in a smoking ban for clubs and restaurants, so I'm gonna gonna have twice the fun trying to book a gig in clubs that are shutting down due to the lost revenue.

      Welcome to the Big Lie that is Austin. Oh well, I guess it's a good thing that it's a "dry heat" in Phoenix...

      </bitchAndRant>

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
    19. Re:I told you so... by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 4, Insightful
      See, folks, this isn't about helping out poor countries, this is about making corporations rich.

      One would think that more than two centuries after The Wealth of Nations was published this sort of dark, superstitious nonsense would have been extinguished by the light of reason. Sadly such is not the case.

      The beauty of a market is, provided that fraud is not allowed, the greed of all paradoxically leads to the betterment of all. Yes, the corporation wishes to spend less, and so goes with a cheaper supplier of the same good. Well, guess what--that's better. If B can produce the same as A for less, then it is a waste of one's money to use A; it's also a waste of A's time. Going with the cheaper supplier rewards those who do more with less; it is economical.

      You know this, I'm certain. Who does not shop for the best prices on groceries? Why is it bad for an employer to shop for the best prices on labour? Of course it's not.

      There is the law of comparative advantage to keep in mind as well. If A is better at X and B is better at Y, then it is best for A to devote all his time to X and B to devote all his time to Y; this ends up yielding far more of both X and Y than otherwise. If India is better at call-centre staffing at the US is better at R & D or at finance, then it is best for India to focus on call centres and the US to focus on R & D or finance. This yields more call centres (a good thing) and more research or financing (also a good thing).

      The message in return being sent to Americans isn't,"Thanks for helping us get to where we are.", but instead was, "Other countries are out-competing us, you better start working more hours." Of course, what they don't state explicitly, is that you are simply competing with another branch of your employer in a different country.

      Hey, you have no right to a living. Why should anyone pay you more to work less? It's insane, like buying lettuce for $50/head. That's what competition is about. It's rough, but that's Real Life.

    20. Re:I told you so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your arguments are naive and simplistic. Just to take one example, "...all that seperates [one person] from [another] is what opportunities [they]'ve been exposed to..." Aside from being wrong this doesn't even support your position. If it were true then it would just suggest that what makes people different is the set of opportunities which they have been exposed to. However, you use this to support your conclusion that all people are motivated by essentially the same things.

    21. Re:I told you so... by CommieLib · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Congratulations. You've just defined reciprocity.

      Ahh, Slashdot. The home of the irrelevant truth. I'm not arguing that countries don't engage in trade restrictions, I'm arguing that according to game theory those decisions are contra bono.

      Saying that the concept of free trade is "broken" because it's not always practiced is like saying that the idea of health is "broken" because people smoke. I don't "deny reality" to say that it is bad to smoke just because people do smoke.

      Next item, crippled third world economies. So third world countries are better off without external investment? No need to take that any further.

      By the way, you're right: the Bush steel import tariff's are asinine.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    22. Re:I told you so... by CommieLib · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's an argument I've both made and heard. You can make the same case for Cuba. It's just that so often idiots talk about "exploitation" and "profiting on the backs of x" and it's B.S., but when a Chinese guy who's in prison for having protested the government sews together shoes that are then sold in the U.S., well, you get the picture.

      I think you're correct in the sense that free trade does improve the quality of life of the average non-political prisoner Chinese citizen. It's just that in buying products from China I cannot help but support a true cause of evil and suffering in the world.

      I don't know what the right answer is (a Slashdot first?)

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    23. Re:I told you so... by CommieLib · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they were meant to be sarcastic and silly (this is Slashdot after all). Perhaps I should have said Chicago tour guides, or bus drivers or something.

      But you can't pin the "real word" / "complexity" argument on me. That goes both ways; just as there is complexity my model can't anticipate, there's complexity that the central control model cannot predict. The difference is that in my model, the complexity can be handled locally and on a small scale, i.e., by the individuals engaging in trade. In the central control model ALL of the complexity must be handled by a central authority.

      And that's the basic libertarian problem. Insert previous provisos about externalities, moral costs, etc.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    24. Re:I told you so... by CommieLib · · Score: 1

      Sorry, dude. I've heard horror stories like yours elsewhere. Maybe I should have picked another city.

      If it makes you feel any better, the dumbass Dallas city council also implemented a smoking ban just recently ;).

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    25. Re:I told you so... by JCMay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh, I am as much a fan of American cars as anyone, and hated to see the demise of the GM F-body cars (Camaro and Firebird). However

      Honda builds their boxy Element SUV in Ohio.
      Oddessey Minivans come from Lincoln, AL

      On the other hand, my 1995 Pontiac Firebird is from Quebec and my wife's 2002 Chrysler PT Cruiser is from Mexico.

    26. Re:I told you so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that brings up yet another point - don't point fingers at corporations about how they have no loyalty to the US workforce, and then drive home in your fsckin' Honda or Toyota.


      Both Honda and Toyota build cars in the United States. Both GM and Ford build cars in Mexico and Canada. There is no such thing as an American (as in US of A) only car company.

      By the way, where was that radio, in your "american" car built?

    27. Re:I told you so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see as a true believer you drank the freetrade coolaid.

      Haha.

      Please do get rid of all regulations and spread that freetrade gospel. The sooner you do that the sooner the contradictions in capitalism will destroy it and we can move on to a civilized system.

      You do realize that if everyone on Earth consumed like an American the Earth would be completely decimated right? I know theory doesn't count for little things like, oh i donno, the continued ability of the Earth to sustain life, but that's just a minor oversight...

      Bring on the freetrade baby! If it's good for IBM and Texaco shareholders it MUST be good for me the worker! Yeehaw ride em cowboy!

    28. Re:I told you so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe your not seeing the bigger picture in all of this. Whether or not you like it, the world works off of supply and demand principles.

      Maybe this would be easier if we use a simple example. Let's use YOU in place of the corporation. You opened a lemonade stand outside your parent's house. Naturally, you need lemons and sugar to make the drink, so you head out to the store and buy what you need. You figure out the cost of your product, with a little profit should be about 25 cents a glass.

      But there is a problem. That $*@&@! of a neighbor, who also happens to be selling lemonade outside of her parents house, is undercutting your price and selling it for 10 cents a glass. Not only that, but she has local workers and other people lining up for a nice, cool glass of lemonade. "How can she do this?" you ask yourself, it costs me 20 cents just to make this!

      Being that you need money to buy your next video game, you decide to solve this problem by figuring out where she gets her materials. As it turns out, she is getting her lemons from a neighbor's yard, and she only pays a few pennies a piece for them. Meanwhile, you are paying a substantially higher rate for your lemons at the store.

      If you intend to stay in business, you need to find a comparably priced supplier of lemons. Under your rationale, you would be "evil" for wanting to make a profit and compete in your business. Do you really think that the neighbor suppling lemons for such a small price isn't benefiting? What if that neighbor only needed a few dollars a month to survive and live a prosperous lifestyle.

      We all need to step back and reevaluate this image of "evil corporations". Corporations are like people, because they are run by people. Sure, they make mistakes and they cause grief every once in a while, but in general they benefit society much more than they detract from it.

      Your paint-roller mentality for right and wrong is flawed. I'm sure that the programmers gaining jobs in horribly poor countries are happy doing business with the corporations you speak so harshly of. They would probably be the first to tell you just how wrong you are!

    29. Re:I told you so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, you're a funny guy.

      After your neoclassical tripe is done care to tell me the one about supply side economics again? That one always cracks me up!

    30. Re:I told you so... by acidrain69 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Um, your argument is totally retarded. I can understand that people make similar decisions. I'm fine with that. But people are still ACCOUNTABLE for their actions, and you seem to totally IGNORE that. If I go murder someone, I can't say "oh, anyone would have done it, just let me go, buh bye". It doesn't work that way. When these corp boards decide to fire their american workers and go offshore, those are AMERICAN LIVES they are ruining, and I want them held accountable for it. I recently read a story about Kevin Flanagan's suicide after being forced to train his foreign replacement at Bank of America. I only wish he could have taken out the people responsible for that decision. Well, FIRST I wish they never had MADE that decision, but since they went and did the evil thing, I wish they were dead too.

      Here's a link to the story about Kevin Flanagan
      http://www.cwalocal4250.org/outsourcing/ binarydata /template%3Dcontent.pdf

      --
      -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
    31. Re:I told you so... by errxn · · Score: 1

      An indication of how strange times are: I find myself in total agreement with a poster whose nick is "CommieLib"! To be fair, though, although I believe in free trade in principle, the things that are happening now are taking that just a bit too far. I guess that makes me a "right-leaning moderate", whatever that really means. Guess it goes to show you that no system is perfect....

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
    32. Re:I told you so... by djnichol · · Score: 1

      To an economist, this is a real head shaker. This whole sequence I'm talking about is called reciprocity. It's a solved problem in game theory. The only people who argue about it are people who haven't read and understand the solution, i.e., 90% of the whole world, unfortuately.

      Glassman's job should be exported to somewhere in the world where we can find someone who can make the same old arguments for free trade much more cheaply.

    33. Re:I told you so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comments are extremely naive and typify the shallow, ungrounded thought that is not so much driving the process of globalization( that's sheer exploitation and the desire to concentrate as much wealth into as few hands as possible) but rather the the type of thought that is used as a smokescreen by those who are engaging in this global race to the bottom. What you say is patently false. Perhaps you hope people reading your post will be so intimidated (your 90% comment) that they will believe in their hearts that you must be right, by dint of being intellectually more informed. Well, it didn't work.

      First the link you provide in your post is not about game theory. It's a piece written by the AEI, a right-wing think tank populated by industry shills. The piece itself is a joke- here are some gems which at the time were projecting a future which recent events have shown to be laughably false Here's a gem and there are 20 more just like it: "...they send us cars, we send them little pieces of paper, which are, in effect, non-interest-bearing IOUs that the people who send us imports have to spend in this country...This is quite a deal. We benefit from the lower prices that imports give us, and we can use the money we save to buy things made at home--or invest it."

      First, people are quite happy to trade dollars in their own country- it never gets back the US in any shape form, so where the "have to spend" comment comes from is a place completely academic and not at all reflective of how economies play out in the real world. Of course, dollars can come home if the bottom drops out of the market for the dollar- then you can have all you want because no one wants them, acondition known as deflation, what we have now, leading perhaps to Depression.

      Secondly, with what MONEY will we buy these cheap products? Taken to it's logical conclusion we have dirt cheap products and 50% under- /un-employment. Looking a little too familiar? Of course there is a group of people for whom that logic DOES describe reality- the rich. Under those circumstances, the rich's money can buy more, so the rich get effectively richer and the poor get poorer.

      Secondly, your post seems to inply you think what no economist thinks- that game theory describes economies. It doesn't. It describes game theory. Economies are mixtures of a thousand other factors- political, geo-political, emotional, perceptual all of which are non-trivial. If they weren't, departments of economics would have been replaced with departments of mathematics,instead of the former incorporating aspects of the latter. Your post really makes it seem like you believe that this issue, free trade, is a "problem" whose "solution" is nowknown. That's a joke. Apparently 99.9999999999999% of academia knows this and only you don't.

      In fact, there is nothing to stop multi-natinal corporations from outsourcing America's and the entire first world's, economies into collapse. It may be good for multinationals, i.e. create value for their shareholders, temporarily. Of course, the counfounding factor of socities collapsing into chaos probably will result in those companies being hurt also, but companies are constitutionally incapable of thinking in those terms. Thus they will pollute the earth into a wasteland if given the chance, and have no safety or health standards if given a preference. Furthermore, you have to be a pretty HUGE shareholder to have the effects of a few upticks in the market due to globalization offset the loss of YOUR jJOB due to globalization. Once again, that does describe reality for a vanishingly small set of people in the world- the corporate billionaires.

      Given corporate governance structures, it only has to be good for a few people at the top for a few years, since they're the ones who are making the decsions to outsource and globalize. If it can be shown to be profitable for a brief instant in time, then those corporations (those few people REALLY) will decide to do it, and if(when really) the company

    34. Re:I told you so... by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      People refer to Corporations vs the People because what goes on in Corporations is decided by a small handful of shareholders, or by the company's owners.

      The few are deciding the fate of the many.

      In that sense, you aren't the American Government, the CEO of AOL, or any of those increasingly unaccountable centers of power.

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    35. Re:I told you so... by acidrain69 · · Score: 1

      In what way does this benefit the US? Your neighbors are now out of work because they have been undercut by a third world country. The only thing this does to Americans is make corporate fatheads rich, and ruin the lives of everyone below. I don't give a shit about third world countries if we have to ruin our own to help them.

      --
      -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
    36. Re:I told you so... by bobcrotch · · Score: 0

      People somehow fail to realize that the politions and the CEOs and everyone don't really make this country run. the public holds such athoritys higher than them selves, why? because they are the owners and the ones with the money. but what does that matter? if everyone who wasn't 'important' decided not to goto work today, or to quit paying taxes the country would be in shambles. great post man

    37. Re:I told you so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the average chinese citizen is not better off. They no longer have guaranteed housing, healthcare or work. So, no, the average chinese person is actually not better off. This is the big lie of the free market. Sure there is more profit. But that profit is all redistributed to the top capitalists not the workers who produced it all. So maybe the economy is booming in china but this doesn't mean the workers are better off.

      You do realize the life expectancy for males in russia has dropped TEN YEARS since restoration of a free market system? That's better? Ya, sure, if you own all the natural resources that used to belong to the people, but if you are just a worker it sucks!

    38. Re:I told you so... by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In what way does this benefit the US?

      Do you like the fact that your car gets 26 miles per gallon? Thank the Japanese for figuring out how to make fuel-efficient cars and hurting the American auto companies until they too learned how to adapt.

      Like your Sony audio equipment? Like the fact that it's not twice as expensive? Again, thank Japan for finding out how to make stuff cheap.

      How about your computer? Isn't it great that RAM costs less than $1 per 100 megs? Remember when 16 megs of RAM cost about $300? Like, ten years ago? I sure am glad that Taiwanese memory companies kicked our ass so i could buy a great computer for under $1500.

      And your ISP -- they're dirt cheap. If they had to use American workers for tech support, you'd better believe you wouldn't find access for $9.95 / month.

      I try to avoid the "Everyone knows..." play in an argument unless it's really the case, and this is one such time: Any economist will tell you that free trade between nations is better, economically, for everyone involved. Adam Smith wrote long ago in Wealth of Nations that the only reasons to restrict trade were diplomatic and military; economically, it is always bad to "Buy American."

    39. Re:I told you so... by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      Just remember the thinkgeek poster:

      None of us is as dumb as all of us.

    40. Re:I told you so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't believe that some people are better or worse than other people
      You don't believe that Ghandi was any better than Uday Hussein?
    41. Re:I told you so... by acidrain69 · · Score: 1
      Do you like the fact that your car gets 26 miles per gallon? Thank the Japanese for figuring out how to make fuel-efficient cars and hurting the American auto companies until they too learned how to adapt.
      American cars can accomplish that. American carmakers are too busy hyping the SUV because they make more money off it. Go to Europe or Asia, you won't see roads or cars as big as they are here. There are american cars that get good gas mileage.
      Like your Sony audio equipment? Like the fact that it's not twice as expensive? Again, thank Japan for finding out how to make stuff cheap.
      I don't buy audio equipment.
      And your ISP -- they're dirt cheap. If they had to use American workers for tech support, you'd better believe you wouldn't find access for $9.95 / month.
      Ooops! You fucked up. I happen to work for one of the largest DSL providers in America, and I just HAPPEN to be tech support. Try again.
      I try to avoid the "Everyone knows..." play in an argument unless it's really the case, and this is one such time: Any economist will tell you that free trade between nations is better, economically, for everyone involved. Adam Smith wrote long ago in Wealth of Nations that the only reasons to restrict trade were diplomatic and military; economically, it is always bad to "Buy American."
      We have moved most of our manufacturing industry offshore. Now we are moving our tech offshore. Where do the workers go? Tell me how we benefit from massive unemployment? Don't give me the "any economist" bullshit. Tell me how they would answer that. Tell me who benefits, and who doesn't. Think for yourself, don't trust some idiot who is getting paid by said evil corp's to say things.
      --
      -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
    42. Re:I told you so... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Please remember that the stockholders do not generally have either control or knowledge of the details of corporate decisions.

      There are two groups that primarily benefit from corporate actions:
      1) The boards of directors
      2) The corporate executives

      All actions taken can be expected to benefit one of those two groups. Power can be as significant a benefit as money, of course, as neither of these groups are impoverished.

      The stockholders are benefitted to the extent necessary to cause them to invest in the corporation. If you can find examples of them being benefitted more, then I would suspect hidden transactions. OTOH, right before a election of board members, they might, indeed, be promissed, of even receive, genuine excess benefits, but in that case they probably pay for it during the tenure of the director.

      Cynical? You say I'm cynical? How dare you! I may be cynical, but just try to prove me wrong.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    43. Re:I told you so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps, we should not buy from companies that send work offshore... If they will not "buy" our services, then we ought not "buy" their products.

    44. Re:I told you so... by QuackQuack · · Score: 1
      This yields more call centres (a good thing)

      Explain to me again why more call centers are a good thing?

      The ones you call (tech support, customer service) are mostly useless, and the ones that call you (telemarketers) are even worse.

      --
      By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
    45. Re:I told you so... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      Ahh, Slashdot. The home of the irrelevant truth. I'm not arguing that countries don't engage in trade restrictions, I'm arguing that according to game theory those decisions are contra bono.

      I think you're assuming that Slashdot (and I) are fluent in game theory. I know a little, but I don't know what "contra bono" is. You'd have to define them to convince people that using it is a valid argument.

      Saying that the concept of free trade is "broken" because it's not always practiced is like saying that the idea of health is "broken" because people smoke.

      Free trade implicitly relies upon the co-operation of others. By choosing to smoke, I do not force other people into smoking. However, by abandoning the rules of free trade when others are following them, I gain a temporary advantage which forces the hands of others.

      Next item, crippled third world economies. So third world countries are better off without external investment? No need to take that any further.

      I think you missed my point entirely. Let's take the example of steel tariffs.

      When Bush imposed them, it was to protect the American rust belt from an influx of cheap asian steel. The American steel industry (at least in that part) is not efficient, in fact it's behind the rest of the world in terms of steel quality, tools used, and how state-of-the-art the factories are. Their competitors in Europe and Asia are not.

      The barriers to entry in the US meant the steel destined for that market was rerouted to Europe. Europe does have a competitive steel industry normally, however the oversupply caused by the rerouting of steel destined for America would have caused prices to drop to the point where European manfucturers would be overpriced. In order to stop an otherwise healthy and competitive industry from being decimated, Europe also imposed restrictions.

      The end result was that huge quantities of cheap steel flooded 3rd world markets, ensuring that countries without a steel industry didn't develop one and those that did had to watch as it was destroyed. Why did said 3rd world countries not impose tariffs themselves? Because the IMF, to which they are indebted, does not allow it.

      The upshot of all this is that the West ensures that developing countries cannot place trade barriers to protect their own industry, while we do. Because we give ourselves a leg up in this way, "free" trade effectively cripples 3rd world economies.

      I'm not sure why you reduced it to "external investment".

    46. Re:I told you so... by Zimm · · Score: 1
      To an economist, this is a real head shaker. This whole sequence I'm talking about is called reciprocity. It's a solved problem in game theory. The only people who argue about it are people who haven't read and understand the solution, i.e., 90% of the whole world, unfortuately.



      Having wasted ;-) my educational time on economics, i'll tell you your wasting your time here. Not only has 90% of the world not read and understood the solution, but the slashdot crowd is is way smarter then the idiots that studied free trade. Repeat after me we are programmers we know everything, all the answers are in science fiction... we are programmers...

    47. Re:I told you so... by calethix · · Score: 1

      Other than the fact that automobiles are a poor example as a couple of other people have already pointed out, that is a perfectly valid point.

      When I buy a car, I don't concern myself with where it or its components were made. My decision would mostly be based on price, how it looks, features and how safe it is. I probably missed a few but where it was built is towards the bottom of the list.
      When I buy my groceries at Wal-Mart, I don't pick up a head of lettuce and say 'hrm, this one is $.15 more but it was grown in the U.S. vs. the cheap one which was grown in Mexico. Again, I base my purchase on how fresh it looks and the cost.
      One more example, when I buy my hardware from newegg.com I don't think wow, I'm getting a better deal but if I drive down the road and buy parts from this place in town then I'm helping out the local economy.
      Basically, I guess my point is that in general when people buy something, they'll try to get the best deal they can because we all have a limited amount of money. We don't worry about how negatively that may affect someone else if it's a benefit to us personally.
      Businesses do the same thing but on a larger scale and when they do it, it very clearly affects many people's jobs.

    48. Re:I told you so... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      But game theory is complex. In this area, you have a game where any side can gain a temporary advantage by cheating. And there's no impartial authority to enforce fairness. So everybody cheats.

      The predictable result is that the weaker players are unfairly squashed, and are more stringently regulated in how they can play than the stronger players. This translates into more people starving to death, widespread poverty, etc.

      If you accept that these effects are a reasonable cost of your preferred solution, then it's reasonable to argue for it. But if you pretend that they aren't direct costs, then you open yourself to various undesireable motives being attributed to you.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    49. Re:I told you so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sorry, dude. The "nuke" you dropped is something of a wet fart.

      But do try again, asslick.

    50. Re:I told you so... by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 1

      I benefit, as does everyone else, because stuff costs a lot less than it used to (adjusting for inflation). I might make less because i have to compete with a foreign worker, but i can get a lot more for that lesser salary than i'd be able to get otherwise.

    51. Re:I told you so... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2, Insightful
      One would think that more than two centuries after The Wealth of Nations was published this sort of dark, superstitious nonsense would have been extinguished by the light of reason. Sadly such is not the case.

      Capitalism is not constant. The capitalist economy we have today bears little resemblance to the economic context in which Smith wrote The Wealth of Nation.

      The beauty of a market is, provided that fraud is not allowed, the greed of all paradoxically leads to the betterment of all.

      Most of the rest of your post is attempting to support this argument. This is a valid, but oversimplified view. Classical or pure economics has long been known to be inadequate to fully understand economies, especially today. For instance, in Adam Smiths age there was no concept of real time currency speculation, a factor that plays a major role in todays financial markets.

      No country today uses pure capitalism, in much the same way that nobody uses pure socialism - instead a blend of systems is preferred. In particular a purely market based system, which you would appear to be advocating, is by its very nature undemocratic. The rules are easily bent, and even broken. We all know one good example of that.

      Hey, you have no right to a living

      That is not correct, at least not for a large section of the worlds population. Under European human rights laws, I have a "right" to a minimum standard of living, which is normally guaranteed by state welfare. Most people would agree that this is the civilised thing to do, unless you would like to see people literally dying of unemployment on the streets.

      Why should anyone pay you more to work less?

      Being paid more to work less, is essentially what economic progress is about. I no longer have to grow my own food and till my own fields, arguably I have it rather easy, yet I can afford a nice flat and technology beyond the wildest dreams of somebody only 50 years ago.

      That's what competition is about. It's rough, but that's Real Life.

      Life is what we make it. Money is merely a social construct we invented - contrary to popular belief, it does not control us, we control it.

    52. Re:I told you so... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      People do things. But people operate within structures that limit some forms of activity and encourage others.

      E.g., the president of a corporation has wide immunity to actions that he orders. Even if they result in people being killed. And even if he knew that this would happen. So do those who carry out his orders. And major corporations are even quite difficult to sue for damages. Now murder one should not be a civil matter, but when Dow Chemical poisons an entire city because it is predicted to be cheaper to pay the fines than to clean it up, it is treated as a civil matter. And the fines that they paid *were* less than the cost would have been to clean it up. And nobody even went to jail, much less got charged with murder. So the corporate action did not result in the same penalties that an individual would experience. Neither in kind nor in magnitude.

      When individuals and organizations exist in this kind of a doubled environment, then one not only can, but should, expect them to behave differently. And to evolve to encourage different behaviors. (Very few individuals, e.g., bribe senators.)

      The actions are taken by individuals, but when the individuals can claim that they were acting as agents of an organization, then they are treated much differently.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    53. Re:I told you so... by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 2, Funny
      A homeless guy could be the President were he exposed to the same opportunities


      Hell, an idiotic cocaine addict could become President of the United States given the right circumstances. You'd just need the right team of advisors and enough backing from some powerful political party to brainwash the masses into believing you're more than a cocaine addicted moron. It's possible, but highly unlikely that this would occur given our enlightened society.

    54. Re:I told you so... by zoomcloud · · Score: 1

      "Free Trade" means the liberty to compete. The fact is that India successfully competed for millions of dollars in software development, starting with "year 2000" work. They took on more sophisticated projects, including not just coding but project design. If India loses the cost advantage of coding, they must find a new way to compete. Publishing packaged software, for example, might be a good direction for thousands of trained programmers and project managers. I worked with a programming house in Russia. We were out-competed by Indian companies for web desgin. Our company converted to game development, and those programmers are still gainfully employed to this day. Believe me, I've been on both sides of the equation. The important thing is to understand your market, and if your skills become unmarketable, you must make a change. No, it's not easy, but that's life. I'm not crying for India's IT community - they will find a way to compete and survive.

    55. Re:I told you so... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I miss the old muscle cars...455 engines....tons of HP...tons of fun. Damned insurance, gov. regulations.....

      Those were the days when a Camaro or a Firebird actually meant you had a pretty mean car...right off the showroom floor....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    56. Re:I told you so... by vidnet · · Score: 1
      Who does not shop for the best prices on groceries?

      Organic eggs from free range chickens cost more. I still buy them.

    57. Re:I told you so... by Darby · · Score: 1

      But that brings up yet another point - don't point fingers at corporations about how they have no loyalty to the US workforce, and then drive home in your fsckin' Honda or Toyota.

      Yeah, but keep in mind planned obsolescence. The reason American cars sucked so bad a while back was because the companies building them decided it would be more profitable to make the cars fail very quickly so that people would have to buy cars more often. They then tried to use the false patriotism bullshit argument to convince Americans to buy American cars when their last American car was a piece of shit.

      Seriously, if a company makes a calculated decision to fuck Americans then it isn't patriotic, good, nice, or anything but idiotic to do business with them again.
      Now they have cleaned up their acts somewhat, but how many of the corporate officers are the same?
      They certainly deserve no rewards for their criminal actions.

    58. Re:I told you so... by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      Who does not shop for the best prices on groceries?
      Organic eggs from free range chickens cost more. I still buy them.

      Yet if one store sells the same eggs for $5/dozen that another sells for $10/dozen, which are you going to buy? Certainly, one pays more for more. Why would you pay more for less? That's what one does when one hires Westerners: we work less, we're less dedicated and we demand more benefits. Out employers pay more for less; naturally they want a better deal. The great thing is that this a) improves the lot of the cheaper foreigners and b) forces us to be competitive.

      I'm not putting down Westerners--I certainly enjoy my 40-60 hours/week, retire-at-60 lifestyle. I just don't pretend that I'm entitled to it.

    59. Re:I told you so... by junkgoof · · Score: 1
      I think what people are trying to say is that bad people run the American gov't and promote this crap. Google "Guam sweatshops" to get an idea of what the US government does in places they control, but that don't vote. Take a look at what Bush talks about and what Rove, Cheney, Wolfowitz et al actually do. Watch Martha Stewart get reamed because she did not pay people off, and watch Kenny-boy walk with his cash because he did (the CEO/MBA administration can't investigate the scandal without bringing about impeachments that will remind us of the Reagan era).

      American government sucks. It's bought and paid for by horrible people, and most people can't even be bothered to vote. Who cares what the American people are like when US representatives are vicious, corrupt, influence-peddlers?

      Enron had the state department forcing foreign gov'ts (including India) to give them money in spite of lies and bad practices. This white house will take bribes over jobs any day.

      --
      You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
    60. Re:I told you so... by sugarmotor · · Score: 1

      Small question: Since you don't like to buy shirts from the China PoliticalPrisonCo, how do you feel like buying from the US PrisonCo (filled with the victims of the "Blacks should be in Prison" Policy)

      --
      http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
    61. Re:I told you so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hey, you have no right to a living.

      That's true. Of course, if too many people have no more living anymore, they tend to rise up and kill the rich people. This may or may not be an economically intelligent response, but historically it's a very common one.

      One of the overlooked benefits of employing people who live around you, is that if they're working they generally don't mob together to kill you. The C-level execs of American have forgotten that. I sadly suspect they'll begin remembering all too soon.

    62. Re:I told you so... by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with corporations is that we tolerate, neigh EXPECT immoral and unethical actions out of them. The corporate structure exits specifically to sheild it's members (and investors) from any direct responsibility.

      Thus, you have an entity that is expected to act in a commpletely amoral manner AND shields it's members from the adverse consequences of this amorality.

      It should be no surprise to anyone that a corporation will tend towards evil.

      It's expected too and it's individual contributors are shielded from consequences.

      The proper model for corporate behaivor is prison inmates.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    63. Re:I told you so... by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      The capitalist economy we have today bears little resemblance to the economic context in which Smith wrote The Wealth of Nation.

      That doesn't matter--what Smith was describing were the fundamental rules of the universe. Newton's mathematics still hold, despite the fact that we have satellites, automobiles and television. Like Newton, Smith's system is incomplete and a mere approximation, but it is essentially correct.

      In particular a purely market based system, which you would appear to be advocating, is by its very nature undemocratic.

      First, I don't give a fig for democracy--I care about liberty. They are related but independent. Second, a market is extremely democratic: everyone gets 24 hours a day in which to work, spend and sleep. It's when the market is interfered with that it becomes undemocratic: when false incentives and disincentives are created; when false demand is instilled; when false supplies are produced. This is among the great problems of socialism: it causes to be done what no-one wants done (if they wanted it, they'd pay for it in the first place).

      Hey, you have no right to a living.

      That is not correct, at least not for a large section of the worlds population. Under European human rights laws, I have a "right" to a minimum standard of living, which is normally guaranteed by state welfare. Most people would agree that this is the civilised thing to do, unless you would like to see people literally dying of unemployment on the streets.

      That's not a right--that's a state guarantee. Rights are inherent in being a man: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One has a right to believe in one's God; one has the right to speak one's mind; one has a right to property; one has a right to bear arms; one has a right to be free. One does not have a right to steal (which is what welfare is: thieving from the rich and giving to the poor). The difference is that rights cost others nothing: I may not like your religion, your thoughts or the cut of your suit, but it hurts me not a whit. Entitlements do cost others: if you are guaranteed a minimum living, then someone's got to pay for it.

      Now, this does not mean that I'm some sort of crazy Randian loony. Charity is a vitally important thing, and it is quite immoral not to help out those who are worse off. It is good for me to give $20 to a beggar; it is bad for me to clap a gun to your head and make you give him $20. The former is voluntary; the latter is compulsory. The former is charity; the latter is socialism.

      Being paid more to work less, is essentially what economic progress is about. I no longer have to grow my own food and till my own fields, arguably I have it rather easy, yet I can afford a nice flat and technology beyond the wildest dreams of somebody only 50 years ago.

      That's not it at all. Economic progress is driven by this simple engine: in every free exchange, each party is better off than before. If I purchase a pack of gum for a quarter, I have gotten something more than a quarter's worth of gum, satisfaction & chewing enjoyment--otherwise I wouldn't have bought that gum (if I got but 24 cents' worth, I'd be stupid to pay 25). So if I got more than a quarter's worth, then the seller must have been cheated, right? No--he's better off too. That gum was worth less to him than it was to me; he would rather have the quarter than the gum, and I would rather have the gum than the quarter. Both our lives are now better.

      Now, multiply this effect over the billions of transactions going on every day between billions of people. Everyone is constantly becoming better and better off. Slowly but surely each of our lives is improved. Due to steadily increasing economies, we are each able to command resources the greatest emperors of the past could not even imagine doing. Food from around the globe; raw materials to make computers, clot

    64. Re:I told you so... by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      This yields more call centres (a good thing)...
      Explain to me again why more call centers are a good thing?

      If people were not willing to pay for them, they would not exist. If people are willing to pay for them, they must provide some value. Note that this value could be purely psychological, like insurance (which is stupid mathematically).

    65. Re:I told you so... by vidnet · · Score: 1
      $5 organic free range eggs are still organic free range eggs, or westerners. The $10 eggs would translate to western programmers who demand fresh squeezed mango juice from specially trained monkeys as a benefit.

      we work less, we're less dedicated and we demand more benefits

      And we're arguably better educated.

      The way I see it, it's like the dotcom webdesigners. When there's an easy way to make money, you get (or buy) a degree for the money's sake, and come out with the ability to create a web page. Of course, you make forms that won't submit without vbscript, your tags aren't closed, and your images don't have alt text, but the web page displays perfectly in IE!

      Sure, some of them really learn their stuff and become genuinly good, but far too many would be in it just because they heard people say it was an easy way to make a few bucks.

      I can't imagine this being less of a problem in a poorer country.

    66. Re:I told you so... by Beliskner · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So, to say it's a "solved problem in game theory" is correct - it's a solved problem in theory only. In practice, it's not a solved problem and people are looking at alternative economic constructs to help increase wealth and distribute it more fairly (see the work of Lietaer and Gesell for some examples).
      Yes. The trickle-down effect doesn't work, the rich must be taxed. Only celebrities spend their millions on job-creating trickledown hobbies. Most rich businessmen who are assumed to partake in trickledown have been burned and actually invest the bulk of their money in real estate and expensive hobbies such as golf (they rich trickle-down their money to the rich NOT the poor).

      Redistribution on savings via Bank gearing ratio only fund profit-making businesses and repayable loans. The only thing a poor man gets from Bank gearing ratio redistribution is a damn 50-year mortgage. You can buy yourself into slavery YEEEEEHA!

      But what happens when all the products are built and sold? If everybody has an overengineered car and an overengineered house that will last 1000 years, then what profit-making businesses will appear for the Banks to give repayable loans to, where will the jobs come from if everybody has overengineered stuff?

      The people demand jobs. This is why the entire Federal government will never be computerised and will never fire 99% of their staff that sit on their asses and do nothing.

      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
    67. Re:I told you so... by Dr.+Photo · · Score: 1

      But that brings up yet another point - don't point fingers at corporations about how they have no loyalty to the US workforce, and then drive home in your fsckin' Honda or Toyota.

      Really? My Honda was built in East Liberty, Ohio. American workers aren't losing out-- just American executives.

      Won't somebody please think of the poor executives?

    68. Re:I told you so... by XorNand · · Score: 1
      The actual assembly of a vehicle employs the least amount of people in the process.

      I live in Toledo, Ohio. We have a Jeep plant here that employs a sizable portion of the population. However, *many* more people are indirectly employed by the Automotive Big Three here. These people work for suppliers for the automotive industry.

      If you're not from the midwest, you may not ever realize that multi-million dollar factories exist soley to make retainer clips used in GM engines or front bumpers for Ford trucks. We also have even more companies that supply parts and services to these companies. These suppliers-to-the-suppliers include computer people, accountants, cleaners, caterers, etc.

      If it wasn't for the American automotive industry, Toledo (and many other blue collar cities) would be a one stoplight town. I'm sorry but Honda, Toyota and the rest of Japanese companies do not have the same amount of investment in my community or my country. I buy American cars because they help keep my family and neighbors employed--and myself employed by extension. And to be perfectly honest, I have zero complaints about my Chevy Silverado.

      --
      Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
    69. Re:I told you so... by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      Does the education necessarily matter? If it isn't useful to the job at hand, then having to pay for the better-educated employee is foolish. One doesn't hire doctors of English to dig ditches. Most call-centre stuff is simple read-from-a-card triage; if it's really a problem, then the caller is transferred to an actual support tech. Who is rather more likely to actually need to education.

      There are a lot of unskilled jobs out there. That poorer countries do not have the high school and college fetish that we do means that their populations are better suited to fill those jobs. Amusingly, this means that they wille eventually acquire the same fetish:-)

    70. Re:I told you so... by dvk · · Score: 1

      > And we're arguably better educated.

      I won't comment on the rest of the argument (my ideas about outsourcing are too complicated for my poor language abilities - i'd need an hour to write up a decent response :(

      However, the statement above is pure BS and is thus inadmisisble as a valid argument.

      When it comes to science education (especially math/CS), USA is at best no better than other countries (for example, Russia, India or China). Perhaps, even worse.

      Mostly, it's the fault of US public school being uder firm control of teachers unions on one hand and feel-good "we need to build self esteem of students" "'disadvantaged' students should be given better grades" liberal politicos on the other hand.

      Oh, and my opinion of this comes from
      1) interational rankings of test results
      2) results of international math contests
      3) knowing both US and fUSSR public schools systems from experience, their students, and participating in math/CS contests in both countries at youger age (even winning some :)

      What's your basis for your BS argument again?

      -DVK

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    71. Re:I told you so... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      The problem is, the theory is being applied to practice with only dollars mattering. The dollars can't/don't take into account many non-fiduciary matters.

      The problem with classical economics is that knowledge is not perfect. Further, the consumer will not necessarily act in what the politicians, companies, and lobbyists deem is the 'best manner'.

      Free trade, as far as we know, still works. There is yet to be a single instance of free international trade with which to compare with the economic models. If 'real' economists are turning away from classical models, it is not because the models have failed; it is the world that has failed.

      people are looking at alternative economic constructs to help increase wealth and distribute it more fairly

      What basis is the foundation for the assumption that wealth is not being distributed fairly? It would seem this is the larger and more important decision. How can you strive to more fairness in distribution without knowing what fair is?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    72. Re:I told you so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Who does not shop for the best prices on groceries?

      Uh, I don't? I don't have the time, money, or transportation for that matter, to drive half way across town to save 2 cents on a bag of chips, or even 50%.

    73. Re:I told you so... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      So who gained? Not the US. The US experienced higher priced steel as a result of tariffs. No country received any kind of advantage. A small group in one country benefitted.

      However, by abandoning the rules of free trade when others are following them, I gain a temporary advantage which forces the hands of others.

      It should be highlighted in about a billion different ways that this advantage is 'temporary'. The long term effects are damaging, even if the tariffs go away. Why? In the meantime, external suppliers will continue to improve production techniques. When the tariffs are lifted, the price disparity between domestice and foreign steel is even greater. The benefit will arrive then. And all people will gain. Or the tariff will be reinstated, and all people will be harmed. Again.

      I don't know what "contra bono"

      I never had a game theory class, but was exposed to it a bit in micro. I believe 'contra bono' means 'against the good' or something of that nature. Basically, the poster to whom you are replying is saying 'it was a bad thing' without showing how he got to that point. But I'm not 100%, and don't want to put words in his mouth.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    74. Re:I told you so... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      That doesn't matter--what Smith was describing were the fundamental rules of the universe.

      There is (pardon the pun) a world of difference between immutable physical laws and an artificial social construct that can be changed at any time (witness gift economies in native american tribes). The fact that what Smith described tends to happen naturally in our society does not make it a fundemental rule of the universe.

      First, I don't give a fig for democracy--I care about liberty

      The rest of the world pretty clearly disagrees, otherwise we'd be using anarchy.

      Second, a market is extremely democratic: everyone gets 24 hours a day in which to work, spend and sleep. It's when the market is interfered with that it becomes undemocratic: when false incentives and disincentives are created; when false demand is instilled; when false supplies are produced.

      Yes, but the perfect market doesn't exist. You will always get anomolies like Microsoft which bend the rules past breaking point, and of course the whole thing revolves around the idea of the perfectly informed consumer which is equally ficticious.

      That's not a right--that's a state guarantee. Rights are inherent in being a man: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      This is far too vague to be worth arguing over - if these "inherant rights" apply to men, why not apes? How do you define what is a right, and what is merely "nice to have"? The Human Rights act attempted to do this, but the repercussions show how tricky it can be.

      one has a right to bear arms

      Not where I live thank god. You americans can have a pretty warped view of what "rights" are sometime. I can't believe you think people have a right to a random piece of physical machinery but not a living. Which is more important to the majority?

      One does not have a right to steal (which is what welfare is: thieving from the rich and giving to the poor)

      Flawed argument. People pay taxes. Stealing is usually (simplistically) defined as taking something that is not yours. What can be private property is decided upon by society - air is not private property, but land is. It would seem reasonable that a certain amount of money could be defined as group property.

      Now, this does not mean that I'm some sort of crazy Randian loony. Charity is a vitally important thing, and it is quite immoral not to help out those who are worse off. It is good for me to give $20 to a beggar; it is bad for me to clap a gun to your head and make you give him $20. The former is voluntary; the latter is compulsory. The former is charity; the latter is socialism.

      Nobody claps a gun to anybodies head. If you don't wish to pay welfare taxes, go live somewhere where they don't exist. Afghanistan is pretty good these days I here. You can't have it both ways - if not helping those in need is wrong, then we should ensure that people do right. If you believe this isn't the case, it would seem that you don't think we need laws at all.

      That's why things are constantly getting better. It has nothing to do with paying more for less: it has everything to do with paying less for more.

      Reread what I wrote, you are confused. I didn't write "payING more for less", I wrote about getting "paID more for less". Semantically what you wrote and what I wrote are equivalent.

      It's a cool system.

      Only if you are willing to blindly ignore its flaws, most of which are political and social rather than based purely in economic theory. Nonetheless, an economy does not exist in a vacuum, it's naive to think it does.

    75. Re:I told you so... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Stockholders represent a very small portion of the population,

      Wrong. The majority of Americans are stockholders through pensions, IRAs, etc. They don't have control of each and every stock, but they are stockholders of a sort.

      You miss one crucial factor, and that is that all states have the same federal minimum wage.

      That may be true (not sure) but many localities (NYC, DC, etc.) have minimum wages higher than the national minimum.

      Things will eventually reach equilibrium, but only when the majority of Americans have a far lower standard of living.

      Not sure what I think, but it's not unreasonable for someone to argue that what will happen is that the standard of living in other countries will improve, whereas the American standard of living will remain static for some time.

      The rest of America, with almost 50% owing more than they own(which means that have negative net worth) are going to be left without a safety net, and with a very poor standard of living.

      How many people don't have a safety net because they were striving too hard to improve their standard of living? I've tried to raise this point with some other people, and I'll try again: what is an acceptible standard of living? What measurable or demonstrable factors exist in this standard? Most of the middle class people I know or see who are upside down are there because of want, not need. (IOW, WANT a bigger house, want a Mercedes) Darned few people are upside down for the same reason I am (wife lost vision, hearing, and, consequently, job).

      The problem with a trade deficit, is that eventually it devalues our currency. Think about it, if we buy a product in dollars from another country, but don't give them anything in return, then eventually that counry realizes that the dollar is worthless.

      This is a form of correction. If this occurs, it means that the dollar spent a long time being overvalued.

      Here they go, trying to associate corporate globalization as some "right". That's fine, then set a minimum standard of living, so that people can have the right to eat. Export democracy, not corporations.

      Wish I had a link, but I've read in a few places recently that democracy and a capitalist economy go hand in hand. However, I must plead that the idea of 'corporation as a person' has gotten way out of hand. Corporations, as you say, don't have rights. Given that they are owned, I would say it's obvious that constitutional protections (free speech, etc.) do not extend to corporations.

      If you use that arguement, then you can't buy any American products either, since we have a larger jail population than China.

      I believe he was talking specifically about Chinese political prisoners. AFAIK, there are few, if any, US prisoners being held because of speaking favorably about Cuba or the Taliban, etc. (Don't remind me of the folks in Guantanamo. I'm saying that the numbers involved are drastically different, and a few hundred doesn't change that.) But if you want to free people convicted of misdemeanor possession (hell, felony possession if there was no intent to distribute) I've got your back.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    76. Re:I told you so... by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      It's about equalizing wage levels (slowly, but it is happening). For example textiles moved out of India long ago, because Indian workers are now paid more than they were. When it reaches the point that demand for workers in poorer countries starts to outstrip the available labour pool, wages there will start to rise too.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    77. Re:I told you so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi. I'm Tiger Woods. Nice to meet you.

    78. Re:I told you so... by privacyt · · Score: 1
      If I buy a shirt from China, I'm not entirely sure it wasn't produced by PoliticalPrisonCo

      On the other hand, if you buy clothing manufactured in the US, how do you know it wasn't done by prisoners arrested for non-violent crimes? Prison Blues is one such company that uses quasi-slave labor drawn from an Oregon medium-security prison. (Medium-security prisons are for mostly non-violent offenders, for those who don't know.)

      They're quite open about it, too. From their own site, prison laborers get paid "6.68 per hour to well over $8.00," with 80% of the money being kept by the State of Oregon. So essentially they're working almost for free.

      It's the perfect system. Arrest people for non-violent "crimes" such as drug use. Then put them to work in the textile factories so that they pay for their own imprisonment. The State of Oregon makes money. The prison guards make money. Prison Blues, Inc. makes money. (Incidentally, according to the site, "Prison Blues® brand . . . was started with a federal government grant funded by drug money seizures.")

      So next time you accuse the Chinese of using prison labor, keep in mind that our country does it too.

      (By the way, if you're wondering where all those previously highly-paid textile mill jobs went, they didn't all go to Mexico. Many of the jobs went to our prisons.)

    79. Re:I told you so... by acidrain69 · · Score: 1

      Wrong, because now that you are unemployed, you are competing against more people for fewer jobs, so IF you can get a job, then you'll be lucky enough to make less. And if you are the lucky one, then one other person who could have had that job is now the unlucky one. Before it was someone in another country, but now it is a lost american job.

      --
      -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
    80. Re:I told you so... by miletus · · Score: 1
      OK, so if trading with China is morally wrong because they use prison slave labor, do you advocate trade with the U.S. which also uses prison slave labor? Microsoft got called out for using prison labor in Washington state to shrinkwrap products; UNICOR produces most of the U.S. military's furniture and many of its unforms, to give a couple of examples.


      What, you think everyone in a Chinese prison is another Thomas Jefferson? If it's OK to exploit the slave labor (at taxpayer expense, mind you) of two million or so prisoners in the U.S., why exactly is China so much worse?

    81. Re:I told you so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all I agree with you that this 'making evil corporations rich' thing has been taken too far, but I don't know Adam Smith and the 'Wealth of Nations' is the appropriate reply for these posts.

      I am really going to regret that I have to say this, but I will risk being modded down and hated by most of Slashdot, but it is worth that risk.

      America has not become the most powerful (economic, military, political etc.) country in the world by blindly following Adam Smith or 'The Wealth of Nations'.

      The high living standards in the US, even up to the lower levels of society is not the result of animalistic survival of the fittest (that is what inspired Hitler, by the way).

      The US has struck the right balance at a number of times. (Of course, stuff such as sdradnats elbuod, tieced, noitadimitni, edart-'eerf' riafnu and desaib, etc. might also have been employed, but that is not applicable here.)

      Last but not the least, in the real world, everyone's greed need not not eventually become everyones good. Unless of course, you have a magic formula to give everyone a fair chance.

      We in the US (at least certain portions) experimented with it and found it to be not the most fair. If you want to think in terms of survival of the fittest, why did we evolve to be humans. Let us go back to the trees [No I don't believe in evolution, just a snide remark].

      There are some things that makes humans different from animals.

      --SIG--

      You have to blame/attribute things to someone. When the economy was doing well, they said Clinton did it. What did he do? He was in a closet with Monica Lewinski.

      ---Norman Tobias, Historian

    82. Re:I told you so... by LazyBoy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The beauty of a market is, provided that fraud is not allowed, the greed of all paradoxically leads to the betterment of all.
      You have to disallow more than fraud. You have to stop companies from buying laws that prop up their business model or otherwise aid them.

      And while "the greed of all" may lead to the lowest prices in a perfect market, this may not be "the betterment of all".

      Hey, you have no right to a living. Why should anyone pay you more to work less? It's insane, like buying lettuce for $50/head. That's what competition is about. It's rough, but that's Real Life.
      I agree with this in the abstract. But as a U.S. software developer, I'm worried about my Real Life.
      --

      If Chaos Theory has taught us anything, it's that we must kill all the butterflies.

    83. Re:I told you so... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      No, of course it isn't about "helping the people of India". It's obviously about improving profit margins. As upsetting and/or frustrating as it may be to Americans finding themselves unemployed because of it - I think it's still only a temporary "fad".

      At some point, people in these 3rd. world countries will realize that their talents are very valuable to the U.S. (and other countries outsourcing to them). They'll start to become more greedy than they are today, and won't continue working for these miniscule salaries.

      Right now, citizens of countries like Romania generally earn so little, these outsourcing deals seem very attractive to them by comparison. Fine, but not everyone in Romania possesses the skills to do these jobs. (Help desk or software development demand some skills that I'd think relatively few of their citizens would be equipped to do.) Those that have the skills will start learning to leverage those skills to earn more and more. You can only shuffle your labor pool around from country to country for so long before you run out of "takers" willing to work for peanuts.

    84. Re:I told you so... by mvpll · · Score: 1

      Nah,
      a) you just build up your castle,
      b) segregate the population by wealth,
      c) hire more guards
      and
      d) encourage them to squabble amongst themselves.

      Sorry, thought I was still in the dark ages.
      How about,
      a) Move to an "enclosed suburb/enclave", whatever they call these things now. Add some remote controlled gates, some pure-bred guard dogs and a video intercom for good measure.
      b) Given the way property prices work this segregation tends to happen automatically, cool. Want to get rid of your annoying poor neighbours, just buy the property and develop it.
      c) Police are expensive, security guards are cheaper.
      d) Don't make any extra effort to specifically target the criminal problems suffered by those in the "less well off" areas of a suburb/town/state. Blame the poor/under-educated/un-employed for the state of the current economy.

      Remember, not in My backyard, and not in My lifetime. Foster inertia.

    85. Re:I told you so... by abreauj · · Score: 1
      don't point fingers at corporations about how they have no loyalty to the US workforce, and then drive home in your fsckin' Honda or Toyota.

      Corporate behavior is a problem, but we're nevertheless dependent on them. The problem is, we created corporations to serve our needs, but they went feral around the time of the Civil War here in the U.S. Since then, corporations have been gaining in power, at the expense of our human population.

      We can't simply abolish corporations; we depend on them too much for that to work. What we need to do is re-domesticate them, to take back the political power they've usurped.

      One part of that would be to reverse the 1886 Supreme Court decision that granted corporations the status of "artificial persons" with the same constitutional protections as human citizens. It's only one of many steps needed to tame corporations, but it's a critical one. One of the most powerful tools corporations have used throughout the past hundred years to overturn legislation limiting their power is the 15th Amendment, and their use of it depends on their status as legal persons:

      Amendment XV (1870)
      Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
      Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

      There have been an astronomical number of court cases over the years where, for example, a small town wanted to block the opening of a McDonald's or a Walmart, to preserve their community's culture, and time after time the local community lost the fight based on charges that such a ban discriminated against the corporation's constitutional rights as a legal person, which amounted to a violation of the 15th Amendment.

    86. Re:I told you so... by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't "reciprocity" come up when discussing worker relations? How come free trade arguments only seem to apply between corporations and not with the workers in those corporations (such as unions)?

      It isn't about money per se, it's about power. Ten thousand and one examples of businesses that had a better way to utilize a buck that were never heard from again (Tucker being my favorite example). And what, it only set back the automotive industry 30 years and Tucker is immortalized by Lucas (who is living his own reiteration of the movie). Yup, makes sense to me, but I digress.

      Before game set theory, there was the social contract, of which most corporations seem hideously ignorant of. You may be able to get some flunky to flip burgers for $4.50 an hour, but you get a flunky flipping burgers for $4.50 an hour. After my last bout of food poisoning, I decided the "hidden costs" were a bit much. Really, the next time you dine out, ask yourself how much you would like to pay the person handling your food? It puts the whole different perspective on the cheap labor idea.

      And as corporations are slashing jobs left and right, other corporations are doing the exact same thing. Makes you wonder who will actually be working and able to afford their product, but the costs will be lowered by slashing even more jobs...

      And you will make a moral case for not trading with China while overlooking all the fucked-up things corporations do here? Uh-huh, yeah, rock & roll dude. It is more than making money. You have to be responcible (I dare say moral) in doing it. Social contract.

      Bottom line, it is easier to exploit those that are weak. That is why jobs get outsourced. I don't see the CEOs being outsourced.

    87. Re:I told you so... by vidnet · · Score: 1
      I said we're arguably better educated. You argued with it. Thus it's not BS :)

      But do note, I'm not complaining about the education itself. If you love CS and go for it, you can be equally good if you're in the Phillipines, Romania or the USA. If you don't love CS, and you're just in it for money, then you'll suck equally if you study in the Phillipines, Romania or the USA.

      If there are investors with money in desperate need of CS people, wouldn't you have an incentive other than love and dedication to pursue this career? (like in the dotcom era)

      Also, don't get math mixed up in it. Math you can teach with little more than a notebook and a pencil. Contests are no way to compare either, since you pick the best and brightest. There are good and bright people in all fields of study, the question is what percentage sucks.

      PS: Don't imply that I'm from the USA, that hurts!

    88. Re:I told you so... by Tynin · · Score: 1

      Aside from the fact that no one knows who they are talking to when you call up a company anymore. The quality of the product and the support everywhere just gets worse and worse as this goes on more and more since they are firing the people that actually know the product (you cannot teach years worth of experience on something with a few classes). Not only that but this type of practice leads to even worse work practices. You know that India knows what is going on and in order to be competitive they are going to make there workers put in much longer hours and possibly for less pay. This leads to big businesses getting bigger/richer and more people looking for jobs.

      This is all about paying for a product and the big corps way of getting around paying there half of it. They can legally find ways to make a product at a cheaper cost, but then expect us to pay top dollar for it. But when a customer finds means of gaining a product cheaper likely it is going to be thru spending way to much time searching, or via illegal means, both should not be in todays world. If these large businesses only realized the global benifits of paying your employees more, and lowering the price of there products, this would do some great things, even for their business. It would be like some twisted mix of capitalistic communism (yes I realize they are very opposite, but I think it works out for this i think). The employees and the consumers would in the end be making more money, and the stuff they purchase would cost less, but this would allow them to put even more money back into the system. Since people would have more money, they could spend more money. The corps would be making less $$$ per item but the difference would be made up in the quantity. I realize this would not work out immediately in most 3rd world countries since they are likely not going to be buying lots of products from big corperations, but it would bring there countries up to higher levels of living and soon they would be LARGE contributing factors.

      Something needs to happen about how business is being done because in the end it is hurting us all. I know government rarely interfers with business and wins, but they have in the past. I only hope some yet to be named congressmen or senator gets a clue and steps up to the plate and kicks big business around like Teddy Roosevelt did for the US (but hopefully they will be less war-hungery). I am not a big advocate of government but 'no one' else is capable of a job this size. Corps have the power to push anyone around, leech the economy to its very core, annailate the moral of its current employees, and the cash to pass any laws they want ::cough:: DMCA ::cough:: as well as stop any laws from being passed that greatly impacting there abilities to abuse everyone. All the while people are lined up out the door trying to get hired at these Corps since there is no place else that is hiring. It is damn near like modern day slavery.

      God I hate big business, screw the employees and the customers so the company executives can buy a 3rd house during there 8 months of vacation time. ARGH!!!!

    89. Re:I told you so... by stephanruby · · Score: 1
      As someone who supports free trade, helping someone out or helping a country out is not my primary purpose. Helping myself is my primary purpose. It's all about helping myself get cheaper consumer goods and services. And if this behavior happens to help out some third world country, that's even better, but again, that's not my primary purpose.

      Personally, I find your comparaison to slavery offensive. What you are advocating is slavery. Free trade is not slavery. Putting a gun to my head so I can not "shop around" is slavery.

    90. Re:I told you so... by GMontag · · Score: 1

      There is not one thing preventing you from hiring all of the programmers you like for $1,000/hr with no reguard to skill, qualifications or the market's pricing of your products.

      Same thing with mowing your yard, fixing your plumbing/electrical/etc.

      So, please, be my guest and compete using the labor standards that you express on your keyboard.

      If there is anybody on /. that needs a job, or just wants to switch to one where you tell the boss what he will pay you, what work conditions he will creat for you and he will agree without question, contact the parent to this post.

      I am glad to see that the People are finally challenging these evil greedy corporations that have sprung up from the mist like nasty weeds around the world.

      Bravo to you sir! Bravo! I await the results of the success of you and your fellow traveler

    91. Re:I told you so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to disallow more than fraud. You have to stop companies from buying laws that prop up their business model or otherwise aid them.

      No, you don't, actually, since that is a form of fraud.

    92. Re:I told you so... by Commutative+Monoid · · Score: 1

      When it comes to science education (especially math/CS), USA is at best no better than other countries (for example, Russia, India or China). Perhaps, even worse.

      Specify the scope of your claims and provide evidence to support your position. If you think the education of the average Chinese person (which does not mean Hong Kong) is higher than the average American, you're deluded. If you position is that those people that specialize in mathematics and the sciences in the U.S. are less educated in comparison to their foreign counterparts, I would be quite enthused to see your proof.

      --
      You have exactly 314 seconds to come up with a less retarded plot.
    93. Re:I told you so... by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1

      That doesn't matter--what Smith was describing were the fundamental rules of the universe.

      There is (pardon the pun) a world of difference between immutable physical laws and an artificial social construct that can be changed at any time (witness gift economies in native american tribes).

      Even in those societies there were still markets--markets for social status. There is always a market; it may not be good, it may not be wise, it may not be free, but it always exists. Men ever act to maximise income and minimise expense. What income and expense are measured in may vary, but that principle is the same.

      First, I don't give a fig for democracy--I care about liberty.

      The rest of the world pretty clearly disagrees, otherwise we'd be using anarchy.

      Anarchy does not preserve liberty, but then neither do democracy, oligarchy or monarchy. Liberty is what matters most: the freedom to do as one believes right, so long as that does not impinge on another's freedom to do as he believes right.

      This is far too vague to be worth arguing over - if these "inherant rights" apply to men, why not apes? How do you define what is a right, and what is merely "nice to have"?

      We have rights because we are men; apes do not because they are not. We think, we love, we build, we believe; they do not. No ape ever built a civilisation. I'm a Christian, so I would add that we were made in the image and likeness of God, but that's not an argument proper to a legal discussion.

      As for what a right is, it is simple: a right costs others nothing. Thus one has rights to speech, to belief, to develop one's own property, to be armed, to ingest drugs, to eat food &c. One does not have a right to a job (that costs someone else money), does not have a right to steal, does not have a right to murder &c.

      one has a right to bear arms

      Not where I live thank god. You americans can have a pretty warped view of what "rights" are sometime. I can't believe you think people have a right to a random piece of physical machinery but not a living. Which is more important to the majority?

      No--one has a right to it regardless of where one lives: it's a fundamental human right. It's not recognised by the State where you live, but that doesn't mean you don't have it. Saudi Arabia doesn't recognise the right to believe as one wishes, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

      As for a right to a job, I answered that above. One have a right to try for a job, but one has no more right to make others pay for that job than a store-owner has a right to force customers to buy his goods. `Having a job' really means selling one's labour--and if one is not willing to sell at fair prices, no-one will buy.

      Stealing is usually (simplistically) defined as taking something that is not yours. What can be private property is decided upon by society - air is not private property, but land is. It would seem reasonable that a certain amount of money could be defined as group property.

      One's property is one's property. The money earned by the sweat of one's brow belongs to no-one but oneself. Now, some taxation is necessary to pay for the maintenance of the State, to provide for the military and police forces and to otherwise ensure that no-one's rights are violated. It's a necessary evil. The theft of additional monies is an unnecessary evil.

      You can't have it both ways - if not helping those in need is wrong, then we should ensure that people do right.

      The State does not exist to judge matters of right and wrong, but of rights. I believe that it's wrong to believe other than as I do; no doubt you believe the same. The State does not exist to

    94. Re:I told you so... by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      You have to disallow more than fraud. You have to stop companies from buying laws that prop up their business model or otherwise aid them.
      That's a form of fraud.
      And while "the greed of all" may lead to the lowest prices in a perfect market, this may not be "the betterment of all".
      It leads to the material betterment of all. Certainly, it is not necessarily to the spiritual betterment of all--but I believe that it is not the State's business what the spiritual state of its members is.
      Hey, you have no right to a living. Why should anyone pay you more to work less? It's insane, like buying lettuce for $50/head. That's what competition is about. It's rough, but that's Real Life.
      I agree with this in the abstract. But as a U.S. software developer, I'm worried about my Real Life.

      Then you're no different than a corporation wishing to prop up its own profits at the expense of everyone else. When you are employed, you are selling your labour to another. Just as when you shop, you look for the best price, so too do employers look for the best return on their dollars. And just as you rightfully get annoyed when an industry convinces the State to force you to pay more than is fair, so too do employers get rightfully annoyed when employees convince the State to force them to pay more than is fair. The market inevitably leads to the fair outcome given the circumstances: it does not guarantee that anyone will like it.

      Or, to put it another way, there just aren't as many grooms, coachmen or buggy whip manufacturers as there used to be.

    95. Re:I told you so... by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      They can legally find ways to make a product at a cheaper cost, but then expect us to pay top dollar for it.

      That's what competition is for. If there are several companies selling a product for x% markup, Joe can sell more for (x-y)% markup. Then Steve can sell more units yet for (x-y-z)% markup. This continues until everyone is living on very thin margins indeed. The same occurs with wages, where there we all sell our labour to our employers. Markets are cut-throat, but they are fair.

      If these large businesses only realized the global benifits of paying your employees more, and lowering the price of there products, this would do some great things, even for their business.
      Let me recast this: if people only realised the global benefits of paying more for food, and lowering their own incomes, this would do some great things, even for their own lives. I don't necessarily disagree (in fact, morally I agree), but that's not the way the world works.
  73. Tech Support Num Nums!!!! by JohnnySkidmarks · · Score: 0

    Had to be said. I'd love to have Peter Sellers support me with my HP proprietary built in problems... if only!

    --

    I went to battle MC Escher but drew a blank

    1. Re:Tech Support Num Nums!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it...

    2. Re:Tech Support Num Nums!!!! by JohnnySkidmarks · · Score: 0

      I guess no one else did either... I was refering to "the Party" Peter Sellers magnum opus (IMHO) where he plays a struggling Indian actor in Hollywood... hilarity ensues yada yada yada: Birdy Num Nums is introduced into Eglish Vernacular when Sellers is speaking with an Indian Accent to a bird in a cage trying to offer it some "Birdy Num Nums"

      --

      I went to battle MC Escher but drew a blank

    3. Re:Tech Support Num Nums!!!! by snapperOrgans · · Score: 1

      Just for the record: I got it.

      "Howdy Partener!"

  74. Re:dumbest headline ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funniest /.-referential post ever...

  75. the former colonies of America? by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    Which ones are they?

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:the former colonies of America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Philippines. Really. Look it up.

    2. Re:the former colonies of America? by Polymath+Crowbane · · Score: 1

      After the Spanish-American War, the United States entered a phase where we, for all intents and purposes, began an American Empire. The primary focus of this empire (under Theodore Roosevelt) were the Philippines, Cuba and Central America. While Cuba is clearly out of our sphere of influence for the moment, the Philippines is very much in it, and has been for most of the 20th and 21st Centuries. The Central American relationship has been somewhat more complicated, but those countries are still very much influenced by U.S. policy.

    3. Re:the former colonies of America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought he meant Iraq, Afganistan etc....

    4. Re:the former colonies of America? by peter303 · · Score: 1

      Pueto Rico, Guam, Hawaii, some of the Virgin Islands. Some were offered the opportunity to become states or independent countries.

  76. Outsourcing is Outsourcing No Matter Where by chia_monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What's the hubbub here? Outsourcing is outsourcing. If Company A needs workers, it's going to find them. Perhaps they want someone that can drive into work every day, or perhaps they're fine with someone overseas. Once you reach the "overseas level", does it really matter where overseas they came from?

    Also, consider this. We (the US, other nations using a particular region for manpower, etc) are building up an infrastructure and a skilled workforce in a way by creating demand for workers in that area. The area becomes known as a hotspot, wages (and usually the standard of living) rise, all is well. Then it's on to the next area that provides "cheap" labor.

    And it's not just overseas where this happens. How many US companies are based in DE or NV because of their tax laws (no, this doesn't relate to actual labor but it does have to do with business decisions and where something is based).

    --

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
    1. Re:Outsourcing is Outsourcing No Matter Where by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      The area becomes known as a hotspot, wages (and usually the standard of living) rise, all is well. Then it's on to the next area that provides "cheap" labor.

      This would be great, if only it were permanent. Except that its not... as soon as the companies start making noises and looking at the door, wages fall again in an attempt to keep them there. Government drops taxes in an attempt to keep them there. In the end, the company leaves anyway, since, unfortunately, the "hotspot" passed laws to protect their standard of living (like minimum wage laws, environmental protection laws, and the like) and the local area becomes even more depressed than it originally was, since both the people and the government is out money.

      For an example, take a look at Houston's finances pre- and post-enron. Enron's gone, and what used to be a budget surplus has become a hot topic for the next mayor election.

      Oh, and if you're ever in Houston, don't have a wreck. The police no longer have the funds to respond to accidents starting this month, and without that police report you're going to have a hard time collecting the insurance.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  77. Local man by smaart · · Score: 1
    I was reading The Onion before switching over to Slashdot and I honestly read through this article thinking it was a spoof.

    Oh well, truth can indeed be funnier than satire.

  78. WTF mods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that is funny, not offtopic, what is going on here?

  79. Is there a country were people will work for free? by Isao · · Score: 1
    Yes. It's called the land of Open Source.

    Come, be fruitful and multiply.

    Just don't quit your day job where you ask "Do you want fries with that?"

  80. looking it up online by prisoner · · Score: 1

    An increasing percentage of tech support/consulting work is just finding stuff online. With deja and mfg KB there just isn't any reason to do it the hard way anymore. Customers expect you to perform as efficiently as possbile and the online route is normally it. It isn't a substitute for actual expertise but it is a great adjunct.

  81. What goes around.... by droopus · · Score: 0

    In 2000 I was recruited by Sapient from another 'nt' consultancy. They got me by basically pouring money on my head till I said yes. (Those were the days, huh..) When I got there I found a confused company going in nine directions, none of them with any passion.

    Except one: India. Sapient had opened an office in Delhi (even though it seemed like the bulk of tech work was in Bangalore) and sent a few US consultants there to set up shop.

    Their strategy was to hire from the top 5% of Indian tech graduates, and as usual, pour money on their heads till they said yes (which came to about $12,000 per employee, far in excess of typical tech wages.)

    Sapient looked at this offshore work as the way to save the company, and soon began focusing all their attention on "India."

    I blatantly called it sweatshop coding and found the sales pitch offensive. "24 hour development cycles! We code while you sleep!" was the big pitch. Of course they had no answer for "But doesn't that mean you sleep while we are doing business?"

    I wrote an email to the CEO(s) expressing my disgust for this Nike-like behavior, and predicted any benefit would be short lived as China and other countries became even cheaper. They then would be forced to again relocate to a cheaper country, or lose contracts to systems integrators who moved into these cheaper countries.

    In return, Sapient closed the entire Media and Entertainment division stating "media has no digital future" and went whole hog into the tech sweatshop business. They also gave a few hundred US coders an awful choice: move to India with a pay cut, or leave the company. Most wisely chose to leave, as did I.

    Usually I would be pleased to be vindicated by the even cheaper labor markets coming online and making Sapient's Indian enterprise too expensive to sell, but in this case, I know it will put more fellow US techs out of work and projects will be outsourced to countries where trying to speak to someone who wrote the fucked up code on your monitor is an exercise in Babelfishing.

    What I'd like to know is, when do Neiman-Marcus consulting firms finally admit they have turned into WalMart?

    --
    "The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
  82. World wide unions an answer? by draos · · Score: 1

    The world economy has become global, but labor organizations haven't .... maybe we need world wide labor unions so that companies can't get labor cheaper anywhere because all the worlds programmers, etc, are in the same union.

  83. Is there a country were people will work for free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'It's hard to know where it will all end. Is there a country were people will work for free?'
    is there a country, errr..., planet where food is free and woman/girls/chicks can look
    after themself?

    p.s. is your PC running nuclear?

  84. Nike's from Burma? No. Bata's from India? yes. by Confessed+Geek · · Score: 1


    On an amusing sidenote, I don't buy $120 dollar nikes made in burma for $3. I travel to India about once a year so I buy good "export quality" leather shoes made in India for about $5, and pay $20 (aprox 4000 rupees)

    1. Re:Nike's from Burma? No. Bata's from India? yes. by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      If your airfare and hotel costs are more than the $120 pair of Nike's then doesn't that defeat the purpose?

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    2. Re:Nike's from Burma? No. Bata's from India? yes. by viking099 · · Score: 1

      Not if you buy a whole bunch of them, and are there anyway on business/vacation. Especially business, because someone else is probably footing the bill for the airfare and hotel.

    3. Re:Nike's from Burma? No. Bata's from India? yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can buy shoes your size in India? I haven't found a shoe shop anywhere in SE Asia that has shoes that will last more than a month with my big feet and they have to be custom made.

    4. Re:Nike's from Burma? No. Bata's from India? yes. by Confessed+Geek · · Score: 1

      I have in-laws who live in Dehli, so the cost of the trip, doesn't really play in. I'm going to Delhi for non-economic reasons, so at least in my mind the cost of the trip doesn't play into the cost of purchases there.

      And honestly, I wouldn't buy nikes even if they cost $20, and were made by Union workers getting $75/hour and full medical. I think they look like mechanical parasites attached to your feet, rather than shoes. No accounting for taste ;)

    5. Re:Nike's from Burma? No. Bata's from India? yes. by Confessed+Geek · · Score: 1

      If you are talking about china/japan/korea ect, I could see that as Western European genetics tend to include big feet ;) I'm only moderatly well endowed in the foot size dept. (there I made the joke so you don't have to ;) ) At size 9 1/2-10 1/2 I can usually find something... The real secret is to ask for their export or "export quality" items. They tend to be higher quality / warmer/ bigger as they are specificly designed to be sold overseas.

  85. Obligatory joke by greppling · · Score: 1
    Is there a country were people will work for free?

    Is there a country were people will spell right?

  86. Or, to put it another way... by composer777 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of the horrible things about the global economy is that it makes labor essentially a worthless commodity, since the amount of supply far exceeds demand. Due to anti-competitive pressures, new businesses aren't forming to soak up excess demand for cheaper products. Therefore, a few select corporations profit immensely, while the population of the rest of the world gets treated like slaves. But, hey, I guess the word "free" is in "free trade", so therefore it must be a good thing.

    1. Re:Or, to put it another way... by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... so what you're saying is you'd like to see more free trade, to reduce anti-competitive pressures and further lubricate the labor market? Sounds like a good idea...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    2. Re:Or, to put it another way... by jaoswald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have no idea how the parent got modded to +5, Insightful, because it makes a fundamental error: it assumes that "Labor" is a homogenous good.

      Labor of some semi-trained person answering a telephone call from an ignoramus who can't open the box his new cable modem came in is not the same thing as the labor of a skilled programmer with knowledge of a technical domain. The supply of one is ample in India and the Philippines, while the other is not. Lumping these together as "labor" misses the whole point.

      If you want to avoid being interchangable with someone in India, get yourself a competitive advantage so you *aren't* interchangeable.

    3. Re:Or, to put it another way... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      If you want to avoid being interchangable with someone in India, get yourself a competitive advantage so you *aren't* interchangeable.

      That is getting harder to do. It is really hard to stay competitive with a starving $2/hr PhD. The only thing that seems immune is marketing and selling. Marketers have to "be in touch" with the culture they are selling to. Thus, an American marketer has an edge over an Indian one.

      However, most of us geeks are not good at marketing because our brains tend to focus on things and abstractions instead of people.

      The Age of Geeks is ending, I am afraid to say. Brain power is becoming a cheap commodity.

    4. Re:Or, to put it another way... by jaoswald · · Score: 1

      "most of us geeks are not good at marketing"

      Well, that's your problem right there. If you've got some unique package of talents (and you probably do, unless you've been wasting your time), then you've got to market your product (YOU) effectively. Find out who needs you, and convince them.

      Marketing is not some unique gift/defect that only a few people need to possess, it is an essential skill everyone needs to develop if they don't want to be a drone.

    5. Re:Or, to put it another way... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Marketing is not some unique gift/defect that only a few people need to possess, it is an essential skill everyone needs to develop if they don't want to be a drone.

      But somebody who is a born socializer has a huge leg-up on a geek who tries to socialize using science. Besides, you have to wear stupid clothes and watch stupid movies to be "with it".

    6. Re:Or, to put it another way... by axxackall · · Score: 1
      One of the greatest things about global economy is that it's good for America and other labor-overpaid countries - it's pushing them to improve the production efficiency. Finally, they may begin to count money smarter than they did in the boom of Y2K.

      As for worless labor - nah. Overpaid labor will cut the cost, making the whole economy more efficient. Underpaid labor will create new areas for investments, expanding markets and making global trade more intensive.

      Anyway, offshore outsourcing is a good thing. I am in. So, who has a project to be done and who has a labor I can hire for that project?

      --

      Less is more !
    7. Re:Or, to put it another way... by mofochickamo · · Score: 1
      WTF, there are a lot of commies on /.

      Bring on the layoffs, I'll get another career :)

      --
      Honk if you're horny.
  87. Beautiful proof--mod parent up! by edinho · · Score: 1

    How about this:

    As globalization move from silison valley to India to eastern Europe to beyond, leaving a trail of broken dreams which is 90% of those people who were "enriched" and are now looking for jobs. The only 10% who are still getting rich are the execs, the investors, the, surprise, surprise, people who are rich to start with and can absorb any short term misfortune and will only get rich in the long run.

    BTW, mod me up as well since my analysis is as good as the parent's.

    Cheers,
    e.

    1. Re:Beautiful proof--mod parent up! by thefinite · · Score: 1

      You can't honestly be saying that 90% of Silicon Valley got laid off, and that 90% of India's tech workers will now be laid off. If you were one of the unfortunate who did lose a job a few years back, I could see how it might seem that way. I guess you now know how American steel-workers feel. You know what people told them? Get a new skill and a new job. They did. (My old boss was one of them.)

      --
      Boom Shanka
  88. Let them starve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, let me say, I'm not a racist - unless H1Bs count as a race. I've known my share of Indians in the past. I've got no problems with Indian doctors, lawyers, astronauts, ice cream salespeople, whatever job you wish to insert here - as long as they're citizens of the United States.

    You might say I'm anti-globalization. Not quite - I simply think that a country should take care of its own first, then worry about how the rest of the world fares.

    H1Bs? Line them up and shoot them. Although - even I might question, would I not consider it if I was in their situation?

    Better idea - line up the managers and executives whining about the lack of skilled labor and have them shot. Repeatedly. With .50 Action Express rounds.

    Lack of skilled labor in the US? I think any reader of Slashdot can tell you otherwise. Sure, there's seas of MSCEs who don't know their ass from a bit bucket out there. They're usually the ones all starry eyed and dreaming of dotbomb salaries. The rest of us are sitting around, barely able to find jobs at *fair* wages. (IE, a wage which one can *live* on.)

    Yet, CEOs of random companies are still getting million+ dollar bonuses. Go figure. Yeah, no wonder there's no money to hire programmers from the US.

  89. Country where people work for free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not so far away. call them "slaves" and you find the spirit of the moder capitalism at the root of the American heritage

  90. Hello I'm John, by Ratso+Baggins · · Score: 0

    but my call center name is Sanjay...

    --

    --
    "we live in a post-ideological world..." - Billy Bragg.

  91. Is there a country were people will work for free? by utahjazz · · Score: 1

    Finland?

  92. This is not surprising... by Mark_in_Brazil · · Score: 1

    This is one of the little problems of modern Capitalism, and one you normally won't hear in Econ 101 at ANY university.

    To explain this, I will have to use a few examples that may appear to be offtopic, but please don't mod me down without reading the entire post... I swear there is a method to my madness.

    The Classical theories of economics on which Capitalism is based were developed in the 19th Century, when capital was basically land and labor had much more freedom to move about. The theories therefore are based on models with immobile capital and highly mobile labor as basic premises.

    Here's the part that might look off-topic, but I swear it's not...
    There's a great physics joke where a physicist comes up with a way to increase the productivity of cows. When he goes to start his presentation to interested dairy farmers, he starts with "assume a spherical cow." The hilarity (for physics nerds like me, anyway) arises from the physicist's work being sound, but being based on a model that has little to do with the real world.

    The theories you learn in Econ 101, unfortunately, suffer from the same problem. The derivation of conclusions like "mutual advantage" (capital and labor naturally find an equilibrium with mutual advantage for both) is perfectly valid, but based on premises that have nothing to do with today's reality.

    Specifically, in today's world, capital moves at or near the speed of light through cables or even through the air and through space as transmitted signals. Labor, on the other hand, has been immobilized. In the 19th Century, it was easier to migrate to where the jobs were (in the same region at least-- I recognize that transport has advanced a lot) than it is now. Today, it is difficult to cross national borders, especially to work, unless somebody is intentionally turning a blind eye to SOME migration (an example is California, where agriculture depends on illegal immigrant labor-- if the farmers had to pay Americans or legal immigrants to do the work, most of the fruit and vegetables produced in California would be prohibitively expensive). Labor is therefore basically locked into cells from which it is difficult to move. Capital can therefore play the labor in different cells against each other.

    So if the workers in the US start to get uppity and demand things like vacation and health insurance and decent wages, capital, basically free of the restrictions on labor and capable of traveling REALLY fast, can simply move to Mexico. If the Mexicans start to demand things like decent working hours and limitations on pollution, capital can simply jump to India or Vietnam. When wages start to rise there, capital may decide to move elsewhere, and that's what's starting to happen to India now.

    The result is obvious: the conclusion of "mutual advantage" is based on a no-longer-valid premise (highly mobile labor and immobile capital). When we consider the correct premises, we quickly reach the conclusion that there is very little to prevent capital from taking TOTAL advantage of labor in today's world. And we see that happening.

    A solution? I don't think you'll like it if you're American, but try to think as a member of the human race, not a citizen of a country that has certain advantages that it maintains by force when necessary (reference: "War is a Racket" by General Smedley D. Butler, one true and ignored hero from American history). The solution would be to try to return to a state more similar to the premises on which Capitalist theory is based. I don't like giving governments more power, so I won't suggest restricting the movement of capital. But if the world were to simply open all the borders and let people live wherever they want, we could move closer to the situation where "mutual advantage" really obtains. In the short term, yes, it would be relatively bad for some, and there would be some over-migration to places where there is currently work available (or just the perception that work is available). But eventually, I do believe Capitalism could work much, much better for the great majority of the people on Earth because of the restoration of balance between capital and labor, permitting "mutual advantage."

    --
    "It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
    1. Re:This is not surprising... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Your analysis is incomplete. Eventually, even if things keep going as they are, capital will most likely stop moving around. There has to be some terminus(there are a limited number of zones in your theory), where the capital can no longer move to new cheaper labor. It will always be able to move to cheaper labor, but at some point, it will be moving to labor that it had previously abandoned. Over the long term, this will likely accomplish what seems to be your goal in opening borders, the equalization of labor markets.

      This indicates that some further thought is required before jumping in and doing what, at least on the surface, is the correct thing. Who knows, it might even work better to encouragethe movement of capital, over the movement of labor, if the mutual advantage was restored more quickly...

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:This is not surprising... by Mark_in_Brazil · · Score: 1

      Your analysis is incomplete. Eventually, even if things keep going as they are, capital will most likely stop moving around.

      No...
      The United States have some of the most expensive labor in the world, but BMW decided to build a plant to make those cute little roadsters in the US. Why? Because they basically auctioned the jobs to the highest bidder, and some Southern state was willing to give IBM more in tax breaks, etc. than anyone else (ultimately costing the very workers who were to benefit from the work at the new plant).
      Capital, with its freedom to move, can always "auction" jobs to the highest bidder and thus impose whatever conditions it wants on labor, which remains trapped in relatively small cells.

      --
      "It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
    3. Re:This is not surprising... by maxume · · Score: 1
      Right, but as the labor markets evolve, it will become increasingly difficult for one of your small cells to differentiate itself from its neighbors, be they geographic or competitive.

      I would surmize that as this happens, capital will choose stability, and the potential advantages that come with it, over whoring itself around for small short term profit increases. But I am only really guessing, I have neither studied the issue, nor put much thought towards it.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:This is not surprising... by Mark_in_Brazil · · Score: 1

      I would surmize that as this happens, capital will choose stability, and the potential advantages that come with it, over whoring itself around for small short term profit increases. But I am only really guessing, I have neither studied the issue, nor put much thought towards it.

      Fair enough... I can say the same. And while we don't agree, I find your arguments interesting. Welcome to my /. friends list.

      Now... back to the discussion.
      Right, but as the labor markets evolve, it will become increasingly difficult for one of your small cells to differentiate itself from its neighbors, be they geographic or competitive.

      When it is difficult to differentiate members of a set, one becomes a reasonable replacement for another. So the product, service, or whatever becomes a commodity... and commodities are always subject to downward price pressure exactly because price becomes the only differential.
      Still, your point about the activity cost of moving operations to another "cell" (country or region) is valid and very interesting. There is a calculation to be done by a company when considering whether to move or not-- basically, "do we gain more by moving than it costs us to move?"

      I remain convinced of my statement of the problem, but you've made me stop and think about my proposed solution.

      --
      "It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
  93. Their goal by fobbman · · Score: 1

    After talking to some of the foreign tech support folks, I really believe that there is some pointy-haired boss somewhere looking at the call time numbers and marvelling at how low they are, not realizing that people are hanging up because they cannot understand what the heck the tech support person is saying.

  94. Economic Darwinism by lpret · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's economic darwinism. Of course it exists. Of course it's our basic instinct -- it's how we are in our most basic form in all facets of our life. No one is saying it's an enlightened philosophy but it is truth. An inherent truth in any society that is going to get ahead in any terms. It's just that instead of it being a personal darwinism (I kill another human being because he threatens my superiority) it's in a more macro scale -- Company A undermines Company B so that they can stay ahead.

    --
    This is my digital signature. 10011011001
    1. Re:Economic Darwinism by release7 · · Score: 1
      Each of us must make a moral choice. Are we going to succumb to our petty, base instincts and contribute to the ugly side of human nature? Or are we going to strive to contribute something to overcome and erase some of that ugliness and make the world a bit more hospitable.

      If you believe this "economic darwinism" is as immutable as the law of physics, than you have conciously limited yourself to living and operating with that limited mindset. Frankly, I think that's rather small-minded of you.

      Until your theory of of how humans MUST act in this world is scientifically proven, I'm going to act under the assumption that we, as intelligent and sentient beings, can create a better world by acting cooperatively and intelligently and not from crass and petty instincts. As long as we maintain the attitude that "economic darwinism" is a fact of our society, than it will remain so.

      And what you fail to mention is the tremendous amount of cooperation that occurs between species to create a more hospitable and survivable ecosystem. To pick out "Darwinism" as the overriding force behind survival is gross oversimplification. Cooperation is a powerful instinct as well, my friend.

      --

      <a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>

  95. People work for free here in the US by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    Just get High School kids or prisoners (kinda the same thing)... they will work for free. The High School kids / prisoners would work for free with the promise of being hired at some later date -- but there's nothing that says you have to pay them a lot when you in fact DO hire them, or for how long... it could work!

    --
    stuff |
  96. creation of wealth by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    I'm amazed at how many people think wealth is a finite sized pie that gets cut into thinner and thinner slices. Wealth can be created and value added to products and services...these poor countries which are taking U.S. jobs in the near term will become business partners and part of a growing world economy in the longer term. The situation is hard on the U.S. for now, but in the longer run we'll have more markets, and more suppliers. The countries which win in this process will be those that have great education, allow free thinking and innovation, and have a good infastructure to move information.

    1. Re:creation of wealth by thogard · · Score: 1

      Its called zero-sum-gain and its taught well. Most games you have a winner and a loser. Most board games are that way and I have found people don't like playing games that are non-zero-sum-gain. An example of this is Monopoly. If you play by the rules, its a non-zero-sum-gain until someone over extends them self however people can't stand that and put the fines into a free parking pool which turns it into a zero-sum-gain game based on the outcome of the dice. Chess is another game where strong players can do non-zero-sum-gain.

      Our modern capitalism system's growth is based on non-zero-sum-gain transactions and an introduction of new resources into the pool. Most of the rest is simple zero-sum-gain.

    2. Re:creation of wealth by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Moreover, if offshore people are doing work for less, the products will become cheaper for American consumers, increasing our quality of life.

      As a related example, I know someone who outsources his tedious CAD work to Russia over the Net - it means he can concentrate on higher level design issues.

      BTW, the situation is not HARD in the US at all. Most countries on the planet would give anything for JUST 6% unemployment rate. IT got burnt by the bubble, but it is coming back. Recently a poll of 1400 US CIOs showed 10% expected to hire more people in 3Q 2003.

      And when we talk about profits, let's not forget that over 50% of Americans are stock holders, so we all do benefit from increased profits as well.

    3. Re:creation of wealth by QuackQuack · · Score: 1
      BTW, the situation is not HARD in the US at all. Most countries on the planet would give anything for JUST 6% unemployment rate.

      Yes, for all the whining and moaning you see these days, it's easy to forget that 6% used to be considered almost normal employment. The last two recessions featured unemployment rates around 9 or 10%

      --
      By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
  97. I work for free! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been unemployed since graduating last summer and I'm now working for free to gain some more experience and so I dont look like a lazy f**ker to any prospective employer.

    The economy really sucks right now and the worst thing is seeing the guys you went to highschool with making decent money in there cushy union protected jobs, while all the time your working away for nothing with huge ass student loans.

  98. Will Code for Freedom... by blueZhift · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seriously, in the future prisoners will write code. As companies look for cheaper labor, this is the inevitable conclusion.

    Just imagine, prisoners are paid little or nothing for their work and can be easily penalized for poor quality. Imagine getting say 3 months added to your sentence for every bug! Or how about extra conjugal visits for software that sells a million copies. I could go on and on!

    I wish this was just a joke, but I see little that could keep this from happening in the US or anywhere else. And few companies or consumers would care.

  99. Nothing New... by RobSwider · · Score: 1

    This should surprise no one, really. How is this different than any other technological revolution? The US invented the automobile, and made them better than anyone else in the world, because other countries didn't have the know-how or the resources. Once the other countries caught up, they could do it cheaper than we could because of cost of living, etc. Steel industry?same thing. Clothing manufacturing? Same thing. We may be trail blazers, but we suck at trail maintenance. Labor unions aren't the answer. They are, in many cases, the reason we can't compete in manufacturing. Maximum pay for minimum required work of minimum required quality. I'm not fishing for a flame bait mod. My point is only that this is, according to history, nothing new.

  100. Yes by SkewlD00d · · Score: 1

    It's called the USA.

    --
    The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
  101. Who really pays for open source software ? by Pelakh · · Score: 1

    Don't get me wrong here, I love open source software - I have delivered several products using Apache/MySQL/PHP, have used gcc and emacs for 15 years. However, I was interested in how can the people that invest the incredible amount of work it takes to develop and maintain these products make a living and still find time to eat and sleep ? Surely not all of them write Nutshell books ... When I started working full-time (around 1989), many software developers got paid to develop the tools that are currently downloaded for free. Now, that of course is not the optimal way to be productive, but with no revenue being generated from this product, it is being developed on the backs of the companies paying the wages of the developers that are spending some of their company time to do "extra" work. I would appreciate if those of you who have considered these issues before clarify this for me, or perhaps point me at some information.

  102. Following the job by IMarvinTPA · · Score: 1

    Are there any reports of people who move to different countries to follow their job?

    It is just an odd idea.
    If I sold my home, I'd be debt free and quite capable of adjusting the relative costs of living. I figure it is much harder when you move your debts to a location with a lower cost of living.

    IMarv

  103. Much Ado by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was always the case. Once you have a model perfected you could move it anywhere. Indian companies are quite aware of this situation and they are doing whatever it takes to stay in business including starting the companies in aforesaid Eastern European countries.
    Also when you look for quality and aspects such as CMM level 5 - there are not too many countries that offer that advantage. So for the next five to 10 years Indian companies have an edge that they will have to sustain beyond those years - aka China and manufacturing since the 80s.

  104. Outsourcing in eastern Europe by Bormester · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I run a company in Holland that just does this.. leverage eastern Europe to achieve similar cost levels but better control and quality. Budapest is a 1.5 hour flight from Amsterdam and is in the same timezone. Don't forget, these are the guys that during the communist era were reverse-engineering western technology. I have NO idea why companies continue to develop technology anywhere else.

    1. Re:Outsourcing in eastern Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Budapest (well, some of the time) and let me tell you that we reverse-engineered Western technology not only during the communist years. We keep doing it. If it has actually been CREATED by us, we have even less problems with conscience (not that we have too many when it comes to reverse-engineering).

      So let me tell you, baby, that there's a good reason to stay the hell away from my country: your intellectual property ain't safe here. We'll take it in no time.

      You know, if you fire a yank or an indian, he stops working. If you fire a Hungarian or a Russian, he will simply continue to produce the same thing, under his own name. Being free from the costs of paying royalties and the fat western pig who was the former boss, we will stay competitive.

      This is called "the appropriation of the means of production". The essence of communism. We have learnt the lesson, baby. So don't come here hoping to enslave us the way you used to do with others. Or if you do, be prepared to see some communism in action.

      As for our western comrades, other coders that is, not the manager-types who don't give a fuck about their fellow citizens, my advice is to do just the same. Want to keep your job? Keep it! Fire the boss instead! And please, please, please forget intellectual property. You have written it -- it's yours. Period. If you attach a GPL to it, your conscience is clean.

      Proletarians of the world, UNITE!!!

  105. Pay attention by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

    First of all, Nike is a NAME BRAND. Its SUPPOSED to be expensive. Its a quasi-luxury product. If you want cheap sneakers you can surely find them. They just won't be called NIKE. Some people seem to think that Nike sneakers are a product needed to continue living.

    Second, prices HAVE come down for a lot of goods. Cheap new cars, cheap computers (remember what computers used to cost just 5 years ago?), cheap DVD players...etc.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    1. Re:Pay attention by ndogg · · Score: 1

      Actually, both of you have a point. My observation tells me that some of the higher-tech industries, such as IT and the auto industry, seem to have a better idea of justice. They seem more willing to pay people, no matter where they live, a fairer wage. The textile industry seems to be based solely on greed, and so the sweatshop workers get screwed over.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
  106. Outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is fine if jobs get outsourced, but the SCRIPT readers should Speak English, and have technical knowledge besides the script reading ability. Sorry Habib, Anwar, Nazir... such is life.

  107. Cheaper Offshore Onshore by SkewlD00d · · Score: 1

    A lot of R&D in the midwest and south is going to Mexico. There are a lot of well-qualified engineers and professionals in Mexico and the locality and timezone make for cheaper logistical support costs and responsiveness. Also, Spanish is relatively easy to learn for us gringos.

    --
    The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
  108. serves them right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    after all .. they started out by taking our jobs !

  109. grow up - shut up - and get to work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I am getting sick and tired of /. crowd of crying babies - oh all the IT jobs go overseas, oh I cannot find job with nerf guns anymore, oh I actually have to _compete_ with someone else for this position.

    Wake up and smell the reality -

    Dotcom crash was just a correction

    Now, just like always, business is about making maximum profit out of minimum investment.

    Foreigners grab US IT jobs because they ARE for grabs - US edu system cannot produce capable talent fast enough

    Keep yourself on the edge, learn new stuff: enterprise Java, dot Net, whatever and you will be allright no matter what.

    I entered the market in 1994. I have never been fired or laid off. I always stayed ahead of the curve and quit the moment company was no longer satisfying my personal goals. I maintain very comfortable income and can live wherever and drive whatever.

    To be able to do so, I spend roughly $2000 a year on computer books and code outside of workplace for at least 20 hours a week: open-source projects and my pet ideas. I use advanced technologies for those so when time comes and this particular technology is finally adopted by the mainstream I am ready to apply for those jobs and have experience with new stuff.

    So watch, listen and learn and outsourcing will not be a problem not in your lifetime not ever.

    Posting as AC because of the location I am at right now.

    1. Re:grow up - shut up - and get to work by WetCat · · Score: 1

      US edu system cannot produce capable talent fast enough

      Guess why? Because education SHOULD be tax sponsored and should cost an individual $0.
      May be even -$$$ in stipends.
      And entry barrier should be VERY high.

  110. "*s" don't do shit, PEOPLE do shit by dpilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I fear I can't completely agree with this. There are too many cases where an organization, be it corporation or government, really does exhibit behavior that's different from its constituents. Look at an organization as a sort of life form built out of people, just like people are life forms built out of organs and cells, etc. Members will do things "for the organization" that they just wouldn't do on their own, or for themselves.

    IMHO, there is a real difference here.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:"*s" don't do shit, PEOPLE do shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this brings up some stuff I've been thinking about for a long time. Why are corporations and governments "bad"?

      While it may sound overly optimistic, by and large, I don't think people are "bad". Most won't kill you or screw you over for a percentage. Most won't but some will. They're the exeption. If they were the norm, the race would have died out long ago.

      But when it comes to groups, especially large groups, the tables tip the other way. Why?

      My pet theory is that "good" in people is more individual. More personal. It varies from person to person. Our "bad" is very similar. In other words, we have fewer "bad" traits, than good. But the bad traits are common.

      Let's say we have a bar chart of "how much" vs. "how good". So at the low end of the x axis, we have bars representing "bad" and at the far right we have bars representing "good".

      I think that at the low end, you have fewer but higher bars for a person's "bad" and at the high end, you have shorter, more disperse, and more bars for the persons good. Let's say the total balance may be close to neutral.

      But if you add a few people together, their "bad" bars are close; they tend to stack. The more disperse "good" doesn't stack; it fills in.

      So with a large number of people, you end up with spikes of bad. Again, the total balance is probably about neutral, but the bad spikes are where the nastiness comes from. It's why groups with overall good intentions can produce the nastiest results. You get an exagerated "human" animal with no ethics or morality.

      Just an idea...

    2. Re:"*s" don't do shit, PEOPLE do shit by brakk · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of my favorite saying:

      "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers."

    3. Re:"*s" don't do shit, PEOPLE do shit by abreauj · · Score: 1
      Look at an organization as a sort of life form built out of people, just like people are life forms built out of organs and cells, etc.

      I'd argue that it's even worse than that; the organization isn't made of people, it's made of a network of jobs. People merely provide the physical and intellectual labor that fuels those jobs.

      The collective term for such a network of jobs is "bureaucracy". Just as a living organism is made of flesh and blood, an organization is made of bureaucracy and cash-flow.

      Consider that when a person takes a vacation, or retires, or is fired/laid off/hit by a bus, their job functions still exist when they're away. A co-worker or temp fills in for the vacationing employee or a new hire replaces the fired/retired/deceased employee. Such a shift in personnel is a routine business event, not a major traumatic event like a heart transplant.

      Consider also what would happen if you managed to convince a CEO of a corporation to make his corporation "act morally" at the expense of profits. More than likely the CEO will be sued by the corporation's shareholders (many of whom are other corporations) or arrested by the SEC for fiscal irresponsibility, and replaced by a new CEO, and you're back to square one. Net result: no change in the corporation's behavior.

      And the old CEO in jail gives the new CEO a powerful incentive to focus on the bottom line.
    4. Re:"*s" don't do shit, PEOPLE do shit by thomn8r · · Score: 1

      As opposed to what happened to the CEO & execs of Enron, HP, Lucent, WorldCom, etc, who acted immorally?

      Act morally, go to jail; act immorraly, get rich beyond your wildest dreams and go wreak havoc elsewhere. Now I get it! No wonder I'm poor!

      PS: it's very rare that corporations get sued by the shareholders, and even rarer that it actually effects a change.

      Consider also what would happen if you managed to convince a CEO of a corporation to make his corporation "act morally" at the expense of profits. More than likely the CEO will be sued by the corporation's shareholders (many of whom are other corporations) or arrested by the SEC for fiscal irresponsibility, and replaced by a new CEO, and you're back to square one. Net result: no change in the corporation's behavior.
      And the old CEO in jail gives the new CEO a powerful incentive to focus on the bottom line.

  111. OT: bleak outlook of the day by Neil+Watson · · Score: 1
    What can we do? Companies only look to the next quarter. Governments only look to the next election. No one in power cares about the big picture or the future of the world.

    Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

    1. Re:OT: bleak outlook of the day by thogard · · Score: 1

      You can hit a politician in the pension. Force them all on to Social Security with a bounus tied to a vote 4 or 8 years after they leave office.

  112. Outsourcing Won't Be Limited to IT/Helpdesk Jobs by SilentMajority · · Score: 1

    First, many blue collar jobs went...now IT jobs...what can be next?

    There are millions of other jobs remaining that we can outsource overseas to help our companies cut costs and increase shareholder value.

    Why not outsource other jobs such as legal research (searching for precedence, etc.), industry/market research and countless other jobs that don't have to be physically executed in the USA?

    Executives and marketing/sales folks might be safe for a bit but after the bulk of the employees ship overseas and with other countries (i.e. China & India) having MANY more consumers--and eventually businesses--than us, won't it be best for their companies if these jobs ship out?

    Obviously, it isn't feasable to ship all the jobs overseas but I wonder what percentage of existing jobs here in the USA can "safely" be outsourced to Canada, Mexico, UK, India, China, etc. 10%? 25%? 33%? more? And how much shareholder value can be extracted from this before they need to shift investments overseas?

    What jobs are the best candidates to ship overseas next? Accountants? Analysts? Laywers (only small percentage go to trial--most draft/review contracts, etc.)? Middle management (if the people you manage are all overseas...)? ...

    And how will this impact our economy (higher unemployment, etc.)? Our government (social security, etc.)? Our national security (brain drain, etc.)?

  113. Singapore!? by ChrisWong · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why is Singapore included in the list? It's a tiny island-state: you can see the entire coastline from the air. I suppose IBM can buy the entire island to staff one of its minor divisions (I'm kidding!). It has first-world living standards, so that would be the last place I would look for cheap labor. Sure, they speak English, but so do most Americans. About the only advantage I can imagine is having a 12 hr timezone difference is handy for tech support call centers.

    1. Re:Singapore!? by tbarker · · Score: 1

      Singapore firms now place manufacturing work in the UK, because Singapore workers are too well-educated to work these jobs!

      --
      "I like people. They're like little Happy Meals with legs" - Spike
  114. Time to think... by forgoil · · Score: 1

    First of all, there is a country where software is free, it is called "Free Software" and "Open source". Good huh?

    It doesn't make sense to outsource outside of your economical region. If you don't want to pay the working force, where are they going to get money to actually buy products? I am baffled that so few look at the economical aspects of this whole ordeal.

  115. twister by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much work can be outsourced offshore if offshore outsourcers often overtake the outsourcers offshore?

  116. so all the folks in India get laid off by Zannester · · Score: 1

    can they join techsunite.org now?

    --
    No Matter Where You Go, There You Are.
    1. Re:so all the folks in India get laid off by Kamel+Jockey · · Score: 1

      can they join techsunite.org now?

      Actually, this is already happening in the auto industry, in a certain sense. But if I was a US auto worker who was displaced by cheaper foreign labor, I don't think I would feel very happy about the same union whose primary function was to protect my job going and organizing the same people that took my job in the first place. I'd consider it a stab in the back.

      --
      In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
    2. Re:so all the folks in India get laid off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      depends on how you look at it. Is the overall goal to bring jobs back to the US? if so, then I would take whatever I could get. Blue collar jobs were saying this could happen years ago. The ollege-educated crowd refused to believe it. Now, we have seen the enemy, and we are them.

    3. Re:so all the folks in India get laid off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I misread your title. I thought you said the folk in India get LAID!

  117. Free? by Apreche · · Score: 1

    Indeed there is a country where people work for free! Not just one, but two!

    Sourceforgeria and Freshmetialand.

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
  118. DAMN IT! by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 0

    All those years learning Hindustani, so I could understand the tech support guy, down the drain. Who the hell speaks Czech? At least Hindustani is the third most commonly spoken language in the world.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  119. Instability by dpilot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Put your college hat back on for a moment, and remember the Signals and Systems course...

    Think of an economic cycle as a simple oscillator. As long as we had loosely-coupled economic systems in various nations, they could go through their economic cycles somewhat independently. Even better, the loose coupling acted as damping to calm down the ranges of cycling. Things only get REALLY bad when the cycles coincide and/or badly influence each other, like in the 1930's.

    Enter "Free Trade" and globalization. Instead of multiple independent systems with damping, we have one bigger, more complex system, and who knows where the damping is. How do you make this giant mess stable, or at least limit the swings?

    IMHO the creation of a giant, undamped, unmodelable mess is the real downfall of globalization.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:Instability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There once was a spectre haunting Europe. For now it has been excersized. But it will be back to haunt the globalized economy sure enough. A big downturn and a large war or two and things will be completely out of control and from there all bets are off as to what's going happen. No one ever could have predicted the Bolshevik victory in Russia before the war. No one can predict who the people will be that emerge after the next disaster brought on by out of control capitalism but it will probably be just as suprising.

  120. I'd gladly go to some of these places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sometimes mention that parts of India wouldn't
    be so bad, if you had a reasonable wage for that part of the world. Move the target to Prague, and I start to wish I could go there with or without a tech job.

  121. You miss the point. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

    Yea, the big corporations move on, but what is left behind? A bunch of money, and a bunch of skilled workers. This isn't a sneaker factory we're talking about here; this is a skill that is still very much in demand.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  122. Positive effects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have projects that simply cannot happen without using off shore labour - the business case just doesn't work. In fact we have found that while they are cheaper, they aren't that much cheaper, and there are sever problems (timezones, cultural, communication). Bottom line: we use outsourcing to make things happen.

  123. Solution by j4pjeff · · Score: 0

    I work for Accenture Technology Solutions. And one thing Accenture did to compete with outsourcing is to outsource their own work to their own subsidiary(Accenture Technology Solutions). This saves everybody money because ATS developers are cheaper than normal Accenture developers. So the clients happy because they save money, Accenture is happy because they keep the work local, and I am happy because I have a job ;-)

  124. From the poor countries to the poorer countries by thefinite · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your comment defeats itself. If a country can undersell India, it is likely that the income from GlobalCorp, Inc. will have a greater impact for good there than it had in India.

    I *personally* saw a group of Romanian engineers designing car parts for an American company. They were getting paid $400-$500 per month. You might say it's deplorable to do that. What if I told you that the average Romanian income was $100-$150 per month at the time? All of a sudden it's not so bad.

    The point is that they are not getting paid as well as an American, but they are better off than the alternative, namely leaving them to struggle out of their bad economy on their own. In fact, barriers on trade actually *cost* third-world countries $150 Billion/year.

    Free trade proponents *don't* claim that GlobalCorp, Inc. is doing it out of the good of their heart, as you imply. The point, in fact, is that they are *not* doing it out of the good of their heart, i.e. they are being rationally motivated to produce more efficiently. I agree with the sister post here that said that moral considerations sometimes play a part (i.e. products of true slave labor). However, we will not get rid of poverty until we reduce scarcity. Encouraging efficient production is part of that process. Where would we be now if machines didn't replace many factory workers? We would probably be working in old factories, with much lower standards of living. (Efficiency has made life better for those who still work in factories today.) In the end, how else are these countries supposed to escape poverty?

    --
    Boom Shanka
    1. Re:From the poor countries to the poorer countries by composer777 · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the short reply. What is going to happen to the dollar? We are paying them a very small wage, for work that's worth quite a bit more.

      Being more efficient does not help workers, it helps corporations. Remember, people compete for dollars, not for work. So, if someone loses their job to this nonsense, then they have lost quite a bit due to "efficiency". And remember, corporations only are competing for dollars, not for efficiency, if an approach is more efficient, but costs more then they will use people.

    2. Re:From the poor countries to the poorer countries by 2short · · Score: 1


      "We are paying them a very small wage, for work that's worth quite a bit more."

      If that wage gets the job done, how can the work be worth more?

      "if an approach is more efficient, but costs more"

      In Economic terms, if an aproach costs more, it isn't more efficient. A process is more efficient if it gets the same job done for less money.

      This may cause some people to lose their jobs, and it sucks to be them. But the left over money doesn't just evaporate, it is used elsewhere. In the aggregate, a more efficient economy should be able to employ more people. Free trade should make the world economy more efficient, and lead to greater empolyment. But not necessarily of Americans. (Actually, it's pretty clear protectionism hurts more than it helps, but that's a different argument.)

    3. Re:From the poor countries to the poorer countries by mathesius · · Score: 1

      Nicely said. If we can get it cheaper elsewhere, we should. My $ then goes further allowing me to buy more , whether they be computers, pizzas, vacations, or earned interest.

      Meanwhile, the $ that the Chinese programmer received allows him to do more in his country than he otherwise would have been able to do.

      This added efficiency directly equates to more jobs, and more valuable jobs.

      The $ isn't sucked out of the system to disappear forever. The gains get folded back into the system.

      It's also almost irrelevant whether other countries have protectionist policies. Dropping our own protections improves the efficiency of our economy = growth!

    4. Re:From the poor countries to the poorer countries by ebh · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse "more efficiently" with "less expensively". Although they often go hand in hand (e.g., when "computer" refers to a machine instead of a job title), they're not interchangeable.

      If I close my textile plant in Massachusetts and start a new one in Saipan, it'll cost me a lot less to operate, but I'll need the same machines and the same workers to do the same work, plus the extra effort to get the goods back to the mainland. Not more efficient. (This is analogous to moving IT operations to India.)

      If I convert my movie theater from film to digital, then my projection operation will be more efficient, but at least for the time I'm amortizing the costly digital projectors, it won't necessarily be less expensive.

      (Good lord, how petit bourgeois have I become in my old age???)

    5. Re:From the poor countries to the poorer countries by thefinite · · Score: 1

      I understand your point, but my understanding is that "efficiency" in Economics is a measure of how much it costs to produce a good, the value of which is then measured in utility. (Utility determines demand, which contributes to the market price, which hopefully is greater than your costs.) In the first example, it is *more* efficient to move to Saipan if it costs you less to produce and sell your textiles. In the second example, it is *less* efficient to go to a digital projector if it costs you more to show the movie. (If there was a demand for digital projection that justified a higher ticket price, that is a different story.)

      --
      Boom Shanka
  125. It's cost based not talent by BobBoring · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Foreigners grab US IT jobs because they ARE for grabs - US edu system cannot produce capable talent fast enough.

    Wrong, lots of capable talent in the US, the talent just wants more money than the foreign outsource shops cost. Do you understand free market economics? Price point is everything. You sell yourself cheap so you never get laid off. I cut out the middle-man and contract directly with the customer reducing my market price-point and have more offers for work than I can service. Foreign outsource shops have lower labor costs so the work gets bid to them.

    1. Re:It's cost based not talent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My point was exactly that - it is just basic supply and demand kind of thing.

      I cannot say I sell myself cheap, not at my rates.

      it is a GLOBAL environment now and in order to be picked you need to provide more value for the money. ANd job will go to Burma if it is where it can be had cheaper. But this tendency is nicely balanced by the reality of communication, security, .. problems required to be dealt with while outsourcing.

      As someone who went through both US and non-US educational system, I do believe that US one fails to produce the talent. How else can you explain lots of Indian, Chinese, etc guys in IT even before the outsourcing started en masse.

    2. Re:It's cost based not talent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need any help servicing those contracts...?

  126. lousy software by BobRooney · · Score: 1

    How lousy does your software have to be for India to say, "wow, I dont want to waste my time on this, let's outsource it to some other third world country and just keep the $50 bucks difference"

  127. Yup by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 1
    Yeah, those Indians sure are living the high-life financially at the moment.

    Actually, they are. Remember that currency conversion works some magic for companies. One-third the dollars in India affords a comfortable middle-class existence.

    I have a friend in Pune who works as a QA guy, as does his wife, and they own two cars, a house, and work in a brand new office building that sports an indoor pool and gym. in other words, he lives like any one of us might.

    Poverty is down to about 25% in India, and what the West would consider a middle class is growing exponentially. This is still a *huge* amount of extremely poor people, but it's a *huge* improvement over the ~60% poverty that existed 30 years ago. Unfortunately, it's just an inevitable that a huge divide exists between the extremely poor and this new class of tech-type professional there. Don't think for a minute that the tech guys there are some sort of 3rd world sweatshop workers.

    It'd be like if they exported tech jobs from San Francisco to Indianapolis, and then assumed the Indiana workers were living in squalor because they were making 25% less than their west-coast equivalents. It's just a whole lot cheaper to live there. (analogy might be bad, but you get the point ;-) )

    1. Re:Yup by easter1916 · · Score: 1
      Poverty is down to about 25% in India
      You have got to be kidding. Check your facts. More like 75%.
    2. Re:Yup by easter1916 · · Score: 1
      I actually took my own advice, checked on the IMF website and found that your estimate is closer to being accurate than mine, and by a long shot. The IMF says
      Despite the gains in the area of poverty reduction since Independence â"the poverty rate has fallen by over 20 percentage points since the 1950s and 1960s â"roughly 35 percent of the population still remains below the poverty line.2 Moreover, poverty statistics during the 1990s generally stagnated or, in some cases, worsened, and per capita income in India still lags well behind that in other fast-growing Asian economies. Notably, rural poverty rates have tended to increase and the regional distribution of income has become more stratified. This has reflected both weak fiscal discipline (constraining public development spending) and slowing structural reform (concentrating growth in the less-regulated services sector), which have left little scope for income gains for lower-skilled agricultural and industrial workers.
      I wonder what they define as "poverty", though?
    3. Re:Yup by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 1
      Yeah, it's actually very hard to come up with consistent numbers. I just did a little poking, the Indian gov't claims ~25%, but I found sources that still quoted as high as 50%. You hit the nail on the head -- what's poverty? We talk about the poor in America, but no one in America lives like the poorest of India and Africa, unless they're seriously mentally impaired.

      The most interesting quote I read was by a famous Indian intellectual who said something to the extent economic growth is *always* followed by a decline in poverty. India has, since 1991, had its greatest economic growth ever.

      At any rate, it's safe to say they're doing much better than they were, but they've still a long way to go.

  128. Nice move. We need more outsourcing! by $criptah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I want more outsourcing! In fact, I want companies to start outsourcing managers, exects, QAs, designers, and accountants. I want those people to feel the results of unemployment and I can't wait to see guys in Armani suits bitch about it! Why? Because I want them to feel what thousdands of American IT workers feel right now. I want them to wonder about all the years they spent in college, all the loans, morgages, families, kids and their future. This is how I feel whenever I start cutting out coupons and wonder if I have enough money to pay my rent this month.

    Until the issue of foreign labor hits the hightest steps of corporate ladder nothing is going to be done. The funny thing is that if outsourcing is going to continue at this pace, pretty soon we'll end up in a world where only a few people will have buying power. Both American and foreign workers will not have capital; just watch the world's economy go down the crapper.

    1. Re:Nice move. We need more outsourcing! by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with that, though, is that at the very top, guess what? Outsource them and they're left with their measly multi-million dollar severance package to just "Get by on". Unless they were very financially imprudent, life just goes on for them and they'll never feel the crunch most out-of-work IT workers are facing.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    2. Re:Nice move. We need more outsourcing! by Cyno · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is typical. You screw me so I want you to get screwed just as bad. This doesn't solve anything and only makes our environment worse.

      What we need to do is educate the managers, execs, etc. that there is more to life and work than money. That if we work together to take care of eachother that our environment will not be destroyed for the profits of some corporation striving for globalization.

      What you are saying is since globalization is hurting you you want it to get so bad it hurts everyone. But what do any of us know. We're just spectators to one of the dumbest systems ever created.

      I bet 200 years ago when it was created people thought it was brilliant. But looking back at history I think we could have come this far without slavery.

      And just what is slavery? Working for no money. So instead of slavery today we are slowly moving the work to people who are willing to work for less and less. Think of it this way. There was a time when we needed everyone to work. But today we have computerized automation which means we only need a fraction of the work force to produce the same amount of product. So we lay off most of our employees. Now we recognize that some people are willing to work for less than other. And some countries don't have a minimum wage. So we hire people and pay them next to nothing, in effect creating slavery out of capitalism.

      I don't know. I got everything I want so I guess it doesn't really matter whatever happens to all of you. But I think things could be better for all of us if they were different.

  129. My company... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    has outsourced most of its heavy development to the indigenous people of some small Pacific islands who work in exchange for shiny glass beads. The sharp rocks, spears, and pelts haven't really helped our e-commerce site much though, but you can't beat the price.

  130. You are a dumbass. by 2names · · Score: 0, Troll
    When people do things "for the Company" or "for the Organization," they absolutely ARE doing it for their own gain.

    Dumbass.

    --
    "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    1. Re:You are a dumbass. by joss · · Score: 1

      This is not a difficult concept, try again...

      Ant - ant's nest
      Neuron - brain
      middle manager - corporation
      raindrop - thunderstorm

      When something is made up of lots of pieces, the object itself can have a behaviour which is distinct to the consituent parts.

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    2. Re:You are a dumbass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you. The problem is that globalization is essentially a way to exclude more people from your riches. A CEO of a multinational does very well for himself by outsourcing. He and his officers will make lots of money. Stockholders will make some money. Everyone else is screwed.

      So, the people at the top are acting in their own best interests by screwing everyone else.

      If there was a button that you could press that would add $1000 to your bank account, while taking it from some anonymous stranger, many people would press it. This is what corporate executives are doing, and it isn't right.

    3. Re:You are a dumbass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There are many people who given the choice between firing 3000 workers and quiting themselves, would choose to quit. Given the choice between 3000 workers and the corporation going under, these same people would choose to fire the workers though. In this example these people have done something for the organization which they would not do for themselves. The poster never said that they are not making decisions for their own gain.

    4. Re:You are a dumbass. by benzapp · · Score: 1

      But what you don't realize is there has been a hundred year effort since the advent of public schools to train free humans to be part of an organization rather than think for themselves.

      This is what the study of sociology was originally created for. This is why books like Brave New World were written. This is why you spend 16 years of your life in school.

      The modern system of organization exemplified by the corporation was the product of vast studies and research, it permeates our very existence in every way. It was done so that people stop thinking for themselves and do what they are told.

      It is a difficult concept because simply having free people live together does not produce the amoral behavior found in corporations. It requires a certain kind of person. That kind of person must either be trained in a school or desperate. It is usually the former.

      Your apparent ignorance of this world wide trend over the last 100 years proves you are a dumbass. Don't be so quick to judge.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    5. Re:You are a dumbass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Reminds me of this poster from Despair.com

      Irresponsibility
      No Single Raindrop Belives it is to Blame for the Flood.

    6. Re:You are a dumbass. by peaworth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wow. Now I really want a time machine to take me back to 100 years ago. Because according to you, before the advent of public schools, the world was a utopia.

      But what you don't realize is there has been a hundred year effort since the advent of public schools to train free humans to be part of an organization rather than think for themselves.

      So the world was filled with clones of Plato and Aristotle, filling the world with enlightened thoughts. But tell me, if the world was filled with altruistic free thinkers, who formulated and implemented this vast conspiracy?

      This is what the study of sociology was originally created for. This is why books like Brave New World were written. This is why you spend 16 years of your life in school.

      One would suspect, especially one with a sense of humor and a taste for sarcasm, that Brave New World was written to satirize this type of world and make free thinkers examine their own world. (Oops, no more free thinkers. Blows that theory to shit.)

      The modern system of organization exemplified by the corporation was the product of vast studies and research, it permeates our very existence in every way. It was done so that people stop thinking for themselves and do what they are told.

      And you escaped this web of mind control, how?

      It is a difficult concept because simply having free people live together does not produce the amoral behavior found in corporations. It requires a certain kind of person. That kind of person must either be trained in a school or desperate. It is usually the former.

      So, in this utopia of pre-public education, there were no violent acts, violations of others rights, or crime of any kind?

      Your apparent ignorance of this world wide trend over the last 100 years proves you are a dumbass. Don't be so quick to judge.

      Don't forget to refresh the tin-foil in your hat. Cheers.

    7. Re:You are a dumbass. by benzapp · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wow. Now I really want a time machine to take me back to 100 years ago. Because according to you, before the advent of public schools, the world was a utopia.

      Perhaps they did not have the modern conveniences, but 100 years ago people were undoubtedly more civilized than today. The world was hardly a utopia, but people were more intelligent and more kind towards one another. We are not talking about utopia, we are merely talking about day to day civility.

      So the world was filled with clones of Plato and Aristotle, filling the world with enlightened thoughts. But tell me, if the world was filled with altruistic free thinkers, who formulated and implemented this vast conspiracy?

      The first public school systems on a vast scale were implimented in Prussia after their defeat at the hands of Napolean in 1803 at the battle of Jena. The military regime of the german military machine was applied to the youngest of ages. It was later adopted by german industrial powers, until American powers grasp on to the idea. The French used forced schooling more for eliminating Celtic languages during the early days of the Third Republic.

      I must say however that the initial impetuts was in fact Plato's republic, which you obviously have not read. Whole chapters deal with this very concept of forced education. Check out Warped Minds, Warped Societies some day. Plato was obviously influenced heavily by the Spartans.

      One would suspect, especially one with a sense of humor and a taste for sarcasm, that Brave New World was written to satirize this type of world and make free thinkers examine their own world. (Oops, no more free thinkers. Blows that theory to shit.)

      I don't follow your logic, but you are right. The book was written to satirize the way society was being forcibly changed.

      And you escaped this web of mind control, how?

      And who is talking about mind control? There is a big difference between social conditioning and mind control.

      So, in this utopia of pre-public education, there were no violent acts, violations of others rights, or crime of any kind?

      And who is making this assertion?

      By amoral, I mean unthinking. The reason military training techniques are so necessary is you do not want your soldiers questioning your orders. This is perhaps desirable on the battlefield, but when it is transferred to every day life the results are unpredictable. Hate to tell you this, but Plato discusses this in the Republic.

      The protagonists are of course the Germans. Read up on those very early post-napoleanic compulsory schools in Prussia.

      Don't forget to refresh the tin-foil in your hat. Cheers.

      Wow you're really fucking creative aren't you. Please, if you are going to insult me, try to use something a wee little bit more creative.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    8. Re:You are a dumbass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget to refresh the tin-foil in your hat. Cheers.

      Wow you're really fucking creative aren't you. Please, if you are going to insult me, try to use something a wee little bit more creative.


      Refresh the tin-foil in your ass-hat?

    9. Re:You are a dumbass. by GMontag · · Score: 1

      What many readig this may not realize is that benzapp's words are a recitation of Noam Chomsky propoganda.

      Who are the brainwashed ones? The ones that create a utopia in the past and demand one in the present, or those that realize that this is just so much hot air?

      I think the former. YMMV

  131. Automatization? by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    Is that anything like automation?

    Sean

  132. Romanian minimum wage by thefinite · · Score: 1

    I was just wondering where you got that information about Romania's minimum wage. I would be suprised if it is really what you say. When I was there (admittedly four years ago), the average monthly income was below $200/month. I've heard from others that things have not improved much since I left. Just curious.

    --
    Boom Shanka
    1. Re:Romanian minimum wage by heXXXen · · Score: 1

      searching on google, either i read it wrong, or i shouldn't believe everything i see on the internet :D

    2. Re:Romanian minimum wage by kinnell · · Score: 1
      searching on google

      Next time, try the CIA World Factbook ;-)

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
  133. They are substandard by Achmed+Swaribabu · · Score: 1
    It's really quite plain and quite simple.

    We have been turning potential clients away for the past two years, all of them American clients too. Of course we are a level 5 EM certified shop with all our algorithms promised to run at Olog(n) or better. We promise or your money back. We do better work than most American shops at a fraction of cost.

    These shops are peoples who only have maybe high school education and no learning on the high level programming technigues so it makes sense for those people to lose works. And the same thing will happen in these other countries where peoples find out it really isn't that hard to program and then you get more competition and the price goes down and the work goes somewhere else. You have to be the best if you want to survue and make a buck in todays global market.

    Funny how Frank Brooks book The Mythical Man Month talked about this 20 years ago and it's still true today.

    --

    All the best,
    --Achmed

    Swaribabu Consulting Inc. -- We code so you don't have to

  134. Something here isnt right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Per capita GDP in Russia is something like 8x that of India (8k according to the CIA factbook). Not enough people in Vietnam speak English for this to ever happen on a mass scale etc...

  135. Re:Is there a country were people will work for fr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and multiply

    Please donÂt.
  136. Replacement Jobs by xyote · · Score: 1
    Well, they can always turn to higher paying replacement jobs when they lose the ones they have. Oh, wait! Those were the higher paying jobs.


    Overall, I believe this has been characterized as a race to the bottom. Economics -- meet entropy!

  137. Problems with cheap labour by Hellraisr · · Score: 1

    One of the largest problems I know for a fact that IBM has is the time zone conversion. My company works with IBM and some of the work on our application is done right in India. It's really difficult to get answers to questions regarding interfaces when there's such a huge time difference.

    Still, we are based in another country (Canada), but we're only an hour ahead of eastern standard, so it is nowhere near as bad.

  138. The Shore and the Cliff Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is from a really high up "bird's eye view".

    What separates the low per capita income countries from the rich countries ?
    Answer : Industrial goods. Rich countries have long had the advantage of selling industrial goods to other countries which don't have them.

    Why do rich countries get richer and poor countries get poorer ?
    Answer : The enabling capabilities of mass production and economies of scale severely limits the capabilities of poor countries to compete in selling industrial goods. In other words, third world countries can't sell and produce cars because the market is already full of American and Japanese cars (ok, and quite a few European ones).

    And typically, poor countries have agriculture-based economies. In order to get vital foreign currency, they have to sell agricultural products and compete with a lot of other poor countries selling the same thing. There are no economies of scale in doing farming.
    Except when mechanized farming is implemented which is beyond the reach of most poor countries.
    Indeed, the rich countries also compete in selling agricultural products and win big because of mechanized farming. Factor in the rich countries' government's direct and indirect subsidies.

    Add to this the conspiracy of "Development Aid" to poor countries by the rich countries which have "strings" attached that basically prevents the poor countries from investing in industrialization programs.

    Getting back on topic, what is happening now ?
    Answer : Migration of labor. The huge differences in standards of living has finally reached a point where corporations could gain competitive advantage by moving their operations to poorer countries (very obvious).

    Why is this happening ?
    Answer : a)Education. Poor countries have finally built their education infrastructures that enable them to be globally competitive. From my observation here in the US, people only take collegiate level education when the ROI is good. In other countries, collegiate level education is normal. Everybody who could afford it gets one. b)Stiff corporate competition.

    What is the effect ?
    Answer : There will be a leveling out. Think about the excesses of the 80's and the dotcom boom. Those will be no more. Poor countries that will be able to take advantage of this labor migration will obviously benefit.

    However, for political and cultural reasons, the businesses and jobs that have higher value added will still remain in the rich countries. On the other hand it remains to be seen if the rich countries' labor sector could withstand the job losses. Their governments should find a way to soften the impact do avoid economic collapse.

    All these seems obvious. It's the invisible hand !

    It is just trimming the excesses of purchasing power that have existed during the 70's, 80's, and 90's.

  139. India and China have huge populations by totierne · · Score: 1

    Indians competing with each other and Chinese competing with each other will keep wages down for all but the most skilled and experienced Chinese and Indian, there is no pressing reason to go outside these huge developing buckets of cheap labour. I am trying to facilitate
    offshore outsourcing to Belarus and Russia, from Ireland, but the Irish companies or divisions of American companies in Ireland are not interested enough - yet.

  140. History *is* on the side of business by thefinite · · Score: 2, Informative

    I am having a hard time understanding what is bad about this cycle. The jobs move away? In America, they were replaced with higher-paying, higher-skilled jobs. The distribution of wealth became less even? Even if that is the case (and there is a lot of information disputing that), the *overall* standard of living became significantly higher. Just because a textile worker wasn't making as much as his boss doesn't mean he wasn't making more than before he got the job.

    The example from America's history is proof that India did the *right* thing. Look where we are now in average standard of living compared to the rest of the world.

    --
    Boom Shanka
  141. moronic comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's hard to know where it will all end. Is there a country were people will work for free?

    Low rate when converted to US$$ != FREE

    Assuming an Indian IT worker gets paid 20k Rs a month, it may not sounds like much when you convert it to US $$s(400$). The value of the $$ relative to the rupee is tied to the value of good and services exported by India. As India exports more software, the value of the Rupee will go up relative to the $$. Whereas 1 $ gets you about 50Rs today, it will get you 30Rs in the near future. OTOH, American produced goods that cost 1$(50Rs) before will now cost 1$(30Rs) when sold in India. That means more American products sold in India. That means jobs for American workers.

    1. Re:moronic comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American produced goods that cost 1$(50Rs) before will now cost 1$(30Rs) when sold in India.

      You are assuming that the Indian people are using their American dollars to purchase American goods. That is not always the case. They could use it to buy oil from the mid-east, computer hardware from taiwan, ships from italy and south korea, electonics from japan, korea, military hardware from russia ... etc.

    2. Re:moronic comments by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

      "That means more American products sold in India. That means jobs for American workers. "

      Are you retarded or something??
      Those people don't buy SHIT from anyone. All they do over there is make more little Indians and live in worse and worse squalor. They live in tin shacks stacked on top of each other. Cattle wander the streets while they starve. They use the "bathroom" in the streets, the just hike up the skirt and squat where ever it pleases them to go.

      They have no concept of sanitation. They have no concept of anything except sex and squalor. They live in it. They are just about the poorest county on earth with few exceptions.

      They don't buy anything from the US because they can't afford anything, they dig in the trash for rags so they won't go naked.
      Not to mention, nothing is made here anymore anyway. In case you haven't noticed, all the factories have closed up and left for turd world countries. Remember NAFTA and GATT???
      Been to WalMart lately??? Check the tags on your shirts, pants, shoes, computer, DVD player, TV, mouse, keyboard, car parts, etc....

      A reality check is in order for you buddy....

  142. Quality and price ar not the only arguments... by dpotop · · Score: 1

    ...and the best example is Microsoft. In fact, I never understood why Microsoft doesn't open an R&D center in Romania.

    Given the number of Romanians it employs in Redmond, it is not at all clear that it follows the lowest-cost argument. Someone can explain?

    1. Re:Quality and price ar not the only arguments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very simple. All the good guys flee to US, Germany, France, etc, you name it, and all it's left is technical support dummies.

  143. Not all Corporations are out to screw everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russell A. Gerdin, the CEO of Heartland Express (HTLD), apparently believes - silly Gerdin - that the company shouldn't screw its shareholders as a matter of fundamental policy. Imagine that! Sorta bizarre seeing THIS in a proxy:

    Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Gerdin receives a base salary only, with no bonus or long-term incentives. The Board of Directors recognizes Mr. Gerdin's substantial responsibility and contribution to the Company's operating performance, operating margin, revenue and net income growth rates, and attainment of Company goals, as well as his large stockholdings. At Mr. Gerdin's
    request, his salary has remained the same since 1986, and he has never been paid a bonus. The Board believes that Mr. Gerdin's salary is reasonable compared to similarly situated executives, and that as a holder of approximately 40% of the Company's outstanding stock, Mr. Gerdin receives an incentive through appreciation in the value of the Company's stock. Because of Mr. Gerdin's request, the Board of Directors has not considered or approved an increase in
    annual compensation or any incentive compensation for Mr. Gerdin. Thus, corporate performance directly affects Mr. Gerdin, but not through his compensation by the Company.

    What did they say? A holder of 40% receives an incentive through appreciation of the stock? What an incredible idea!

    But wait - several of the company insiders got stock awards last year. Just terrible, right? Well:

    On March 7, 2002, Russell Gerdin transferred 90,750 shares of his Common Stock to key employees, including 40,000 shares to the named executive officers. Shares distributed under the award generally vest over a five year period or upon death or disability of a recipient. Unvested shares cannot be sold, assigned, or transferred and are to be forfeited to Mr. Gerdin in the event of a
    recipient's termination of employment.

  144. No dice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dropped a nuke? Hardly.

    You talk about reciprocity as if it has no downsides. From a game theory perspective, perhaps that's true. But it's ludicrous to treat a problem "solved in game theory" as something that's painless and easy for people in the real world. When jobs are lost, people's lives get destroyed. Families starve. Welfare rolls increase until they can be re-trained and brought back into the workforce, during which time workers have the pain of wasting months or years of their lives trying to re-establish a new life. Economic transition is never simple, and rarely in real life does everybody win.

    Moreover, just because a country can grow and supply us with picked bananas better than we can pick them ourselves doesn't mean that everyone there wants to pick bananas. It doesn't equate to a higher standard of living for the banana pickers, because the country with the power to change its market - i.e., the United States - can purchase from another country that is willing to pay its workers less.

    While the United States and Britain were struggling painfully through the Industrial Revolution, we eventually made a choice - as a society - that there had to exist certain minimum standards of quality of life. We implemented a minimum wage and safety standards for equipment because too many people were dying without them. It was a fantastic economic situation for the producers, because they could set their own wages, but we very quickly realized the toll that it takes on the average worker. Now, other countries are realizing this, but to raise the standard of living it lowers their attractiveness as a labor market, and... boom! All the money is gone. We, as a world, have to choose to raise standards of living. The market alone has no incentive to do so, as the Industrial Revolution proved - everything that happened, happenened because of protests, because of social activism, and ultimately, because of legislation.

    I'm not a socialist. But I hardly think that unfettered free markets are the answer to all the world's problems. If you, as a consumer, are looking for a higher standard of living, corporations will never grant you one of their own free will. Perhaps there is a particular game theory which states that they should. Unfortunately, corporations are not always rational, and are rarely playing the game for the long term.

    1. Re:No dice. by CommieLib · · Score: 1

      Reciprocity with no downsides? Hardly. It's simply Pareto optimal, like I...<sigh/> said...

      I, frankly, don't have the patience any more for free trade arguments. Free trade is to economists as evolution is to biologists.

      By the way, didn't you just restate the same reservations I expressed about free markets?

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
  145. Serious Sam.. by Rinikusu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know much about the whole situation, but consider:
    Serious Sam is considered one of the most fun games of late. It cost $20 at the store. The developers are all in the former Yugoslavia. The cost of living in Yugoslavia (and living wages, etc) are *tiny* compared to the US. Not only do they not have to sell a lot of games to make an equivalent amount of money as they would if they were based here in the US, but it proves that there are LOTS of creative and talented programmers elsewhere who can produce QUALITY work and still make a good living for themselves. Personally, I love seeing other countries offer up their best and brightest, it ups the bar for the rest of us. I like the competition!

    --
    If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    1. Re:Serious Sam.. by Archimonde · · Score: 1

      Same can be said about Mafia. Great game developed by Czech programmers.

      --
      Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
  146. Tariffs make things worse for everyone... by thefinite · · Score: 1

    They cost Americans $50B/year and the third world $150B/year. See here.

    --
    Boom Shanka
    1. Re:Tariffs make things worse for everyone... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      The article says that the $50B it costs Americansis due to higher prices...

      No kidding!... You mean more fees make products more expensive?

      The thing it doesn't even begin to address is that, if the tarriff is dropped, much more money is going out of the USA, which means, in a generation or two, there aren't many American jobs anymore. The low price of products doesn't make much difference when there is an incredibly high unemployment rate.

      Ross Perot was right... Sit back and listen to the great sucking sound.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Tariffs make things worse for everyone... by TheSync · · Score: 1

      As global trade was RISING during the late 90's, American unemployment was FALLING. Now that global trade has cooled, US unemployment has been RISING. Rising global trade (and higher US trade deficits) are correlated with higher US GDP rises and lower US unemployment.

      By saving money through foreign trade, it means Americans can actually become richer. That means more jobs here.

    3. Re:Tariffs make things worse for everyone... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      As global trade was RISING during the late 90's, American unemployment was FALLING. Now that global trade has cooled, US unemployment has been RISING.

      Indeed, and a million other things rose as unemployment fell, and fell as unemployment rose. You cannot show causation, because it doesn't exist. Even the parent post indicated that 3Xs more money would be going out than would be comming in.

      By saving money through foreign trade, it means Americans can actually become richer. That means more jobs here.

      You cane make everything cost $1, but when all the jobs are overseas, no Americans will be able to pay the dollar. There are industries that will flourish with global trade, but there are very few of them, and certainly not enough to sustain the country.

      Take a look at the auto industry for the typical example of what dropping tarriffs will do...

      Or take a look at Mexico. Imports of cheap products hasn't brought the country out of poverty. Instead, it brought a few laborers a little more money, while the majority went into the pockets of the rich minority who already dictate how the country runs.

      RANT: Seems strange that we had to go to Iraq to find people in need of liberation. Oh, that's right, Mexico probably doesn't have much oil.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:Tariffs make things worse for everyone... by TheSync · · Score: 1
      Or take a look at Mexico. Imports of cheap products hasn't brought the country out of poverty. Instead, it brought a few laborers a little more money, while the majority went into the pockets of the rich minority who already dictate how the country runs.

      Yes, and without that trade, those laborers would be even poorer. Is that what we want?

      Why do you think Mexican workers flock to the Maquiladoras? Because it beats 1) the fields and 2) unemployment.

      Mexican GDP benefits greatly from trade with US. The country is still very poor - it spent nearly a century of socialist/protectionist rule, and it still is only slowly aligning with the global economy.

      It will take a while for the Mexican economy to grow, but it is. Trade is an important (but my no means the only) part of that.

      It took about 50 years for South Korea to go from one of the poorest places on Earth to an economy that rivals some European countries. It did this to a large extent through trade. Mexico will also need a long time, 20-40 years, of continued growth before it will no longer be poor.
    5. Re:Tariffs make things worse for everyone... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Yes, and without that trade, those laborers would be even poorer. Is that what we want?

      Free Software is getting more popular, but without people buying software, programmers will be poor. Is that what we want?

      Of course, the answer is "No. BUT..."

      Example: For the $1 going into the pockets of Mexican laborers, 10 go to the rich... Making laborers $1 poorer is unfortunate, but the alternative is to keep throwing American wealth into the bottomless pit. In the long term, this is a VERY VERY bad thing, even for the laborers.

      If you want to raise the GDP of Mexico, find some better way to do it. This way is sucking the life out of America, all while not making mexicans much better off (and worse-off in the long-term).

      Now, since you've done nothing but made mindless arguements, with zero substance, I'm washing my hands of this conversation. You can go right ahead looking at one point of the issue, and ignoring all the others, but I'm not going to take any part of this stupidity.

      And a bit of advice... Don't even think of being an economist.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:Tariffs make things worse for everyone... by TheSync · · Score: 1
      My suggestion is to read what a real economist says about trade, growth, and poverty.

      http://www.bsos.umd.edu/econ/panagariya/apecon/P ol icy%20Papers/miracles%20and%20debacles-panagariya. pdf

      Virtually all growth miracles [of developing countries] we can identify are associated with rapid expansion of trade rather than wholesale substitution of imports by domestic production. Evidence also fails to point to a finger at free trade as the cause of economic failures...
      Few countries have grown rapidly without a simultaneous rapid expansion of trade...
      It is rare that countries have grown at 3% of more in per-capita income terms on a sustained basis and failed to reduce poverty.


    7. Re:Tariffs make things worse for everyone... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      That paper was quite simply bull. There was no actual evidence to support any of the claims made. All "evidence" used was subjective, specific, and anecdotal, since he never once tried to show causation (rather, he just assumed the relationship).

      I guess, if you have enough money, you can an expert in any field to support your position.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  147. Re:The democratic pa...{warning, OFFTOPIC} by untaken_name · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You do know that Saddam did all of those awful things, like gasing his own people before the first war. Why wasn't that a good enough reason then?

    Ask the UN. They preferred to give saddam another decade in power.

    Local taxes support the infrastructure of the city that I live in. State taxes support my state. I don't believe that every cent that I give in taxes - as an American - goes to all "welfare bums". Obviously you have little respect for your fellow Americans who may be in a lower tax bracket than you. Do all of us a favor and please move to a different country. Right now. And take your friends, too.

    Welfare recipients do not pay taxes. They do not pay property taxes, they do not pay state income taxes, they do not pay national taxes. Yet they receive a living from other people's taxes. I understand that sometimes people need a little help, however I fail to understand how 'a lifetime of subsistence living paid for by others' is *help*. My problem is not with *a* welfare system, it's with the *current* welfare system. I also believe that people *should* contribute to charity, but that doesn't mean I'm going to propose legislation that not only forces them to, but also specifies the amount they must give, and to whom it will be given.

    Also something people need to realize: we only have about half the people in the country paying taxes. How low will that number get before the despised 'rich' who are now paying the vast majority of actual tax dollars decide to go somewhere where they don't have to subsidize the same ratio of people? We have an interesting phenomenon in this country: we all want to have more money, but anyone with more money than us is evil. Of course, I don't see *any* prominent politicians living in habitat for humanity housing and giving every last little bit of their money away. In fact, I was told that one of the senators from WA was 'a great man' because *once a month* he invited a homeless person to dinner. Wow man. Once a month you bring some poor homeless guy into your mansion, and let him have a taste of what you get the rest of the time, then send him back outside. That sure is a 'great man.' Think, people. Politicians don't care about you. They care about your vote, and spending your money. If wealth redistribution is such a good thing, why are the Kennedys still so freaking rich? Not that redistribution would work. If we took every bit of money and property in this country, and distributed it exactly equally to everyone, do you really think it would stay that way? Giving everyone in this country the same amount of money would not make them exactly the same.
    Also, I see a lot of this 'aww the rich get a bigger tax cut! that isn't fair!' Well no, not if by fair you mean exactly the same for everyone. But if by fair you mean that the people who pay the most in taxes get the biggest benefit, well...shouldn't they? Here's an example for you.
    Let's say I'm out to dinner with some of my friends, and when the bill comes, I can only pay 10% of it, bob can afford 30% of it, and bill gets stuck with the 60% remaining, plus tip. Now say we get a 30 dollar refund for bad service or food or something. Do we split it evenly, three ways? Of course not. Bill gets 18 bucks, bob gets 9, and I get 3. How would it be fair to split it evenly, when not everyone contributed equally?
    I'd also like to point out that the tax cut we're getting isn't the one Mr. Bush proposed. It's substantially smaller. If it isn't helping enough people, perhaps you should look to the libbies who killed the larger tax cut.

    3) Makes absolutely no sense.

    I can't believe that you've read /. more than once and haven't encountered some variation on this lame joke from south park. Sure, the episode was funny, but as a slashdot joke, it's played. seriously played. Even by slashdot standards.

    Just one last question for you. How long did you actually serve in the public sector? You seem like such a giving individual that g

  148. Let's bring the jobs home to Amerika! by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It should be illegal to do what these companies do.
    If you are an US company, be a US company, or leave. Go away and do business in the cesspool of your choice.

    These offshore support places can't be trusted with personal information, they will screw you.

    They can't speak English well enough to be understood, and they are too stupid anyway to understand how anything more advanced than a cow or a mud hut operates, god forbid them consider understanding something like a computer..

    GREED is why jobs are leaving the US at the speed of light. Only the big wigs at the very top of the food chain get rich by screwing everyone under them. Then when it begins to catch up with them they cash in their options and head for the border.

    GREED... Nothing less than pure greed......

  149. Outsourcing management by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
    For an excellent discussion of a post-capitalist economic model, in which the size of companies is limited and management is hired by the workers, see Kim Stanley Robinsons third Mars book, "Green Mars". About a fifth of the way through, there is some detailed debate about the future Martian economic system - it is filled with interesting ideas.

    I wish I knew of a place it was available online, but if nobody knows of such a place I'd recommend that you buy the book. It's excellent.

    1. Re:Outsourcing management by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      Management (or at lease elect board members) can be hired by the workers if the workers have enough shares of the company but that didn't work out too well for United Airlines.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
  150. Moron ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Greed is the foundation of capitalism.

    It is how supply balances demand. And how demand balances supply.

    It is the invisible hand.

  151. Maybe the "racism" charges will now end by smagruder · · Score: 1

    Perhaps Indians will now stop calling Americans who complain about the rampant outsourcing "racist". Sweet.

    It's all about a bandwagoned race to the bottom. Every laborer on Earth is (or will be) affected, and it's _not_ good for anybody.

    --
    Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
    1. Re:Maybe the "racism" charges will now end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with being called a racist?
      Blacks can be "proud to be black" as can every other race, except White people. How come the second a White person says he's "proud to be White" he's labeled as evil???

    2. Re:Maybe the "racism" charges will now end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because that IS evil.

  152. it actually does help them though by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    Of course the point isn't to help them -- the companies want to make money. But it does help them anyway, which is why all these people are tripping over themselves to get the jobs rather than saying "fuck you, keep your jobs." It results in quite a bit of money leaving the US and being paid to non-US workers, which results in them having more money than if US companies didn't hire anyone there.

  153. left/right and even enemies are obfuscations by zogger · · Score: 1

    Those two particular examples, saddam and osama- were supported first and foremost because they were and still are business partners with certain very high level politicians and their associated international corporations, and I'll include most nations central level "intelligence" and "police" organizations as way more corporate mercenaries than what they attempt to pass themselves off as. They are part of the muscle for these various crime cartels. It's a sweet deal for them because they get paid at BOTH ends. They get paid-usually by confiscated tax dollars once you follow the economics around-to create these problems. Then, after the problems *mysteriously* get out of control, they get paid to go in and "fix" them. Lather rinse repeat, they've been doing it a long time because it's a huge global scale sized political and economic scam that works, and it works fantastically well. Take it back an entire century and research it, see who the major funders were of the various sides in ww1 and 2 for more examples. You'll find out it was a lot of the same people-orgs/cartels/dynastys really-who funded all the sides in various ways. They've been laughing at the rubes (how they see most of us and how we are treated and conned) who keep falling for it, for generations now.

  154. Simple logic may not suffice by gwappo · · Score: 1
    Kill or be killed. Always has been and always will be.

    This is overly simplistic and simply untrue. The problem India has is that their value proposition is cost based "do same for less", or "do a little-bit less for a lot less".

    There is nothing inherently competitive about their business model, their infrastructure nor their location, that would make them more or less suitable to run your IT business at.

    It is this why they may very well loose out from where they are now.

    However this doesn't mean it has always to be this way. Might I remind you of Japan for example (though other examples exist), Japan rebuilt itself from scratch. It used to be that, "Made in Japan" was a trademark for "crappy cheapo products", but Japan Improved - infact, Japan improved itself soo much, it was mimicked all over the world by the "expensive" countries (quality circles and Kaizen, anyone?)! By improving its quality, the value it offered increased, by extension, the productivity of its workers increased and therefore the wages and economy strongly improved. The disruptive nature whereby you take the market by storm from the bottom and move up is well documented in The Innovator's Dillemma, and applies here (Innovation != Technology only).

    The big question, moving forward, for India is if they can create a sustainable competitive advantage -- one that is not soo easy to replicate? Perhaps local expertise, perhaps Indian development tools, perhaps elevate their education & know-how to and beyond Western-world levels (have an Indian institute be the frame of reference for top-notch technology, instead of today the MIT).

    Right now I'm reading The Competitive Advantage of Nations, the original reason for reading it was so I could understand how the high-cost countries could still doodle in technology while countries like India undercut us so much, but it'd appear India may soon be needing the same type of thinking.

    Exciting times ahead for observing bystanders.

    1. Re:Simple logic may not suffice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the law of , "Kill or be killed." Surely it would be better for myself to knock off Bill Gates to ruin his competition to my product? I could burn the Microsoft headquarters down, and that would certainly stiffle their competition! However, it does discount basic theories of moral philosophy that many humans live by. I'm not saying all humans, just the ones who seem to better serve the world. Sure, kill or be killed is valid darwinist rhettoric, but in that case, why bother cooperating at all? Why shouldn't I just rob your house and profit from it? Why do we have laws as social constructs to protect these things? The free market isn't some higher power that determines what humans are. It was created by a bunch of people to best serve their needs. That isn't a determining factor in humanity, it's simply a construct in which to pushes our human traits in certain ways.

  155. Even cheaper? by jpatokal · · Score: 1
    Wired has a strange definition of "cheaper"; I do believe every country on that list (except Vietnam) is, by most measures, better off than India. Some GDP per capita figures from the CIA World Factbook 2002:

    • India: $2540
    • Czech Republic: $15,300
    • and desperately impoverished little poor Singapore: $24,700
    If companies are relocating out of India to these, this is actually proving quite the opposite -- it's not enough to just look at the salary per employee, you also have to consider infrastructure, efficiency and quality. And even those American dinosaurs may be able to compete!

    Cheers,
    -j. (who outsourced himself to Singapore and got a pay raise in the process)

  156. the increase is a goal of free trade though by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    The entire point of free trade is that it's supposed to equalize wealth between nations by destroying protectionist markets (including protectionist labor markets as well as physical good markets). India's workers have a much lower wealth than American workers, so free trade tends to equalize that by propping them up at the expense of Americans -- the Indians move up and the Americans move down, and eventually they meet somewhere in between.

    I'd submit that the main problem with this is that the American workers like being richer than the Indians and don't want to be equalized. There's a lot of bitching about corporate greed, but what it really comes down to is that even if we redistributed wealth from the US to India perfectly so that the companies got none of it, it'd still piss off the American tech workers in the exact same way.

    1. Re:the increase is a goal of free trade though by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1


      That's right, I don't want to be equalized. Why should I care about an Indian programmer that's willing to work for 1/3rd what I am? I don't go to work with the goal of benefitting anyone but myself. I benefit my company, but they pay me, so they earned it.

      It's not racial bigotry; all the Indian folks I've met have been pleasant, engaging people. But sorry, when it comes down to business, I have to take care of my own, and if that means an Indian stays in a slum in Bombay, well, sorry. If you keep me from being able to take care of my financial obligations, you're the enemy.

  157. Is there a country were people will work for free? by NoCoward · · Score: 1

    "Is there a country were[sic] people will work for free?"

    Yeah, many of them. Haven't you heard of Open Source?

    Don't work for the corporations for free. Support Open Standards, not Open Source.

  158. Is there a country were people will work for free? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Well that's the question, isn't it? Maybe some corporation should buy up a bunch of land someplace nice, put a commune on it, and start offering living space and internet access to people willing to work for free. You can keep the rights to anything you write on your own time... Well, obviously some details have to be penned in. But this seems like the ultimate living situation for coders who feel that being paid for software is immoral. :)

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  159. but what's your solution? by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Labor supply is indeed far in excess of demand. But your solution seems to be to corner off small portions of labor and exclude the rest so that these small portions of labor remain in demand in their protectionist markets. What this amounts to is making these people "in demand" by relegating some people to an "even less in demand than before" ghetto where they can't even be considered for employment. In short, if the average free-market wage would be $0.75/day (making up numbers here), your solution increases the wage in some countries to $100/day at the expense of decreasing it in others to $0.10/day. Which is pretty much how things are.

    But you claim this is justified?

    1. Re:but what's your solution? by composer777 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nope, not at all. I never said that, and I don't appreciate having words put in my mouth. My solution is to encourage business growth, and to encourage a safety net and a minimum wage, which will also encourage business growth. Free trade is about allowing corporations to reward countries with the least regulations and standards of living with money, while countries that try to enforce democracy, environment regulations, and a minimum wage get the shaft.

      This isn't just my solution, it's the solution promoted by those who are against corporate globalization. If you read less propaganda, and started going striagh to the source (either online or in print) you would already know that.

      Corporations are the one who have portrayed this stark choice, but really, we have many choices about how to promote the spread of democracy and opportunity to other countries, and it doesn't necessarily have to entail free market capitalism either.

    2. Re:but what's your solution? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      and to encourage a safety net and a minimum wage

      Thats a LOT of countries you're going to have to lobby for these laws. Something like that is going to take a lot of money and time. Who are you going to get to fund this? Business (hah!)? The people who are already poor and underrepresented in a great many of the third world countries (hah!)?

      I'm against uncontrolled corporate globalization, but its already too late to stop it, corporations already own most of the world governments, including the US, so laws aren't going to do one bit. What would be required is compelete education of the masses... except that with nearly all mass media controlled by superconglomerates (which is only going to get worse, thanks FCC!) how do you expect to get people to care?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:but what's your solution? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Those are good solutions, but you also need strong disincentives for one company to own more than 40% of a market, getting stronger as the percentage increases until by 90% it is paying a 50% tax on all profits and by 95%, a 75% tax. And by 100%, a 100% tax.

      Probably the tax rate should be a smooth exponential function of the percentage of the market. The problem would be in defining exactly what a market was. But you don't want to have fewer than ten major companies in any industry.
      OTOH, there probably should be a cut-off point so that businesses smaller than some amount didn't need to pay any tax at all. If you use a smooth exponential function this would probably be when the tax bill would be less than $50. Or $20.

      And profits are too subjective. Base the tax on receipts. (Defining the market is going to introduce enough problems.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  160. Clarification by composer777 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We Trade for Imports

    Yes, we do trade for imports,....

    Unilateral Free Trade

    This is a joke, the aim of our corporate government is not to get imports into the US, but to get our corporations into their markets, which is why they only trade with countries that trade with us.

    Ok, it seems like the two quotes are contradicting each other. By "we" in the first statement, I mean the people of the US. In the second statement, I am referring to the corporate government, whose motives are different, IMO. There are also two kinds of imports, which I didn't necessarly make clear. There are intra-corporate imports, which is what corporations want, and their are imports that come from foreign companies which is what the rest of us Americans should desire. The reason we want the latter, is because foreign companies will typically return more of the profits to that country, which will mean higher wages for countries we trade with, which means more consumption by that country and more money flowing back into the American middle class. Intra-corporate imports means lower wages, and the profits get returned to that company and it's investors, who will simply hoard that money.

    1. Re:Clarification by f97tosc · · Score: 1

      Ok, it seems like the two quotes are contradicting each other. By "we" in the first statement, I mean the people of the US. In the second statement, I am referring to the corporate government, whose motives are different, IMO. There are also two kinds of imports, which I didn't necessarly make clear. There are intra-corporate imports, which is what corporations want, and their are imports that come from foreign companies which is what the rest of us Americans should desire. The reason we want the latter, is because foreign companies will typically return more of the profits to that country, which will mean higher wages for countries we trade with, which means more consumption by that country and more money flowing back into the American middle class. Intra-corporate imports means lower wages, and the profits get returned to that company and it's investors, who will simply hoard that money.

      The assumption here is that using off-shore labor for "intra-corporate" imports results in higher profits, and investors will "hoard that money". But this is true only if the market is not competitive. If the market is competitve, then all competitors will take similar action and the consumer will be the winner in terms of lower prices.

      American business is extremely competive. In spite of constant productivity improvements and offshoring of simpler activities corporate profits are not generally increasing.

      Tor

    2. Re:Clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intra-corporate imports means lower wages, and the profits get returned to that company and it's investors, who will simply hoard that money.

      Yeah, they just put it under thier mattresses and let it dissolve. No, they invest it, in which case they are in essence helping to produce something else of value to society, or they spend it on goods that they want, which they pay someone else to produce. Free Trade. Anything else is just unjust.

  161. the answer by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    Most calls to call centers are from people who haven't bothered to read the manual, or didn't understand it. It's basically an enforced "RTFM," only they read it out loud to you over the phone.

  162. they do give them back by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    Most people don't get rich just to have a big bank account -- they get rich so they can buy stuff. The money eventually gets back into the economy, though it may take some time. When you buy a yacht, go golfing, buy first-class plane tickets, build a beach house, buy three cars, and so on, that's supporting jobs all over the place.

    1. Re:they do give them back by halo8 · · Score: 1

      YES.. but they only need to own mabey 4 of 5 computers (cottage, mansion, office, apt, yacht) so.. top fortune 500 companies 10 directors and executive each

      500 X 10 X 5 = thats 5000 people left in the world with 25,000 computers. so how many techies to do you need to support thoes? 500? 100?

      --
      The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
    2. Re:they do give them back by QuackQuack · · Score: 1

      They also save and invest. These also help the economy:

      Saving is giving your money to the bank so that others can borrow and spend it.

      Investing is giving your money to some company so they can expand. Expanding means creating jobs.

      --
      By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
    3. Re:they do give them back by zenyu · · Score: 1

      Most people don't get rich just to have a big bank account -- they get rich so they can buy stuff.

      No one gets rich to buy stuff. That's what the middle class is for, even at a professional's $300k-500k middle class income you can buy most of the "stuff" you want. Getting rich is either the accidental result of doing something you want to do, like starting a company, or because you are motivated to see those numbers go higher.

  163. "Is there a country?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, that's called "slavery" and it's now illegal. However, that doesn't stop the neocons in power now from helping their cronies seek it out. Ever wondered why unemployment is so high?

    Irony: Conservatives bitch and whine about welfare, unemployment, and the like, but they create it by paying poor wages, sending jobs overseas, and wanting slavery to come back. IT'S THEIR FAULT!

  164. Different specialties by rolofft · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I benefit from being able to buy German beer, Japanense video games, French cheese, Canadian video cards, Turkish tobacco... Shouldn't people produce and sell what they can do best? If Indians (or Romanians) are efficient at producting software, more power to them. The economist Thomas Sowell does a good job of explaining why different countries are good at different things.

    I remember some years back when there was a local uproar about a Home Depot being built in Auburn, California. The big complaint was that Home Depot is a Georgia based company. Folks didn't want their California dollars going out of state to those Georgians all the way on the other side of the US. The cost of living is cheaper in Georgia. Buying things from Georgians is a "race to the bottom". Only buy things made in your own state... no, your own town... no, only things you make yourself!

    ---

    "If an exchange between two parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless both believe they will benefit from it. Most economic fallacies derive from the neglect of this simple insight, from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another." - Milton Friedman

    --

    "Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"

    1. Re:Different specialties by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Add Columbian cocaine and Afghan opium to that list.

      Oh wait...

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  165. Open Source Programmers work for free by hikerhat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Open source programmers and their viral GPL are slowly destroying the value of our high quality, patriotic, made in the USA software like Windows and SCO Unix. I think the only solution at this point is, through legislation, to restrict access to compilers, debuggers, emacs, vim and other software tools to God fearing American corporations. Home PC's must be registered with the government, and it should only be legal to run the IE web browser and that Army game on legacy PC's. This can be enforced with random spot checks. All new PC's must not include hard drives, (indeed hard drives will be classified as a munition and not available to the general public) and really can be nothing more than dumb terminals with a web browser hard wired into the firmware. God Bless America! Remember your motto citizen! "For AOL, Microsoft, God and Country!"

  166. you need to... by stephenMF · · Score: 1

    You need to check with the department of redundancy department.

  167. Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Concerned that outsourcing might be outsourced from India in the near future, a Bangalore call center owner said 'It's hard to know where it will all end. Is there a country were people will work for free?'

    Yeah, that's what you get for stealing our jobs bitch. Now you know what it feels like to lose your job to someone who will work for 0.35 cents an hour.

    1. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yeah, that's what you get for stealing our jobs bitch. Now you know what it feels like to lose your job to someone who will work for 0.35 cents an hour. "

      Fucking right man!

      Dothead (female) = push to start
      Diaperhead (male) = pull to start

      I'm sick of these filthy bastards taking *American* jobs! Let's keep the jobs HERE!!

  168. Unclear antecedent by davidstrauss · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I hate to be a grammar freak, but the reference to "they" in the posted story could be Novell or SCO. Each interpretation means exactly the opposite. While it wouldn't make sense for SCO to disclose an amendment that gives Novell ownership, that requires reading and thinking about the story, which we all know won't happen here.

  169. Switching countries due to over utilisation by totierne · · Score: 1

    Representation is needed in both the source of the work and where the work is done, international contract enforcement between non multinationals is difficult, so once an arrangement has been established there is a large barrier to expanding into new legal and business practice terrirories, until the current resource has been over utilised.

    Ireland may be an example of a tapped out resource as it is so small, and already has so many multinationals getting work done here. India and China are not overly utilised, tapped out resources.

  170. World Class Economy = Lowest Cost Denominator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any company that states that it is a World Class company producing a World Class product at a World Class price is really saying that it is a cheap company making a cheap product at slave wages and reaping maximum profits.

  171. 8 is just infinity standing up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Offshore Outsourcing Threatens Offshore Outsourcing"

    Just like "Saddam Hussein used his weapons of mass destruction to destroy his weapons of mass destruction."

  172. No suprise by DownTheLongRoad · · Score: 2, Insightful


    When I was spending time in the Philippine's several years ago, I had an interesting talk with an elected official in one of the provinces. He was discussing why developing countries had so much trouble becoming richer. They attract companies because of their low wages but if the wages start to go up, the companies simply relocate to a poorer country. How to break the cycle, he didn't know and I sure don't. The third world being kept poor to support the West I suppose.

  173. I will work for free by malus · · Score: 1

    As long as you pay my mortgage, my water bill, my phone(s) bill, my cable bill, my car payment, my beer habit, and a reasonable per diem for the following (but not discounting futher additions)
    1. Prostitutes
    2. Vacations
    3. methamphetimine
    4. computer hardware upgrades.

  174. I was in Romania last year... by hirschma · · Score: 2, Informative

    A few facts:

    * If you lose your job in Romania, the goverment pays you around $150/month in unemployment, effectively setting a minimum wage.

    * The average salary is about $200/month - but that is the average, skilled and non-skilled.

    * The average skilled salary is about $50-$100 higher, depending on discipline. Example: an insurance actuary, a person who computes premiums, gets about $300/month. That same job in the US would get about $60k, minimum, and requires advanced mathematics degrees.

    * Many Romanians have gone into business themselves to increase their earnings.

    * As of last year, any kind of bandwidth aside from modem access was horribly expensive, with T1s costing over $10k/month, payable in US currency or Euros.

    * Romanian women are just amazingly attractive as a group. Not totally on topic, but I can certainly understand why Western businessmen would want to prospect there :)

    The bottom line: it isn't cheaper to hire a Romanian over an Indian, and their English is less likely to be acceptable.

    So... it is likely that the corps are doing this as a way to avoid a spike in salary inflation in India - a negotiating tactic.

    jonathan

  175. "Japan"? by Brown · · Score: 1

    Japan is hardly in the running for a low-wage callcentre or similar; it's one of the most expensive countries in the world, with higher wages than most of Western Europe!
    They are more likely to be the customers of such services, and the owners of the multinationals doing the farming out.

    -Chris

  176. For those overusing the "quality" word... by Cassanova · · Score: 1

    I hope you are not overlooking the fact that India has the most CMM level 5 software companies - perhaps thats *also* got to do something with attracting foreign companies apart from "cheap" ? hmm? Just wanted y'all to keep that in perspective when discussing this, thats all...

    1. Re:For those overusing the "quality" word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out current addition of Software Developermagazine. A high CMM does not mean quality software.

  177. Romanian women by thefinite · · Score: 1

    I totally agree about the attractive women. The whole time I was there (2.5 years total) I was amazed at how many of them were so beautiful. Also, I knew an American businessman who had married a Romanian he met while over there. Beutiful country, beautiful language, and beautiful people. Let's just hope the economy gets beautiful too!

    --
    Boom Shanka
    1. Re:Romanian women by Sabina · · Score: 1

      thefinite, you made my day (even though I'm not one of the beautiful women; but "beautiful country and beautiful language" went straight to my heart)

    2. Re:Romanian women by neonstz · · Score: 1

      I was in Romania (Bucharest) for a few days in April, and unfortunately I can't agree with you on the "beautiful country" party. Ugly, empty buildings, stray dogs, pirate taxi drivers outside the airport trying to grab my luggage and so on. Bucharest may look better later in the spring/summer though. On the other hand, the restaurants were fine, the food was excellent and most of the people were nice. And yes, the women were good-looking too.

    3. Re:Romanian women by thefinite · · Score: 1

      Bucharest is a pretty ugly city, but that is the worst of it. If you had the chance to head just an hour and a half north by train to Brasov, you would have been amazed at how gorgeous the country is. If you ever get a chance to go back, try to make some time to travel around a bit. You would love it!

      --
      Boom Shanka
    4. Re:Romanian women by thefinite · · Score: 1

      Sabina, I am assuming from your name and comment that you are Romanian. What part? I spent some time pretty much all over, but it was years ago now. Si daca mai vorbesti romaneste, iti doresc toate cele bune! (Ce limba frumoasa!)

      --
      Boom Shanka
    5. Re:Romanian women by Sabina · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am romanian, from ugly Bucharest :-) (it's really not that ugly if you know where to go; actually it used to look better but during the comunism they torn down a lot of houses and built those ugly apartment complexes instead). And it's getting better; I was there last October and I found things improved (lots of new bars and shops)
      Multumesc pentru urari.

    6. Re:Romanian women by neonstz · · Score: 1

      I was in Bucharest for only a few days (arrived tuesday, left thursday), so I didn't have much time. But unfortunately the short visit didn't make me want to go back, and I most likely it won't be any more business-trips to Romania (i was just demonstrating some stuff at a conference).

    7. Re:Romanian women by Ataru · · Score: 1

      Yes, Brasov is great. The scenery around there is breathtaking. And you can go skiing in Poiana just up the road. I got married to a beautiful Romanian woman last year, in Brasov, her home town.
      I don't know Bucharest at all, my father in law picked me up from the airport and we drove straight to Brasov.
      I'm really looking forward to going back to Romania soon.

  178. The French are right by mechanos · · Score: 1

    It was only a matter of time before India got screwed too. All the free traders have it wrong. The race to the bottom simply creates new third world countries- the U.S. will be one soon. Only the French have it right- the businesses that had the opportunity to become successful in France keep their jobs there. Does Michael Dell think if he was born and raised in India he could have created the same company he has today? Unlikely. US businesses need to show some loyalty to the workers that made them so successful in the first place- AMERICANS !

  179. PS by composer777 · · Score: 1

    I can't do all your homework for you. It's obvious from reading your post, that you really don't know much about the stance of the far left, and have heard alot of bad information. You really need to read and understand the viewpoints of others to refute them. My suggestion is that you go to these sites and do some more reading. If you have any suggested reading for me, I'll be happy to take a look at it.

    www.zmag.org.
    www.parecon.org
    www.motherjones. com
    www.thismodernworld.com
    http://www.monkeyfis t.com/ChomskyArchive
    http://www.motherjones.com/

    There are many others, but you really need to see for yourself. Don't allow anyone to think for you, make up your own mind.

  180. Its called OpenSource... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where people write software adn give it away for free and bring down copanies that make money selling software... so they can lay off a lot of paid software developers and use the OSS with a few tweeks and make money out of the free software. So the software Engineers can become just like the Mussicians with MP3.

  181. Out of equilibrium by isomeme · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is how the world will look for the next fifty years or so. Formerly, markets and labor pools were isolated from one another by transport and regulatory barriers, with the result that standards of living could vary wildly from one part of the planet to another. Now, the barriers are low or gone, which means that the places with lower-priced labor are pulling jobs from higher-priced areas. Of course, this decreases the econonmic level of the former and increases the latter, causing wages to fall in the source country and rise in the sink country. Let this process run long enough, and the whole world will have roughly comparable labor pools working for roughly comparable wages at a roughly comparable standard of living. If we're lucky, we'll get everyone at something close to the current "first world" standard; if not, we'll get a straight averaging of the current world situation.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    1. Re:Out of equilibrium by JC1X · · Score: 1

      Given 'decades', technology for one would more likely converge on a 'first world' standard rather than the third. Afterall, in 10-15 years, we would probably have terabyte storage, teraflops processing, ?tens of? megabit net connection & say 15-17" display for $100-200. The other areas are the ones that would leave disequilibrium. Area such as Food, health, education, transportation, a roof & safety. In most cases technology should drive them to somewhat equalize (probably except safety). So things can be good.. all these with the caveat that we do not have any major war.

    2. Re: Out of equilibrium by Baldrson · · Score: 1
      If we're lucky, we'll get everyone at something close to the current "first world" standard; if not, we'll get a straight averaging of the current world situation.

      You're a gross optimist. If we're not lucky, we'll get the current situation and we don't even need to be even moderately unlucky to get it.

      If we're moderately unlucky we'll get a expansion of globalist dieases like autism.

      If we're really unlucky (we're talking 50 years here -- a "geologic age" these days) we'll get to terminate life.

  182. Switching to Architecture by codethug · · Score: 1

    The logical next step is to make the move from coding to architecture. It takes nearly a decade to go from being able to code in a computer language to being able to fully understand and accurately model business processes in a computer language.

    Modeling in an open way using tools like UML and ORM are important. Also, the choice between when to use a component and when to roll your own. When to loosely-couple, when to not.

    As web services come together, new opportunities in choreography and workflow are going to be big. Messaging will continue to be important. Finally, keeping up with the 'buzz', reading up on AOP and SOA.

    My point of all this is that outsourcing doesn't have to mean lost jobs. It means adapting to the new global market. Of course, if you're thinking that architecture is boring and what you really want to do is code, then that's fine too. Just know that you are going to be competing in a very price sensitive world.

  183. oh I agree with that by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    I like my standard of living, and don't want to be equalized with the third world either. But I don't pretend it's all about corporate greed and whatnot -- it's just about me liking having a good standard of living.

  184. Re:The French are right - whaaaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, maybe. I always dance a fine line between xenophobia and America first. But I have to admit, America first usually wins. I used to date a guy from Italy. He was born here, but not his parents. You want to know the biggest America first guy I ever met? Him. He was always asking questions about why America did not protect itâ(TM)s jobs, or citizens any better. He was the strongest protectionist I ever met (and I was a poli sci major!). It made me think that if this guy who dropped out of high school to become a successful Chicago businessman saw it, was I maybe missing the forest for the trees? I understand that globalization can ultimately benefit all (in theory), but you have to protect what is yours. The US was once the leader in this industry, no more. Why the outcry? â" Because this is NOT news⦠- because unlike the textile industry, this affects white-collar jobs. Which is what for the past 50 years we have been selling the youth of America as the penultimate. But we canâ(TM)t do that anymore. And my final question is, how many people go shopping with their conscience? DONâ(TM)T buy Nike, donâ(TM)t buy from sweatshops. Hey, I can shop at Velocity and be both cheap and picky. Put your money where your keyboard is. and btw, I am a coward. It's a pretty tough crowd here.

  185. Re:The French are right - whaaaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    er, ValuCity. damn spell-checker!

  186. What happens when we ARE the corporations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    - Automatization leads to fewer and fewer workers being needed to do the same amount of work, meaning higher profits for the producer.
    - Outsourcing leads to those workers being paid less and less , meaning again higher profits.
    - This, in turn leads to higher unemployment rates and a higher number of workers with low wages.
    It looks like you're German, so I don't know if you've been following what USA's president Bush has been up to (domestically). One of the things Bush appears to be doing, is address what you're talking about here. (Being a sceptic, I don't really believe it and suspect the actual motive is personal greed, but that's beside the point.)

    Look at two scenarios:

    • A company sell widgets. They pay income tax on the profit. They pay their workers to make the widgets. The workers pay income tax on their wages.
    • A company sells widgets. They pay income tax on the profit. They pay the remaining profit to their shareholders. The shareholders pay income tax on their dividends. For persuasion purposes, this is called "double taxation" whereas the wages scenario is not. (In truth, everything is taxed many times, the government putting a drag force on the economy at every level.)

    Bush's "fascist" solution (nasty word with nasty connotation; I use the word merely to point out that it's something a government is doing by force, rather than a market) is to use the tax system to micromanage the economy. We're lowering the tax on dividends while keeping the tax on wages high. I guess the idea is to create an artificial market force, whose purpose is to make you want this: be a producer. (But the principles that you outlined, show there is already a similar force, from a different cause.) Put everything you can scrape up, into the stock market. Then quit your job, because government doesn't like people having income from non-dividend sources, so we penalize it (relatively more, I mean).

    Of course, it totally sucks if you work for a living and don't have assets from your dad, Bush Sr, to invest. But if you can go with this flow, then maybe it's not too bad.

    Anyway, my fellow Americans, here's the scoop: If you get W2s at the end of the year, you're fucked. If you get 1099s, you're not.

  187. I agree with some of that by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    There are some external costs that aren't properly accounted for by free trade, particularly environmental and political issues. However, I think even if that were all taken into account, we'd end up with a very similar situation -- the fact is that most of the world has a far lower standard of living than we do, so without protectionism this will even out somewhat, which will result in evening them upwards and evening us downwards. Basically if you were to pick a sustainable minimum wage that's uniform for the entire world, it'd probably be in the range of $1/hour (if not less), which would represent quite a wage cut for western workers (but a significant wage increase for most of the world).

  188. Outsourcing details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Indian call center workers receive meticulous training before they are allowed to field tech support calls. Farhat Gupta, owner of several Bangalore call centers, said that little attention is paid to technical training, as "all the answers are always on the computer screen in front of the workers. We exist for people who do not want to use the Internet themselves to find their own answers."

    Bullshit on many levels. These sript readers have little technical common sense. Anything that deviates from the script sends them into a tizzy!
    1)
    Tech Support "Sir , my name is Robert, thank you for calling HP, how may I help you today?"
    User "There is smoke coming out of my Pavilion"
    Tech Support "I need you to get into CMOS and tell me the settings sir"

    2)
    Tech Support "Sir , my name is Robert, thank you for calling HP, how may I help you today?"
    User "This PC gets no power, it will not turn on"
    Tech Support "I need you to get into CMOS and tell me the settings sir"

    3)
    Tech Support "Sir , my name is Robert, thank you for calling HP, how may I help you today?"
    User "Windows tells me there is no modem installed"
    Tech Support "I need you to get into CMOS and tell me the settings sir"

    4)
    Tech Support "Sir , my name is Patricia, thank you for calling HP, how may I help you today?"
    User "There is smoke coming out of my Pavilion"
    Tech Support "I need you to get into CMOS and tell me the settings sir"

    This is NOT funny, but real calls I have placed to HP as a representative of a reseller. The names have been changed to protect the owners of the call centers. Remember Bhopal?

    "We exist for people who do not want to use the Internet themselves to find their own answers."

    Again bullshit, you call HP on your your dime, for the most part long distance to a North American area code and you get Bangalore India, you get put on hold for 20 minutes and often get no real help. Most of our returns lately have been generated by customers trying to connect to the Internet, but cannot. They call the 208 number, and get long hold times before they are answered, and most of my American customers simply return the PC to us. They will not deal with outsourced people at all. Hey they did call an American company at an American area code.

    HP/Compaq need to wake up! IBM also. IBM is the best at tech support, but... when customers get someone with a thick accent on a tech line, they begin to question their purchase. There are many "Buy American Only" folks out there in the land.

    Finally, when you call tech support and you get a speil about how most of the tech questions answers being able to be found on the Internet, it makes the customers shit bricks! Most of the customers are having boot, modem or internet connection problems. They really do not give a shit about the Internet UNTIL they can access it.

    Words to the wise! Listen up HP !

  189. This is cool if you run a company by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    Not only do you get cheap labor, but your "business trips" can be to beautiful and historic eastern europe.

  190. From my experience by JRHelgeson · · Score: 0, Troll

    I used to work telephone technical support, and I know from experience that it is EXTREMELY difficult to troubleshoot problems over the phone. It's both dificult and frustrating.

    I've grown out of the telephone tech support many years ago and now I'm an occasional user of it. I tell you there is nothing that compounds the frustration and anger of having to troubleshoot over the phone than having a language barrier.

    I can't tell you the number of times that I've gotten someone who speaks broken english, or whose english skills are barely adequate - and I wind up "talking too fast" for them to understand. This is not to mention the cultural differences.

    Companies like IBM and the like will soon find that customers will start avoiding their products & their company in general because their tech support is considered "Rude" or just plain difficult to understand / talk to.

    Getting cheaper labor does not mean that you'll ever be able to match the quality of work/support you can get from another Red Blooded [North] American.

    --
    Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
  191. i am apu's screaming child by macshune · · Score: 1, Troll

    I am Apu's screaming child who cannot eat because someone from a central-asian ex-soviet "republic" can do my job for 5 cents an hour cheaper.

    A firm's goal is to maximize profit. This cannot be done at the most efficient levels if money is paid with regard to social justice. Yes, we all have different assumptions on what social justice is. Regardless, I don't think that anyone should have to work 12 hours a day building many items that are worth more than a year's wage only to come home to high infant morality rates, a mud hut and malaria. Mod me as troll if you wish, but fuck everyone who thinks that poor-ass countries should stay poor in order to continue our unsustainable lifestyles.

  192. Corporations and People by mobileskimo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your premise is misguided. Not all Corporations are out to screw everyone. Correct. "Corporations" are out to make money, whether they screw someone in the process is inconsequential to it, that is unless, again, it impacts them getting money.

    Individuals in corporations who make decisions may or may not be out to screw everyone. That's up to the individual and his/her psychiatrist.

    Remember, corporations aren't people. It's what our legal system leads you to believe. People still make decisions.

    --
    "Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
  193. Pay a little more now, save a lot more later by hipster_doofus · · Score: 1

    I don't know about anyone else, but I would gladly pay more to have support for my product based out of the U.S., Canada, England, etc. - assuming they'd actually hire someone who could speak fluent (and understandable) English. Hell, I don't care where they base their support, as long as they give the reps a speech test!

    More and more these days, I call a vendor and get connected to someone that I have to deal with through email in order to understand them - and I understand accents very well. That's not such a big problem if I don't have an urgent problem, but an extended conversation via email is not feasible for a complex/urgent problem.

    Maybe when people get tired of dealing with unintelligible support personnel, they'll vote with their dollars and we'll start to see some jobs move back to the Western Hemisphere.

    --
    Five Dolla Moddy-Moddy? ;->
  194. Screw the 3rd world! by RatBastard · · Score: 1

    I'm hungry and I want to eat! As much as I'm glad that people "over there" are getting jobs, I'm very unhappy that the employers in my country won't hire me, their own countryman.

    It's easy to be idealistic when you are living off the graces of yor parents generosity. Wait until you have a mortgage to pay and children to feed. Your attitude might change a bit.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  195. Get your perspective right.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are 4 kinds of independent issues here...

    1. Quality of technical support

    Technical support depends on the training given/individuals. Don't rate it based on the accent(as long as its reasonably understandable).i.e don't fault support coz that guy/gal has a 'thick' accent.
    There will be some bad support based in the US and some good support based in India.

    Quality of service differs from company to company. I hv seen US companies whose call centers are not outsourced but they still suck bigtime.

    2. Outsourcing of jobs

    Don't blame/fault/curse/rant about Indians getting "your" jobs. Blame the corporate executives who decide to shift jobs overseas(for whatever reasons). Read next point for why Indians are not to be blamed for 'taking' your job.

    3. Economy issues

    US has been pursuing a strong dollar economic policy. That means, if someone is willing to do your job at half the salary *in* the US, they can be blamed for (undercutting you)/(selling themselves into slavery).
    But for an Indian half your salary would pay off *very* *very* well, not because he/she is so desperate but because everything is so very cheap there. Why is this? Due to strong dollar policies and other issues.

    My perspective:
    Globalisation has 2 faces.
    Stockholders in the US make merry as Coke/Pepsi/McDonalds etc etc reap in the profits from India.

    So why rant now when the other face is playing against your interests?

    Fight against corporate greed, not against other people like you, coz they too have to make a good living.

    PS: most of the posters seem to get very confused and mingle all above issues into one and come up with strange conclusions.

  196. Real Reason Behind Outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...zips up asbestos suit...

    Offshore resources don't sit and read slashdot all day ;)

  197. So you wanted to spread prosperity? You got it. by TheNarrator · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The idea that someone will work for cheaper than you will is usually a result of them either being able to do more in their country with less money or that they are more desperate for work than you are.


    Therefore, the fact that these jobs are spreading out is caused by the fact that A. The U.S and other countries currencies are overvalued and the same standard of living can be bought for less in a country with undervalued currency or B. The people living in these lower wage countries have big families to provide for and not so great living conditions and would really like to move one step up the standard of living ladder which means moving the person who lost their job in the high wage country a step down on the ladder. Of course with comparative advantage this is not always a zero sum game.

    This is all a big process of equalization of living standards that takes place once people started embracing free market economies and free trade a bunch of years ago. The only thing that makes any difference now is immovable capital like infrastructure and the quality of the legal system.

  198. Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. by presearch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How else do you support those executives at the top that produce nothing of substance
    (and sorry folks, "business decisions" are not items of substance) yet pay these guys
    a Mil a year and up? They sit on each others Boards, upping each other's compensation,
    all enjoying the cash flow circle jerk.

    There's (at least) three ways; theft, lawsuits, and slavery.

    The theft happens in places like manipulating the stock markets and shuffling around
    nonexistent commodities like Enron, or something as simple as lobbying the government
    to allow usury rates of >30% on credit cards, or allowing state-run lotteries and casinos.
    Or, if you're thinking big, invading another country on false pretenses to steal their resources.

    The lawsuits we are seeing with SCO are a good example of the second method. Granted, it's
    one corporation taking from another in this case, but the cost of that will be passed down to
    consumers or compensated for with unemployment because of less working capital. That
    expense rarely impacts executive compensation, which is preserved at all costs.
    Money moves around, yet produces nothing of substance. Maybe this really belongs
    under theft, because that's what it is.

    And then there is slavery. Sure, these people don't work "for free". But even in the US's
    past, the slaves were still fed, clothed and sheltered. You can't kill 'em off or there will be
    no slaves left to produce those items of substance. But when the profit is made from those
    items, only enough is put back to the slave population keep the system working. It's
    happening in Mexico, in Indonesia, in India, and in the US migrant worker camps from
    the Midwest to California. This is, of course, nothing new. The US was made possible
    through the exploitation of others. We saw a bit of change here after the post-war boom
    of the '50s and again in the '90s for a few years but when "money" sees this happening,
    it moves to quickly remedy the situation, usually by installing a Republican run government.

    Here in Indianapolis, there's an area north of the city where they are building these huge,
    multi-million dollar houses. Hundreds of them. Where does this money come from?
    Is it necessary? Steven Hilbert, who ran Conseco has this huge mansion. He was ran out
    of the company for fraud and theft yet he's got his castle. And you've now got this army
    of VP weasels that all think that they too deserve to take one to on hundred million a year
    and bury in in the ground so they, the trophy wife, and the trust fund kids can live like kings.
    Instead of taking the working capital and putting it back into the company, letting people make
    a working wage, they instead believe that they should, indeed deserve, to surround themselves
    with rewards of their greed and cunning.

    That money has to come from someplace, and that's from the backs of those with no other option
    but to be enslaved, or starve. This can't last forever, but it's end is not coming soon. At least not
    until the lease on their new Hummer H2 runs out. At least that's what Rush told me: It's a good thing.

  199. Indeed by mobileskimo · · Score: 1

    ROTFLMAO. Your perceptions are quite vivid, I must say. Did you make all that up yourself or did you get help? I especially liked

    Cattle wander the streets while they starve


    It's tru though, Check the tags on everything in your house and on your body and you'll see that nothing is made in the US anymore.

    Worse yet, when something is made in the US, it's a big hoopla isn't it? There's a big pride thing about being "Made in the USA". I think we're the only ones that put a flag next to our label.

    JAFO

    --
    "Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
  200. they'll go to other places in india first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    india is a large country. bangalor is new york and patna is wichita. calcutta is very cheap to live in. and so on...there are so many places modernising in a hurry.

  201. Last laugh by hawkfish · · Score: 1

    I have been getting solicitations recently at my now defunct contracting company asking if I want to outsource our nonexistent work to India. It has been very tempting to write back and ask why I should go with them rather than "this nice Vietnamese company I have been talking to."

    --
    You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
  202. I can think of one country by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can name one country where a huge variety of normal tangible goods are still manufactured, and the workers work for "almost" free, and that is the US, where prison industries now use inmate labor in direct competition to "normal" free market workers. And I definetly don't mean license plates, I mean normal stuff you buy at the store like furniture and whatnot. And it's run by private, for-profit corporations. Hard to compete when you have a tax payer subsidised infrastructure,ie the prisons, and where the forced workers "make" like 10 cents an hour or something that they get to re spend back into the same private corporations prison stores. Add in the fact of the growing prison population due to more political-like crimes such as represented as the war on some drugs, and yes, there are places where the workers work for "free". I also just read an article last week or so, maybe here, I've forgotten, where prisoners in India are being used as forced programmers.

    As to software, oh well. I think eventually (I have no exact time prediction, just some time in the somewhat near future) that software writing as a pure and extremly profitable business will eventually be very limited. That's primarily because right now we already have available most of the software that is required to do business, it exists already when you get down to it. Next is to take the automation concept to it's logical progression, the tools to write programs are getting easier, there are millions more very young people now who take it as a matter of course to learn these the same as "shop class' was when I was a kid and most guys my age can do a lot of normal car mechanics and carpentry, etc, and eventually those two lines on a graph of easy to do and millions doing it will cross and we'll have a full saturation point, where at that exact time the "worth" of software will be no more than todays throw away newspaper, so cheap as to be almost free. And the ones remaining still writing a lot will be doing it as at best an adjunct to their other and more primary job task, whatever that is, or doing it as a hobby, similar to learning to play a musical instrument is now, most people never make a cent from enjoying playing music. I'm not saying it-softweare writing to get back to it- will disappear,not in the least, just lose it's incredible profitable market share. Look back in that industry 40 or 50 years, see what people were paid for it and what the companies doing it were charging,and how many people by the numbers were doing it (take into consideration COL and inflation obviously), and now look at today-globally, you are forced to, now extrapolate it.

    Ain't looking as rosy now is it? Especially with the amazing geometric progression.

    I give it as a rough WAG to the commercial expensive software writing and selling bubble will burst within ten years or so (maybe less even), the high paid stuff anyway, and settle back down to a more normal type endeavor, not be quirte as sexy or in demand. I also think that people in that business and who are still paid well are (mostly and sure to be very much debated on this particular forum, but not on general forums) in just as much denial today of that prediction as various people were when they were buying stocks from companies that were trading at 200 times earnings and still sat on them, thinking this was going to just keep going on forever, even when on even a casual glance anyone could see these various companies had no net earnings whatsoever once you deducted VC. Millions of sane, intelligent adults fell for that, too, they were in complete denial of economic realities, because they (not all obviously, but most) were basking in temporary and theoretical future "wealth" they would receive magically,effortlessly, and forever. that gravy train was going to go on forever, that was the gross generic mindset then. Right now, it's the same mindset with various other aspects of industry, I'd say in particular besides software the professional managers in various industries, who think they are

  203. Lawyers are not immune by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can expect law students in China to pass the American bar and start eating some lawyer lunch soon.

    Very little lawyering is actually done *in court*. The vast majority can be done over the phone and internet. There is absolutely no reason the majority can't be done in Asia, Africa, etc.

    It will be interesting to see the effect that has..

  204. Tax this crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They tax steel. They tax cars.
    They tax me. They can tax Bill Gates
    when he does this stuff.

  205. I believe in free trade by f97tosc · · Score: 1

    I told them that this was not about helping the people of India,

    Of course corporations do not go to India with charity as a motive - but their motive is of no consequence. If you set up a new factory/ programing shop somwhere you have to give salaries that are locally competitive or you are not going to fill it with good people - clearly the IT investments have been very beneficial to India in terms of increased standard of living for the people there.

    it's about importing a 3rd world standard of living, which is why so many people around the world are against this

    As economists have long known, the market forces slowly push living conditions towards similar levels for people doing similar work and are equally productive. It works in both directions: improved salaries for the ones with lower salaries and lower salaries for the ones with higher salaries (or unemployment, if the labor market is very regulated).

    which is why so many people around the world are against this

    Special interest groups in the industrialized world (e.g., American IT workers) are against this. Poor workers in India and Russia are not against this - they have a lot to gain. You never hear them asking us to put up barriers of trade to protect them; this is purely an argument of the political left in developed nations.

    It's about making a market place, a product out of entire countries, whose populations are shopped by corporations, much like individual slaves were shopped for in the early United States

    This is exactly the argument I was talking about. It is quite pathetic. In trying to protect their own interest (there is nothing wrong witht that) the left is trying to present it as though regulation and trade barriers are in the interest of poor countries - which is ridicolous - because all these countries are asking for is for us to reduce the trade barriers we have.

    If you don't buy this on a philosphical level, please take a look at empirical experiences - let's take a very high level view. Rich free-trading nations grow at 2-3% GDP per year. Poor free-trading nations typically grow more like 5% per year in terms of GDP - if they have working institutions. Long term (it varies with the economic cycle, of course) rich nations have unemployment of maybe 5% (or more like 10% when the labor market gets very regulated like in parts of Europe). Corporations are making profits around 5-10% - also this varies by cycle, but it is not in general getting bigger and bigger.

    What in this picture do you find so horribly wrong? What would your perfect world look like where there are plenty of trade barriers. Well, why not take a look at some places that have tried: China, Vietnam and North Korea come to mind. These places have tried self-reliance and just accepted the occasional socialistic factory project from Sweden. The result: complete catastrophy! China and Vietnam eventually figured out that this is not the way to go; opened up their countries to trade and are now growing like crazy. North Koreans are not so fortunate - people are still starving. Millions have died because of their economic policy of self-reliance.

    Tor

  206. Whose side are you on? by mobileskimo · · Score: 1

    This is all correct and the theory is that people who worked in jobs that become defunct, move on to better jobs. The big assumption is that people moved on to biggger'n'better jobs. I can tell you without doubt that a large portion of people in IT did not. How do I know this? Because you hear it on the news, see it in the papers, experience your own frustration as you look at your paycheck from a dead-end consulting contract.

    It might work if we had education and re-education for the people we displaced. Sounds like a thought. Make companies pay for the re-education and re-employment to other jobs as a cost of moving their operations. Severance is hardly a compensation for pulling the rug from beneath your feet.

    --
    "Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
    1. Re:Whose side are you on? by Pelakh · · Score: 1

      Of course, since we now consider labor to be just another resource, perhaps an alternative solution exists. When we would like to foster the development of a domestic resource, as opposed to importing it, we impose tariffs to equalize the costs. This makes the decision to import the resource (such as IT labor) not as tied up in dollars, and may encourage the company to retain some local employees. For the ones that still decide to use offshore resources, the tariff collected can be used to retrain the displaced workers for a more marketable position. I can hardly see why our "globalized" administration has no problems imposing tariffs to protect steel and lumber, but not to protect valuable brain resources. It is probably too much to expect an employer to see the employees they eliminate are their customers disappearing as well.

  207. Ban SETI! by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    before they discover little purple methane-loving aliens who will program for poop. Stop them Mars probes while we are at it. Just because Mars microbes are tiny does not mean they don't have the ability to get PhD's and take our jobs.

  208. MOD THIS UP ..Re:What goes around.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What pencilneck modded this overrated? Probably some Sapient asshole who still is hoping his options rise. I got laid off from Sapient in 2001 because I was a senior tech who refused to move to New Delhi. The guy was right, they abandoned everything they had built and ran like sheep back to their SI roots, which were junior grade compared to IBM and EDS. I think most of the Americans who moved to India got fired anyway when they asked for a little more money.

  209. Organizations and the net bring out bad behavior by dpilot · · Score: 1

    I didn't say they aren't doing it for their own gain. I merely said people can act differently in an organization than they do personally. They will frequently do things that they wouldn't do on their own, and may refrain from other things that they would rather do. We've covered two quadrants. You're argument is just that one of the other quadrants exists, and I don't dispute that, at all.

    Another way of looking at it... It's a tradeoff. "If I don't do this action that I find personally distasteful, my family and life will suffer." These tradeoffs merely happen more often in an organization. This doesn't even qualify as an insight, just an observation. Hermits don't have to compromise with other people. (simplistic, I know)

    Lumping the net in with organizations... Are you this polite in the real world, where you resort to namecalling before even attempting to discuss?

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  210. Serious Outsourcing, or Not to Worry by elderbro · · Score: 1

    The best outsourcing is to a computer running an approiate algorithm. That's how computer related industries have managed their growth for the last 50 years.
    My guess is some of us in the SlashDot community can and will write those algorithms over the next few years - open source or proprietary. Let the lowest bidder compete with that.
    There will still be a few loosers: we'll have more out of work / `underemployed' neighbors, investors will have to cope with several destabalized markets, goverment at all levels will have to rely more heavily on corporate taxes and probably `downsize'. and corporate executives and insiders may not be so highly valued.
    Looks to me like `interesting times' Bring 'em on.

  211. This is also not a difficult concept by 2names · · Score: 0
    You work for a corporation for money that you spend.

    The corporation wants you to fuck your buddy over or you lose your job.

    You fuck your buddy over to keep your job so you can buy more Big Macs.

    Whether fucking your buddy over helps the company or not is irrelevant. You fuck him over to keep your wallet and your fat, MacDonald's-eating ass satisfied.

    In conclusion, you are a dumbass.

    --
    "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
  212. moving services to Elbonia ... by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 2, Funny

    just like in 'Dilbert'.

    Scott Adams was right!

  213. This is hilarious! by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    Big greedy companies like Microsoft now think Indian developers are too expensive, I guess the jobs will move to Africa and China now.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:This is hilarious! by GMontag · · Score: 1

      This message brought to you by the society to prevent African/Asian technical employment.

  214. Good point by 2names · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Here's another good point...

    The work people produce is a commodity that is traded openly on the world market. Get used to it. Your job is neither "yours" nor is it a "job." It is simply the current value of the manifestation of your labor, period, and can be exchanged (by your employer) for goods and services or even phased out completely with absolutely NO INPUT FROM YOU. I get so sick of hearing people bitch about "that God damned Mexican took MY job!" when the job was never yours in the first place.

    It is really very simple, people: perform a service that people value highly => get paid well.

    Perform a service that some 12 year old kid in a sweatshop in the Phillipines can also perform => lose "your" job.

    --
    "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    1. Re:Good point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So true.

    2. Re:Good point by GMontag · · Score: 1

      Excellent. It is so refreshing to read the ideas of Milton Friedman in this sea of Chomsky babble.

  215. Yeah I told them too by HanzoSan · · Score: 1


    But alot of people on slashdot dont care because they are CEOs or upper level management, not level 1 programmers.

    It's not about exporting capitalism, it's about importing a 3rd world standard of living, which is why so many people around the world are against this.

    I'm American and I'm against it.

    It's about making a market place, a product out of entire countries, whose populations are shopped by corporations, much like individual slaves were shopped for in the early United States.

    Exactly, it is like slavery, our companies are making them depend on us, and preventing them from starting their own companies. Wasnt capitalism supposed to be about the individual? This seems almost more like communism.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Yeah I told them too by Eccles · · Score: 1

      But alot of people on slashdot dont care because they are CEOs or upper level management, not level 1 programmers.

      You're new here, aren't you?

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    2. Re:Yeah I told them too by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

      No I'm not new, alot of people know me.

      I've got into this exact arguement before only to get into a flamewar with CEOs and other big shots who claim "Well you dont have to worry about losing your job to indian workers if you just work harder and smarter, get a degree masters degree in computer science from MIT and you'll be fine"

      Now, for the average joe who doesnt have a masters degree in computer science from MIT, well we are screwed.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  216. The people are all that matters by HanzoSan · · Score: 2, Insightful



    Just like some people dont like big government, some dont like big corperations, and its for the same reasons. You dont want all the power to be in one persons hands.

    If you want people to stop begging the USA for money perhaps we should help them start their own businesses in their own countries instead of forcing our businesses into their countries, I dont know any arabs who asked for Mc Donalds to expand there, in fact it pisses them off.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:The people are all that matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it pissed them off so much then they wouldn't keep it in business. However, the fact that McDonalds stays in business there probes that the Arabs do, in fact, want McDonalds there enough that they'll pay for it to stay there.

      You fuckin idiot.

    2. Re:The people are all that matters by Beliskner · · Score: 1
      I dont know any arabs who asked for Mc Donalds to expand there, in fact it pisses them off
      McDonalds is making a profit in Saudi. The Saudi Arabian people go there and eat non-Halal stuff. This pisses off the Sharia government who will then go and kill everybody eating at the restaurant, so what?

      The Chinese government doesn't want people writing books about freedom, so then why do Chinese people go out and buy books then? Should we hate the book-writers and go and whip them like the Chinese police do?

      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
  217. my experience says otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've worked with too many big-headed Russian programmers over the years - and yes, a couple from St. Petersburg as well. My advice - avoid them at all costs. They look great on paper and have big mouths but in the end their code is bug-ridden. Russian programmers cut corners and only do the minimum amount of work that the spec requires. Also, get used to the phrase "it's not my job" - they say that a lot - I guess it's a remnant of the soviet mentality.

  218. I'll work for free by Cyno · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm a Sr. UNIX Admin with over 5 years of experience with Linux and some experience teaching this stuff.

    I would work for free if we could all agree to do away with money (or that money has no value) so I could afford to grab food from the local supermarket and live in a small home or apartment close to my job. I don't require a lot to keep me happy. Mostly just musical equipment, computers and tools/books that help me do my job.

    But I know hardly any of you would ever agree to give up your money so its a safe bet I'd never have to work for free. Too bad. I would have let you stay home and watch TV. I only care about getting the work done and automated once and forever. I find myself continually repeating the same tasks over and over again for money, in our current system, but I guess this is what makes more jobs.

  219. Wage inflation in India by heroine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    India has had wage inflation to the point where Indian engineers may one day cost more than American engineers. Keep your dusty old social security card around.

  220. Low cost CEO (Norway) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Norwegian company recently stated that the lower costs of management in Norway gave them a competitive advantage.

    So yes, it does happen; just look closer.

    Also douing real development where people focus on tech rather than splitting hairs on contractual issues sure also helps lowering costs and saving time. Not my opinion; it is my experience.

  221. blood money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The machines are oiled with the blood of the workers.

    But the machine owners have built up a thousand misdirections and excuses for why there is no other way, because they don't want to chance not being rich and/or powerful.

    The checks and balances of the USA threatened to buck this trend, which is why big money and old power cheated to get Bush jr in the white house, to take up the slack and keep the "little people" -- ie everyone who isn't already making a living off his neighbor -- from continuing to make progress in the class war.

    Yes, CEO's arguably deserve more salary than mail clerks. The problem is that enough is never enough and the Ken Lays and Dick Cheneys have the will and the ability to take what they want, legal or not, ethical or not.

    As far as the topic goes, my first instinct is a rather unsympathetic "Ha ha, now you're out of a job for the same reason I am." My second instinct is to warn the people of third world countries being eyed by the outsourcers to be wary, but they're not in a position to hear that advice. The contract will go to the lowest bidder, who will eventually themselves be outbid.

    In essence, we had a chance to address long standing issues that affect us all when the world economy was in a boom stage, specifically the US. But instead, americans bought big cars, sn0rted 1ines, and paid nothing on our deficit.

    To the "little guy", it may have seemed that the good times were really here to stay; it's easy to pretend that every problem is someone elses when you've got yours. But the people at the top -- economic analysts, high level civil servants, etc -- knew that the bubble must burst eventually. And they knew exactly what to do: cement their own powerbase at the expense of the people who provide that power and to whom they purport to owe their ultimate loyalties. The course was stayed to keep consumers consuming. Now that the bubble has burst, the "little people" are afraid for their futures and willing to follow any damn-fool proposal that comes wrapped in a shiny promise of return to the boom.

    If that's not a con5pir4cy nothing is.
    I am a citizen. I am livid. I am dismissed out of hand. I will explain my case anyway. I will vote against Bush in '04 and I have no doubt that Bush will win anyway(the TV spews propaganda all day while the unread papers futiley report the undercutting of our nation- on top of Bush's undeserved ratings (based on lies) he stole the election once, you think he'll be less able to do it WITH the power of the oval office?).

    What was it my scoutmaster used to say, ah yes.. "be prepared".
    God Bless America and the Constitution.

  222. I think these articles are bullshit by danila · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1) Indian labour is cheaper than Eastern European / Russian.
    2) Russian offshore-development industry is much smaller than Indian one (both in absolute terms and per capita).
    3) There are no significant growth reserves (this also applies to Eastern Europe).
    4) The existance of a few successful companies doesn't constitute an industry (or a threat to India).
    5) Without initial investments you can't create a large IT industry. India did those investments.
    6) There are no real figures that indicate this process of "outsourcing outsourcing" is actually happening.
    7) etc.

    Usual sensationalistic journalism. Bettet than Blair's inventions, but not much better.

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  223. Free markets do not guarantee a permanent SOL loss by 5n3ak3rp1mp · · Score: 1

    (SOL = Standard of Living)

    It goes like this.

    Being paid more to work less is something the first and second worlds are enjoying more than the third world.

    If we allow free markets, IN THE SHORT TERM we in the "first world" would experience a decline in pay for the same work while the other economies play a sort of "catch up" to us. However IN THE LONG TERM, everyone would be up to speed (or nearly) and EVERYONE would gain MORE from everyone being up to speed, than in the current situation!

  224. If this were true... by f97tosc · · Score: 1

    we would expect that:

    1. Living standards in the industrialized world are falling ("importing a 3rd world standard of living")

    2. Third world countires are trying to stop offshoring ("a product out of entire countries, whose populations are shopped by corporations, much like individual slaves were shopped for in the early United States")

    3 Corporate profitability is constantly increasing ("this is about making corporations rich.")

    But on the contrary!

    1 Living standards are constantly increasing in industrial countries; by a few percent per year.

    2 Developing countries are desperate for offshore opportunities and foreign investments, and they are pushing this agenda in international negotiations

    3 Corporate profitability has been constant or decreasing over the past years and decades

    Tor

  225. History is *NOT* on the side of business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am having a hard time understanding what is bad about this cycle. Then you obviously didn't lose your job recently. Maybe you will understand when an out-of-work factory worker cleans out your house or mugs you. Or maybe when *you* lose your job, but not before?

    the *overall* standard of living became significantly higher. Yeah, and the debt continues to climb. That number isn't just there for laughs. More debt means higher taxes, among other problems. Businesses are not the only piece of the problem, but they are a major problem for the society as a whole because they exert undue influence on policy for the benefit of the very, very few and because many businesses rake in the cash in profits and corporate welfare while firing workers and cutting salaries. How is this behavior justifiable? "Er, um, er..." ITS NOT. Why does it continue? "Well, er, uh..." Because greed and corruption have become acceptable... "business as usual".

    Just because a textile worker wasn't making as much as his boss doesn't mean he wasn't making more than before he got the job. And that, of course, totally justifies closing the textile plant for X% more profits, all at the expense of the workers?

    The high standard of living we enjoy is financed by mortgaging our future, in terms of foreign loans and in terms of pissing off the world by being imperialistic.

    Capitalism = good. Problem - Super rich crushing the masses to get an extra buck. Solution = organized movement of the lower classes. Reason solution doesn't happen is rich & powerful are better organized and financed, resulting in rarer but much more drastic and bloody change.

    Funny, america was so worried about the communist threat abroad we took our eyes off the ball at home, and now speeking freely is a "threat to national security".

    Joke's over, sir, let me off the treadmill now please... sir... sir? *pant*

  226. Outsourcing from within by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is anyone else worried about the amount of Indian workers we have in this country. They have completely flooded the software job market. It really has gotten way out of hand. I'm working at a company right now where 11 out of 13 developers are Indian. My job before that there were 7 Indians on a team of 8. It was the same scenario with most of the companies I've interviewed at. This is not an Indian bashing. I think they are nice people. Maybe a little boring though. But anyway, I know of a few US citizens having a hard time finding work. I was in that group just a few months ago. How can we let so many into this country?

    1. Re:Outsourcing from within by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most the workers here are legal immigrants from India who came here in search of work. They have the *same* pay/privileges as the local workers. Hence there is no cost cutting reason for companies to employ them instead of US citizens.
      The reasons are they could be
      a) more hardworking
      b) have more experience
      c) do the job better
      I think if the companies come across an Indian and an American in an interview for the same job with the same qualifications/background etc then they would undoubtedly prefer the American.

    2. Re:Outsourcing from within by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah right....maybe the cost-cutting reason is that they are willing to work for less money.

  227. Re:Free markets do not guarantee a permanent SOL l by fellini8.5 · · Score: 1

    And the color of the skies in these so-called worlds is....?

    Just joshin'. But really what there is would be better described as a race towards the lowest common denominator more than a levelling of the playing field. Because this playing field is like the Grand Tetons...

    (heh, I said "Teton"!)

    --
    Kineska: Cinema, soapbox, music & musings
  228. In a related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    GM India rolls out first locally produced Chevrolet Optra in India

    I know Ford sells cars there and I am sure many other non-Indian companies sell stuff there. It is all about trade and human greed to want more than what we currently have that drives us to do what we do...

  229. Is consumer outsourcing practical yet? by anwyn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When will ordinary consumers begin take advantage of offshore sources? When will it become practical for ordinary people to go offshore?
    Banking? for financial privacy?
    Insurance? to get around government restriction on exclusions on aids, alcoholism, mental health that are essentially a tax on low risk groups to support high risks groups?
    Other examples?

  230. Re:Wrong by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1
    Wrong. Strong labor laws, unions, and government intervention changed this.

    However I think the move to cheap labor didn't result in loss of income for businesses but rather the loss of income signaled cheap labor. It is the other way around. (sense a soviet union joke)

    The 1870's had the worst recession in history before the 1930's. This is what started the sweet shops.

    Any economist will tell you economic health comes when the majority of citizens have it. If a strong divide exists the rich will get richer of course while the overall spending and economy goes down. This is what happened a century ago and is what is happening today.

    I just read some newgroup postings and alot of rich claim that the economy is great and that they are making record profits. At the same time the value of the dollar is shrinking and more people have less money. Trickle down economics just do not work.

    The India factor is a big problem because alot of the money being spent offshore was from tax breaks. It needs to flow into the pockets of people who spend it. Maybe a low income tax cut will boast the economy. Infact because I am poor my taxes went up!

  231. Culture, political stability and security? by swb · · Score: 1

    Most of the outsourcing questions tend to hinge on obvious things like the direct wages paid to employees and "do they speak English" without focusing on the many hidden or hard to denominate costs on Western business doing business with non-Western countries, particularly outsourcing.

    India has a number of advantages over many countries in direct labor costs and English proficiency, but a number of cultural liabilities as well. While the Czech Republic isn't Wisconsin, most Americans could easily go there or to any of the other east-bloc nations and conduct business far more easily than they could in India since there's a lot more cultural similarity.

    The east bloc also has a stable political and military climate compared to India. The Czech Republic isn't on the edge of nuclear annihilation with Slovakia over some disputed border region. This is increasingly important in a world where fears of terrorism are on everyone's mind (even if the fears are entirely wrong).

  232. One people, one peace... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reeducation just shifts the area of competition.

    We need more jobs. The whole world needs to take a long hard look at the supply chain we call Earth and agree on some things.

    First, some realistic understandings must be had. The Earth cannot feed an unbounded population. We need to manage our populations, and it's more humane (not to mention efficient) to do it with sex ed and condoms than starvation and bombs.

    Second, the human race needs to accept that it has a duty to generations yet to come. We don't have to "save" the environment, we just have to stop trashing it. I think massive ecological damage is the only justification for state-imposed torture... did you dump 80,000 gallons of poison into the groundwater? That's 160,000 lashes, pal. And that's getting off easy, too.

    The last major problem is that of governance. The US has a pretty d*mn good system, it just needs lots of public scrutiny. Since modern methods allow us to feed more people than it takes to actually sustain the production oriented elements of the system, we have a lot of "unused" people left over. IMHO those people should be the de-facto gaurantors of democratic sovereignty.

    And of course, we have to kill, jail or exile everyone who dissents. ;-) Death to All Fanatics!! ;-)

  233. High wages with a side of fries by Phronesis · · Score: 1
    No, you need to find a high-paying occupation that by its nature cannot be outsourced to foreign countries.

    This is why so many intelligent Americans end up being lawyers.

    At the height of the bubble, Paul Krugman wrote that software development and other high-tech jobs were so easy to outsource that their prestige pay scales were doomed. He also believes that much lawyering will be outsourced or automated (a la Nolo Press and write-your-own-will software).

    Here is a paraphrase of his argument from Proceedings of the Sixth European Assembly on Telework and New Ways of Working - Telework '99 , Aarhuss, Denmark, 22-24 September 1999:

    Paul Krugman has one answer. He argues that as the computer revolution matures, the highly-skilled elite of professionals and programmers which has done well during the past two decades will itself become obsolete. "The time may come when most tax lawyers are replaced by expert systems software, but human beings are still needed - and well-paid - for such truly difficult occupations as gardening, house cleaning, and the thousands of other services that will receive an ever-growing share of our expenditure as mere consumer goods become steadily cheaper," he writes. The computer-adept professionals of today will be like the cottage weavers of the 19th century who cashed in on the earlier technical revolution in spinning until the development of the power loom made them redundant in their turn.
    1. Re:High wages with a side of fries by dogfart · · Score: 1
      I'd mod you up if I could.

      I read a book "The Victorian Internet" that told a similar tale about telegraph operators in the 19th century.

      --

      "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

  234. Country A better off != everyone in A better off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are right -- but also hint at one practical problem with the neoclassical free trade story: it assumes zero adjustment costs, and tells us about the wealth of NATIONS, not individuals within those nations.

    Let us say that in accordance with an efficient specialization, country A stops doing X and Y, and focusses entirely on X, leaving Y to country B. More of X and Y for everyone, welfare improves, Adam Smith smiles in his grave.

    But, what about the people in country A who have their capital or their personal skills invested in Y, and can't easily change. It's not easy for fifty year old steel workers to become X-box game designers. It's not a quick and simple matter to totally retool an educational system to teach a different skill set (vs developing countries that are building theirs from scratch now -- to meet today's labor market).

    In short, there are transition costs -- there WILL be losers in A, even if the nation is better off as a whole.

    Second, there is no reason that country A can't end up worse off if it's prior position somehow allowed it to exact monopoly profits, either because of natural factors (until recently, telecom wasn't good enough to allow back-office functions to be done remotely), temporary first-mover advantages (e.g., the US is the first to have a technically educated workforce and massive govt/uni/corporate R&D) or trade restrictions. Neoclassical economics is all about *equilibrium* outcomes, but at the moment we're looking at a distorted market -- distorted to the US/European advantage.

    Third, what we are seeing is the equivalent of removing minimum wage laws and other work rules. Any economist will tell you that on balance such restrictions are a welfare loss -- even to the poor, since it means fewer jobs. On the other hand, those who do manage to get one of those protected jobs are receiving artificially high wages relative to the free market outcome, and those individuals do stand to lose if the rules are lifted. As the labor market becomes global, that's exactly what we're facing.

    The way to think of it is like rent control. Getting rid of it is a net plus for most people -- more housing, better housing, better returns to property owners, etc.

    What about the few people lucky enough to live in those rent controlled apartments? Simple, they bend over, think about the greater good, and take it up the ass.

    In general I'm for free trade -- why shouldn't the poor of the world get better standards of living? But the free traders don't like to admit that freeing trade will create losers in countries, even if a net win, and if the strict assumptions of neoclassical analysis are not met, even a nation as a whole can be a loser, at least in the short term.

    America, welcome to global equilibrium.

  235. 3rd world SOL (standard of living) by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1
    ...it's about importing a 3rd world standard of living

    Bingo! How do you compete with $1/day? Put up a lean-to in the woods, frequent the dumpsters behind grocery stores, and collect soda pop bottles. Learn to live like Eric Rudolph.

    Oh, but wait! If enough people in this country are doing that, who's going to have the money for these company's products? The executives? But the executives are paid out of the company's profits-- what profits?

    So the companies complain about the sluggish economy, lay off its employees in Bangladesh (or wherever), and go shopping for a country willing to work for 25 cents a day, or maybe just for food and shelter (hmm, slavery anyone? Perhaps not technically...)

    And so on...

    What am I missing here, or maybe I shouldn't have slept through Econ 101?

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  236. Actually, it's *about* responsibility by duck_prime · · Score: 1
    The problem with corporations is that we tolerate, neigh EXPECT immoral and unethical actions out of them. The corporate structure exits specifically to sheild it's members (and investors) from any direct responsibility.
    I think you have it backward here. It's not that we expect immoral behavior from corporations, but that we don't expect charity from them. Acme corp doesn't care about the local economy. Why should they? It's not their job. It's not their responsibility. What obligation do they have to employ Americans?

    Acme corp actually can't fail to consider offshore outsourcing; if they do, then Evil-Acme corp down the road will outsource, and eat their lunch. In other words, if anybody can outsource, everyone has to, or the stragglers will be eaten. Messily.

    Personally, I'm undecided on whether offshore outsourcing is Good or Evil. But if you are worried about the US economy as a whole, look to the federal gov't. That is their job. If they (with appropriate citizen input) decide that offshoring is bad for the US economy as a whole, they will outlaw it. That sort of thing is what governments are good at, and private enterprise (good for a variety of other things) is not.

    Summary: Don't blame the corps, it's not their responsibility. Take this up with your elected representative.
    1. Re:Actually, it's *about* responsibility by GMontag · · Score: 1

      Acme corp doesn't care about the local economy.

      They don't care about the Roadrunner either! They are the evil corp that makes those weapons of fowl destruction!

    2. Re:Actually, it's *about* responsibility by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      No, you have it backwards. We should expect a certain level of civility out of ALL members of society. What ever we should expect out of an upstanding "Gentleman", we should be able to expect out of any other legal person. This should include corporations.

      Now, "Gentlemen" have the force of law or even social reputation to keep them in line. When they act up, the full force of society can come down on them.

      The same simply isn't so with a Corporation. While a corporation may sometimes be given some token punishment, ultimate perpetrators are let off scott free. A corporation is not unlike a rampaging mob.

      Prisoners are the correct model for Corporations. Prison Inmates act without regard for civility or consequences. They are animals that are essentially left to victimize each other. They represent the most base human behaivor in the extreme of amorality and lack of accountability.

      Corporations and their employees are similarly unrestrained. This is all by design.

      If you feel the need to make excuses for any of this rhetoric then you only confirm my analysis.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  237. a country where people will work for free?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Probably not but perhaps people would consider working for food and drink provided at the work site. Now that's getting down to basics. Of course - that would probably solve your absentism problem but seriously - all lot of companies consider outsourcing more than just a cost equation. The India model today is used by a lot of companies because the functions ( call centres, IT development, are just not core competencies the company wants to spend a lot of bandwith on). I think I see a little xenophobia showing here???

  238. Eventually they'll screw themselves by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 3, Funny

    While the corporations are outsourcing everything to the lowest bidder, they're forgetting something important. SOMEBODY HAS TO BE ABLE TO BUY THEIR SHIT!!! If all the American workers are unemployed, and the Romanians are working for $100 per month, who's going to buy their shit? At best they'll have to lower their prices dramatically; at worst they're outta business!

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  239. Re:Free markets do not guarantee a permanent SOL l by Malcontent · · Score: 1

    Only if there is an inifinate amount of money in the world. Only if there is an infininate amount of natural resources which can be turned into goods and an infinate amount of natural resources which humans can comsume to provide services.

    Or I suppose economy itself could be bullshit construct that does not obey the laws of physics.

    --

    War is necrophilia.

  240. Randian Loonies by duck_prime · · Score: 1
    Now, this does not mean that I'm some sort of crazy Randian loony. Charity is a vitally important thing, and it is quite immoral not to help out those who are worse off. It is good for me to give $20 to a beggar; it is bad for me to clap a gun to your head and make you give him $20. The former is voluntary; the latter is compulsory. The former is charity; the latter is socialism.
    Please note that the example you give here actually is a tenet of Randiness ... they're all for uncoerced private charity (it's your money, see), and hate forced wealth redistribution.

    Sometimes the Randites go off the deep end, but if you can just get them to cut down on the coffee & cigs a little bit they're pretty reasonable.

    I don't get their newsletters or anything, but I credit them with curing me of socialist leanings in college. Hats off to the Berkeley Objectivism Club!
    1. Re:Randian Loonies by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      Objectivists are against private charity: they see it as rewarding those who have not been rewarded by anyone else. That is, why should one give a beggar money for nothing, if no-one is willing to give him money for something? Indeed, they see charity as fundamentally immoral.

      Now, many libertarians are all for charity, and many libertarians are Objectivists, and many demi-Objectivists are for charity. But Objectivism proper view charity is inefficient and immoral. But that's a side effect of soulless atheism: one should give to the poor purely because they need it.

  241. Adam Smith doesn't agree with you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many people seem to have your typical ignorant 1950's Russian despot view of capitalism. The true purpose of capitalism is for the betterment of all. Without creating capital we'd all be in a quagmire of serf-like toiling. Even communist russia had more capital than capitalist countries by concentrating it all in the government.

    You complain and whine about the current situation, but you should look at the alternatives first!

  242. Programmers don't get "average" salaries. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you average those salaries with a billion non-programmer salaries, I doubt the resulting average salary is indicative of programmer salaries.

  243. Hierarchal Separation of Guilt by copponex · · Score: 1

    The difference is the hierarchies. Let me explain.

    Imagine it's a HUGE multi-national. Let's say Marshall Islands Auto Company makes their UltraCoupe, and they find out that a major flaw causes the car to fully engage it's front brakes -- half of the time throwing the car on top of itself, where it explodes and kills all the passengers. No one knows why, so there's no single person to blame. Management doesn't want to lose any credit for the huge sales success, Accounting doesn't want to pay for a recall, and the rest of the peons are just "doing their job." So the cars will continue to flip over and explode because no person feels directly responsible.

    That is why I personally feel the size of companies should be restricted.

    At some point you have to realize that the distribution of wealth is just the same as it was in the 1600s, but now the peasants don't spend their lives farming and dying We're still driving Toyotas instead of Rolls Royces, and living in $100,000 starter homes instead of $10,000,000 mansions. I'm not complaining, but that is the way it is.

  244. Re:Enlish language advantage. NOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comparing India to Japan is asinine and atrocious. Japan is a First world country while India is a cesspool, desperately poor even by third world standards. There should be a lesson there for Indians if they weren't so stupid and so slavish towards their erstwhile colonizers: speaking the language of foreigners does NOT a successful nation make. Africans speak english as well and they are almost as poor as indians. How has english helped indians and africans? Learn from Japan and try to stand on your own feet instead of slaving for foreigners.

    BTW since all the countries mentioned have per capita incomes (in dollars) that are TEN to FIFTY times higher than India's, how on earth can they be considered cheaper?? There is more to this story than meets the eye.

  245. You misunderstand "efficiency" by abulafia · · Score: 1

    If you close your textile plant is MA and move to Saipan, you are investing in Saipan. Your (perhaps) lower wages are giving you a return on investment by moving, possibly offset by the cost of transport (which happens to employ people), which perhaps you should have considered before moving.

    Good lord, you obviously have never tried to run a business, or run your life like one, which you should. You ain't buzshwa until you've fought your way up and learned the key points.

    --
    I forget what 8 was for.
    1. Re:You misunderstand "efficiency" by ebh · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected in that the original poster was referring to efficiency in economist's terms, not in terms of value returned for effort expended. And no, I've never run a business, nor do I have any desire to.

      For that matter, the LAST thing I want to do is run my life like a business. My life is a whole lot more than product line and profit motive. The things that add the most to my life are the least businesslike, and sometimes frightfully unprofitable.

      (Picture Scott Adams's Family Circus panel where there were only two kids, and the mom, complete with pointy hair, was telling them how the new changes would help prevent further downsizing...)

  246. Afraid I must contradict you by duck_prime · · Score: 1
    From an objectivism web-site:
    Objectivism holds that there is nothing wrong with charity, so long as one is pursuing one's own values in providing it. As Ayn Rand said, charity is a marginal issue: it is not especially noble to engage in it, but if pursued prudently and seriously, and not at the cost of other important values, it can be a source of good for one's society and ultimately one's self. Objectivists tend to view their donations to causes as investments in some kind of improvement: a better culture, a better city, etc. But like investments, these require attention to make sure they are paying off.
    Now I am not the guy to preach hard-core Randianism, but do note that they are not as butt-cheek-clenched stingy as you suggest. Their big issue is not with charity per se, rather forced charity, and the idea that someone else is entitled to their dough.
  247. Who thehell you are? by perdelucena · · Score: 1

    "I am the American government. I am the Democratic party and the Republican party. I am the CEO of AOL. I am the Nation of Islam. I am an Indian worker at a cheap plant in Bangladesh."

    Seems like you are schizophrenic, thatÂs what it is.

  248. Poor Indians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow thats a shame. I really hope nobody loses my job. I mean, er, loses their job.

  249. We need to bring back slavery... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need slaves, and when I say slaves, I don't mean whiny ass white people who can't find meaning in their own empty existance and thus call themselves slaves in the process totally trivializing the experiences of those who actually were enslaved. I mean actual slaves. Adam Smith argued that slavery was not economicly viable because of costs and wastage, but we need to determine this in the modern setting. Perhaps we could figure out a formula whereby our new slaves don't constantly break shit just to be difficult. How about a government funded pilot program? We could also run an alternative to test out a form of tech suport "share cropping", where we tie their level of work to their survival (or at least whether they're given food that day).

  250. best way to fight terrorism by exhilaration · · Score: 1

    You're right and also consider this: by increasing the living standard in these 3rd world countries, we reduce the number of potential terrorists. Someone having a nice job, being able to afford a home and take care of his family is far less likely to be a threat to us. There will always be exceptions, of course, but poverty breeds hostility. Combine that with constant exposure to anti-American propaganda, and you have a serious threat to our security.

  251. Re:logical flaw in your argument by relativePositioning · · Score: 1

    You're forgetting business competition. If costs drop, and profit margins increase, then this segment becomes an especially juicy morsel in the eyes of competitors. Another company comes along, offers more for the same price (reducing profit margins to previous levels as it hires more people) and kicks the crap out of the incumbant. This isn't the case with monopolies and hence the unpleasantness. However, monopoly tends to breed not only competitor lust, but customer loathing.

    --

    "I'm a loner Dottie, a rebel."
    - Pee Wee Herman
  252. That's a common misconception by Gorimek · · Score: 1

    That is the most common understanding of how free trade works. It is also quite wrong, but unfortunately the explanation of why is very hard to fit into a 10 second sound bite and will probably never be commonly accepted. Especially since a lot of very powerful lobby interests are aligned against it.

    Milto Friedman explains it better than I can and in good detail in the excellent Free to Choose.

    In short, since both parties benefit from trade, a country is always better off with no trade restrictions, even if other countries restrict some of your trade with them. "Retaliating" will hurt the other country, but also yourself, so you're better off doing nothing.

    To show that this is not just some theoretical model, it is pretty easy to establish that the most prosperous countries in any era are those with the fewest trade restrictions, not those that "cheat" and impose more trade restrictions than the others, as you would expect if your 'prisoners dilemma' model was correct.

  253. Offshore Outsourcing Threatens Offshore Outsourcin by dcmeserve · · Score: 2, Funny
    Offshore Outsourcing Threatens Offshore Outsourcing

    And Buffalo buffaloes buffalo Buffalo buffaloes.

    --
    "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
  254. Engrish as a first language...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about finding a country who's employees speak English as a FIRST language.

    Oh wait.. that'd be the USA...!!

    I've had to speak to BEA support *twice* this week. And it's *obvious* they outsource their techsupport to India...

  255. We have felt your pain already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Q: What's that tiny squeaking sound? A: Those are the notes from the world's smallest violin. Seriously, with the thousands of jobs India has stolen from the US and the thousands of US workers thrown into unemployment by that country, sympathy is ... difficult.

  256. Speaking as the owner of a corporation, rich=good. by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 1

    Granted, its a small corporation, (2people) but for ever 1 company out there using underhanded tactics and cutting their own countrys people to the bone, theres 99 of us just trying to make an honest buck.

    ANd how many of you own stock in companies htat do this? Youre just as guilty as they are. You get to vote twice as a stock holder, once with your dollar, and once with your shares. Do it. Show up at a shareholders meeting.

    Let them know that youd be happy only making 3 dollars instead of ten if it kept busisness in america. Oh, you didnt realize this would cost YOU money?

    --
    All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
  257. The Free Market (TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to Capitalism folks, it sucks.

  258. Land of the free... by the_real_tigga · · Score: 1

    You know what? Give me some "blank space" on the map along with the right ot found a new society there and I will create a place where labour is free.
    I know enough people both "thechnology enabled" and fed up with "capitalist" approach to tech usage to makethis at least imaginable.

    --
    my .sig is better than yours.
  259. Never underestimate... by dpilot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have/had an optimistic phrase/mantra:

    "There is far more stupidity than evil in the world."

    In recent year(s) I've added a less optimistic one.

    "Sufficient stupidity combined with sufficient power may be indistinguishable from evil."

    Kind of like Clarke's Third Law, only pessimistically applied to ethics.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  260. stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you comments make no sense. a chinese person should then have to buy no goods made in the us, because the apple might be produced by a hand which killed people for fun over Iraq, Bosnia, Vietnam, .......

  261. logic of working for free by brinticus · · Score: 1

    Working for free is not as crazy as it sounds. Technically, the workers would get paid by the state, but this could function as a long term plan to bootstrap a developing tech economy. It is somewhat of a political analogy to "open source" software; but, in this case the I.T. is "open source" labor, whereby the dependence on a labor source becomes so important to a set of companies that they are willing to later phase in payment for services. Or, as an option, phase in payment for support services that would alone be worth the time (e.g. A T1 delivers the products to the company far faster than a 56K modem. How about an satellite upgrade for our free programers in Elbonia so you rich guys don't have to wait?)

  262. It is the network, stupid by thodu · · Score: 1

    Globalization is inevitable with the advances in networking and human communication. It is beyond laws to stop it. Shut down all H1B's and L1s? So, what? All you need is an excellent video conferencing link to get the work done. Having said that, the effect will be a gradual levelling of the standard of living around the world. Though it is a good thing for the lesser developed countries, it is NOT a good thing for the developed countries, who will be seeing their investments in social welfare over the past few decades strained by lack of money today. The solution, as any economist, will tell you is that people will develop newer skills and newer markets will develop. For the US specifically, I had thought that in the long run, with both manufacturing and services outsourced to other countries, the only hope would have been in Intellectual Property (entertainment, movies, music, real high tech) and tourism (the US has some great natural beauty) and maybe even agriculture given the size of farms here. For tourism to succeed, i.e., getting the newly rich from other countries to spend their money here, the tourist Visa scheme has to be a lot easier. After 9-11 that does not seem to be so. Anyways, do other people have ideas w.r.t., the newer industries developing in the Western countries with the offshoring of both manufacturing and services ?

  263. H1B by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does an american say to an Indian H1B developer working here in the United States?

    Would you like fries with that?

  264. Can't beat'em join'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simple... All you have to do is move to the countries where the corps. are outsourcing to. I've heard that the amount they are being paid is above average for their country. So... you could be pimpin it in India and then move to Russia where you could get some vodka and some cheap whores!

  265. Ummmm..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called progress. Doesn't just happen in the U.S. anymore. You can try to stop it, but only at to the detriment of later generations.

  266. Offshore Outsouring Coming Home by queenb**ch · · Score: 1

    You know, so many companies are sending their sensitive data - like customer information, pricing, etc. to countries where there are no laws about identity theft, intellictual property, and pretty much no penalty for ripping off anything you can get your hands on. Personally, I am much in favor of them doing this. More and sooner would suit me fine.

    Why, you ask, would, I - an American IT worker, want this? Let me tell you, when people starting going to India, Croatia, Uzbeckistan, or what ever place they settle in to steal their secrets while writing their code for $2 an hour - maybe just maybe the PHB's will wise up.

    Most companies live and die by their data and information. They don't call them trade secrets for nothing. Farming this stuff out to some guy who's not getting a decent living wage and who hasn't lived their whole life place where you can do back ground checks and credit checks and security checks and who doesn't work in place where you can watch his every move to be sure that he's not ripping you off is the most ridiculous and idiotic thing the multinationals have dreamed up yet.

    2 cents,

    Queen B

    --
    HDGary secures my bank :/
  267. Duh!! by losttoy · · Score: 1

    "Even though there is a lot of yelling from the clients, I love this job." Goenka said. "I have been fascinated with America since I was a little girl. Now I get paid to pretend I am American -- it's wonderful."

    Does it get anymore sick than this??

  268. This is going to create a world wide depression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the past the cultural differences, language, distance, etc separated economies.

    When you open the gates, what will happen is our $50,000 jobs and indias $4000 jobs will reach a equilibrium in the middle. Yes that means all developed countries are going to go into a MAJOR depression lasting probably 20 years. Smoke em' if ya got em'.

  269. Soon, it will be better to be a farmer... by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    As commoditty prices keep rising, us programmers, might make more money growing/selling veges/herbs and tobacco/coffee, than programming!!

    Remember, 1 bag of $50 coffee from peru, ends up making 10000 coffee cups.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:Soon, it will be better to be a farmer... by real_timexxx · · Score: 1

      The government screwed up farmers a long time ago. It is called agri-business today. American Agri-business is forcing Mexican farmers to cross the U. S. border. They can't compete with American agri-business and can not make a living in Mexico. Everyone likes globalization. You may be able to feed yourself if you farm.

  270. Outsourcing - The Final Destination ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1



    Now what we see is the trend for global companies to outsource their operation to wherever the cheapest place they can find.

    So we have the outsourcing double-trouble.

    But I bet this ain't gonna be the last one.

    The final frontier for the outsourcing universe is that .... one day when the machine starts replacing human, and can do whatever thing so dirt cheap that no human can compete - then we will see ALL the outsourcing contracts go to the machines.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  271. It's not all about 8th grade by vanguard · · Score: 1

    What people often fail to consider is that American colleges are amoung the best in the world. In Japan, college is considered to be a couple years of fun. In the US, it's generally known that college will be a lot harder than high school. I'm tired of hearing that because our 8th graders don't understand calc that American engineers have lousy math skills. It's BS. American engineers learn it in college.

    --
    That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
  272. just look at america by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As internet tech gets better, putting more things offshore will make sense for more and more white collar jobs.

    Would this mean the virtual end of the 'middle class' in America? Of course who will buying all these cheap projects made in china with customer service in vietnam? All computer companies could eventually make sense using only off-
    shore labor for development and support --- only customer site-visits would need to be in America.

    Movie production is moving offshore as well; soon with enough compute power, you could make any race look like any other race and film wherever's cheapest and, who knows, virtual thespians, ala Simone, might not be much farther off -- but at that point I guess most of their customers will be in China and the outsource countries since those are the folks that will have the money....or did I miss something here?

  273. Unbelievable by nonick · · Score: 1

    Sorry, mod me down, call me a troll, a dumb-ass or kick me out from slashdot or nuke me if you will, (I live in Madrid, Spain, for you B-52 owners). But I just had to insult all these fucking fascist and absolutely unconscious of human suffering capitalist bastards who talk about profits, profits, profits. "Labour market choice"!! blablabla.

    Yeah, it *is* stupid to insult, specially when I possess a ridiculous knowledge of economics. But I know what labour outsourcing IS about(ok, maybe not IT related, I don't know): hilarious wages, people starving, 20 hours shifts, anihilation of human rights... crude smashing of people's souls. Oh, well, tell me it's about helping the poor with foreign investments, or please, tell me you don't care about that. Maybe it's God's will or something?? ha. You fucking cruel money makers.

    This is the *first* time I feel I need to post something, in years of slashdot reading. Call me a dope, but I didn't want to drop the S/N ratio with clueless posts. Now I wish everyone reads this and shouts on me for being such a dope or something...

    Unbelievable.

    1. Re:Unbelievable by cmptrmaniac62 · · Score: 1

      I agree (not with the tone, but the sentiment). Most of the corporate world is motivated solely by greed, and rewarded for their greed. How else do you think the U.S. had such a huge Enron collapse (and took down Arthur Anderson with it).

      I personally like capitalism (I am from the U.S., so I am biased), but it definately has its HUGE issues.

  274. Enlish (sic) language and customs advantage & by goon · · Score: 1

    This is pretty much my stance. But does langauge explain the full picture? India also has two other factors that really allow them to great realise their ambitions - education and business nous. There is a great spirit of commercial endevour in the sub-continent. To get anywhere you have to compete within a competitive internal market. Also do not underestimate the recognition of education.

    But similiar charactersitics (education, hard work and business ability) can be found within Eastern Europe, China, Japan. All except the linga franca of the global economy, English.

    Thats why the above post is spot-on. The question I ask is will this Indian dominance change as more cultures adopt he English language and adapt their cultures?

    --
    peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
  275. Many People Different Pieces by mobileskimo · · Score: 1

    Shift in Competition.
    Valid point. Re-education does shift the area of competition. I'm not sure if it would work as well in theory, but the theory goes that the job market for another industry or role that's in high demand would attract the attention of re-training, thereby "equalizing" that field. In any case, the least desired outcome is for the displaced worker to sit idle without a job after a move.

    Supply Chain
    IMHO it is a rather simplistic approach to consider that "We need more jobs". There are many variables that determine the number of jobs needed for a society or the earth, and the number of jobs required is one of the variables of those others. I would agree, the whole world needs to re-examine Earth's supply chain, but who would agree on what kind of things? Isn't that the attempt govments makes? (just a side note, I work in Supply Chain Management :). One can not deny reproduction. That is a whole can of worms that have been opened before and the realistic understanding is the Earth can indeed feed unbounded population. Whether that is true or not depends on how we cultivate and recycle the resources. Currently with our strategy, this is false. However, with the right strategy, the evidence suggests it is true. I'll give you a hint. Every country has a strategy (and none that covers enough time), but there is no global one. If there is one (a covert organization? Well it certainly isn't the UN lol), it certainly doesn't look like its moving in the direction I'd like to go. I suggest Asimovs Foundation series for a concept.

    Duty To The Future
    Again, accountability is missing here. To say the human race needs to accept it has a duty to generations is misleading. It is in the best interest for individuals in the human race to plan for future offspring. Perhaps I may interpret it as "leaders have an obligation" for the future of a group of them. And leader of leaders for the future of the larger superset. etc.

    Resources
    It is unclear to me what you have written. My guess is that this [1] contradicts the supply chain theory you wrote before [2] how would you propose these people take de-facto guarantors responsibility?

    The Others
    This is a VERY BIG problem. Humanity makes clear arguements against mistreatment of humans, for whatever crimes they commit, against even humanity. Personally, a large source of the problem stems from the lack of natural selection terminating those unsuitable for society. We retain them, at our cost. Humanity's "prime directive" of compassion works at cross-purposes with the goals of furthering the species. Ironic, "compassion" is one of the attributes we consider to be a goal of "progress" for humanity.

    --
    "Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp