Outsourcing As A Source Of U.S. Jobs

An anonymous reader writes "The Economic Times, India's leading financial newspaper, reports that Diana Farrell, Director, McKinsey Global Institute during her speech at Nasscom 2004 said that Bureau of Labour Statistics is predicting a job gain of 22m in the US by 2010, against a job loss of 2m, due to offshoring. You can read the full article here."

Comments

Really?

[elvesRgay]

Twenty two million jobs, hu? Yea?

You want fries with that?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course realy.

We are exiting a global depression. The US has had a sustained growth rate of 6% for the past year.

We have a average 5.7% unemployement rate. Basicly that's as good as it gets. There are always a small percentage of people imbetween jobs, and bunissess start and others fail. Pluss there are some people who are fine with not having a job and won't get one until their unemployment benifits run out. This means that except for some notable exceptions in small areas, most everyone has a job that wants a job.

During the worst part of the "economic collaspe" as people like to over-dramatize it as, we still had a growth rate of 3-4%.

Our economy is strong enough that our growth rate, unemployment rates, and standard of living is better then most any other country out their.

For instance in Germany they would kill for the same economic indicators that here in the united states we considure "most horrible economy in the past 15 years".

I don't understand that when companies export jobs they are doing it to remain competative.

Isn't it better to have US businesses be the leades in the global economey or is it better to let foreign companies grow past us and eventually take over our companies?

Also don't forget that big corporations like IBM and HP have only the vast minority of possible jobs out there, even in IT. 75% of everybody is employed by small business. The vast majority of work that gets done is done by companies with less then a couple hundred people each. That's why the US economy is always so robust. For every big bad coporation that screws up or goes out of business or into and out of bankruptcy there are dozens of other driven people and companies willing to take their place.

Outsourcing = profits, profits = better bottom line, better bottom line = growth, growth = more jobs.

More jobs and growing economy helps us all, and that's why we need to remove obsticals to growth, while making sure that things don't get out of hand.

Otherwise would you want your company to be bought out by some Korean componate manufacturer, because they can compete better and produce quality things at a lower price?

Re:Really?

[Killswitch1968]

Outsourcing = profits, profits = better bottom line, better bottom line = growth, growth = more job

This should be your sig. Most people only see that first or second equation. I just wish you weren't a coward so I could add you to my friends list.

Re:Really?

[temojen]

Isn't it better to have US businesses be the leades in the global economey or is it better to let foreign companies grow past us and eventually take over our companies?

Once it's a publicly traded company with subsidiaries and partnerships in multiple countries it doesn't really matter. The ships will be re-flagged, the profits will be transfer priced to tax havens, and the plants will be upgraded to wherever labour and environmental standards are the worst.

With agreements like the MAI, it doesn't really matter where the head office is. If the company's publicly traded, it'll be held by Institutional investors and round and round the profits go. The only ones that see the benefits are the executives.

Outsourcing = profits, profits = better bottom line, better bottom line = growth, growth = more jobs.

Here's where you're wrong. Profits do not lead to growth; Growth may be a strategy to increase profits. Growth (in business terms) may not lead to more jobs, or those jobs may be elsewhere.

The desire for more profits may lead to expansion, but only if that's what will result in higher profits. Take Porsche for example. Increasing their production capacity tenfold would likely lead to lower net profit, as it would erode their sticker price. Prestige is their buying motivation. Make Porsches commonplace and you lose the prestige.

In the forest industry, it was quite common in the 90's for a company to open one new higher capacity plant while closing an old plant. The old plant often employed more people (the new one was more mechanized). The company has grown, but less people are employed.

Similarly, An auto manufacturer may "grow", increasing it's production capacity by outsourcing parts that had been produced in-house to multiple offshore subsidiaries. By shifting it's ratios of parts supplied by each plant they can keep costs the lowest, while billing the highest in the countries with the lowest effective taxes (transfer pricing). Now the company has grown by increasing it's profits, but there are less jobs.

Offshoring depends on the market for your product not decreasing to increase profits. Unfortunately, if production is commonly offshored from the consuming market, incomes fall in the market, leading to less sales, which decreases profits.

(For those who've never taken an ethics course, this is called Kant's Categorical Imperative.)

More jobs and growing economy helps us all

This is only true is the growth is distributed evenly. Logic does not bear your assertion out.

A "growing economy", in business terms simply means that larger amounts of money are being transferred. If I were to sell you a rock for a promissory note for 200 trillion dollars, then buy the rock back for the promissory note, we would have increased the GDP by 400 trillion dollars, which is about 4000%. But who did this benefit? Only me, as I'd now have an asset with a book value of 200 trillion dollars (liquidating this asset is annother matter).

Much of what goes on in the economy (and one of the areas of largest growth) is companies acquiring eachother and merging. Often this is done by a stock swap. If two large companies swap stock at market value, the book value of the transaction adds to the GDP, and it appears that the economy has grown. Rarely are jobs created by stock swaps. The merged company may decide to grow, but often the reason to merge is something that precludes growth.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Outsourcing = profits, profits = better bottom line, better bottom line = growth, growth = more jobs

= more outsourcing.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"This means that except for some notable exceptions in small areas, most everyone has a job that wants a job."

What a crock. How about producing some evidence for that statement. You'd better hope there isn't Karma in the real world or you'll be in a world of hurt when you lose your job.

Re:Really?

[Killswitch1968]

... we would have increased the GDP by 400 trillion dollars, which is about 4000%.
Wrong, you would have increased it by 2000%. GDP does not include the sale of used goods.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love that 5.7% that people like to throw around... they understand, but will never say when the spout that number that once people go off unemployment benefits they are no longer counted in the unemploiyment statistics.... they just vanish into the ether. what a joke 5.7%

Re:Really?

[iron_weasel]

You need to 'get away' from viewing those REALITY tv shows and into the real world.

Most of what you say is basic spinned and doctored new media ouput.

If you were out here in the real world you would see that its pretty much wrong(your posted items).

'Out here' the medical industry is killing us. Lack of real jobs is forcing more and more onto welfare which will drain the treasury yet more. Most now use the ER rooms as care for they have no other means. Our culture is sliding into the borders of Sodom and Gommorah. Most Americans realize the American Dream IS now just a dream.

Support for corporate America has reached the level of toilet scum. Small businesses are hanging by threads.

Outsouring = death on a stick, due to lack of meeting the qualifiers of real Free Trade and obtaining of none of its benefits.

Re:Really?

[Erik Fish]

We have a average 5.7% unemployement rate. Basicly that's as good as it gets.

At one time in the US the unemployment rate was calculated using on the number of people without jobs. These days "unemployment rate" is calculated using the number of people getting checks from the government for being unemployed. If you aren't getting a check because you couldn't find a job in the allotted time you no longer exist as part of the newspeak definition of "unemployment rate".

Are we to assume that anyone who can't find a job in the allotted time struck it rich playing the lotto?

Re:Really?

[jp10558]

The problem with the unemployment rate is that(AFAIK) it only counts those on unemployment payments. So people whose benefits run out suddenly are no longer counted in the statistics for the unemployed... even though they still do nto have a job and want one. I think this gives a falsly low unemployment percentage.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Re:Really?

[Tukla]

I also never hear about the "underemployed", e.g. professional software developers pulling down $50,000 who are now delivering pizzas.

Sauces, use thereof

[A nonymous Coward]

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If all this is true, how come Indians aren't eager to outsource all the jobs back to the US? Hard to believe they are so altruistic.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Smokin Goat McGruff]

Free trade benefits both parties. You wouldn't buy anything if you didn't think the benefit didn't outweigh the cost. The manufacturer benefits because they got your money, you benefit because you got a product you like.

It's the same thing here. The US benefits from cheap labor, and India benefits by providing it. You learn this stuff on the first day of any economics 101 class.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[kbonin]

"The US" is not benefiting from cheap labor - the benefits a corporation gains from outsourcing is passed mainly to the executives of the corporation through non-salary compesentation (options, bonuses, etc.), and to a lesser extent to the shareholders of said corporations.

The public is benefiting in the short term from the continually lowering retail price of consumer goods manufactured primarily in China.

The long term result is simple - good bye middle class. The growth in the service sector is primarily servicing said middle class, so the service sector dies with the middle class.

As much as I love capitalism, we are seeing its worst side now - as corporations realize they can behave with no morals (as modern society has decided there is no such thing, all is relative), there is no reason to create jobs, take care of employees, etc. There is nothing of concern other than the next quarter stock valuation...

To make it even worse, the modern system doesn't allow executives to benefit significantly from their stock shares until they SELL them (dividends are still overly taxed), so there is no real reason to think about the long term survival of the corporation either...

Add currency trading velocity issues and foreign holding policies for US treasury bonds, and the western economy is getting scary - inertia only lasts so long...

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[rsidd]

If all this is true, how come Indians aren't eager to outsource all the jobs back to the US?

Because it doesn't save money to do that. Salaries are much higher in the US which is why US companies are outsourcing in the first place.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[johannesg]

But if the article is true, they will (in the end) be paying the US far more than the US is paying them. If that is true, and assuming they can do the math, why would they go along with it?

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[myom]

- Companies save money by outsourcing, allowing expenditure in more critical areas. Fewer jobs in the short run, more jobs and stable companies in the long run. - Spreading $ to "less developed" countries narrows the gap between countries with little money (a theoretical construction) but huge resources and low wages and countries with lots of money but few resources and high wages. In the long run or very long run this leads to a more stable world economy. Large parts of many countries budget defecits are because other countries can't afford to pay for exensive products. Basically money != work/resources, and the development of other countries rectifies this.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[packeteer]

We only benefit from the cheap labor if we are a stockholder. If we are a working for a living wage we end up losing. Why dont you consider more than a stock index when you think about an economy? Why dont you think beyond basic economics class and think about what is really important to our a country; the citizens not the corporations are what we should be supporting.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[BobPaul]

Take an economics class. So we loose a few US jobs. US companies are making those jobs, which means US companies will be reaping the profits. The US for years has had a massive trade deficite, yet we have continued to further our riches. Labor is a resource and fits in the economy in a very similar way... Think about it, instead of american workers, we'll have American corporate managers while all of the labor is done somewhere else. Sounds like a higher paying deal to me!

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe, yes maybe no, the loss of jobs as i see it is spread across different fields, in neither countries have people's voice been so vociferously heard as when tech people have been laid off. maybe its because techies have an outlet while those in non tech areas can at best goto the streets for a day or two maximum. there are tens of thousands of people in india - all small scale who have lost thier jobs and shut thier factories because of multinationals like Coca Cola, and others. on the other hand, quite a few jobs lost during the japanese and chinese invasion of goods. well, the best way to go would be to reign in the multinationals. and be part protective and go case by case. otherwise, the bottom rung of people would be the guys who bear the brunt - anywhere in the world, while the already rich - help themselves to the banks

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Anonymous Coward]

This is great! I'll get fired and replaced by an offshore worker but I'll get hired back as a Director of Something Important! He just said so here:

Daniel Grisworld, associate director, Centre for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute said, "People don't understand what a great opportunity offshoring is for US companies. Apart from huge savings, it allows US companies to concentrate on their core competencies and the people (in the US) can move on to higher paying, more creative, more value generating jobs."

Just think, all us lowly workers will be replaced by offshore workers but we'll be put into upper management as compensation. I guess I'll have about one guy under me, but he'll be paid $0.16 an hour while I'll be making $85.00 an hour. And since it will create so many new high paying jobs maybe I'll have to share my one worker with some other Director, or Senior Manager or Something or Other. Sounds good to me. Corporations will make a killing by replacing us with low wage workers and hiring us back at twice the wages we made before. Do the math.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[PhotoBoy]

Yes, I believe that sauces will be involved in these 22m new jobs, mainly ketchup and mustard.

The market for techies as cheap burger flippers cannot be underestimated, as we have the skills to operate the tills that seem to so confuse your average McDonald's worker.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Eunuchswear]

We only benefit from the cheap labor if we are a stockholder.

Ah. You never shop at WalMart? You don't care about the prices you pay for the toys you buy?

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Anonymous Coward]

Take an economics class.

I think everyone starting or ending his reply with something like "take econ 101" should die a long, painful, intimidating death. Who is with me?

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about it, instead of american workers, we'll have American corporate managers while all of the labor is done somewhere else.

Sure dude! Because, like, everyone here is qualified to be a manager. It's not like most of the average or below average intelligence guys simply have no other choice than to be workers.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Anonymous Coward]

The taxman soon come'th to tax the true value of
US intellectual property. Than all the
out sourced companies shall drop like RAID dressed flies.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Carnifex487]

If my high paying Programing job has been outsourced to India and I am now working for Wal-Mart for $5.50 an hour, what "Toys" would I be buying ? Isn't it more likely I would be trying to figure out how to pay rent AND eat this month ?

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[jimbolaya]

Look around at your cow-orkers. Now, look around at your managers. Which of them would you say are of average or below average intelligence?

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Yartrebo]

Food, clothing, and appliances are a small part of poor and middle class people's expenses, and outsourcing and mechanization is primarily reducing the cost of these goods.

The biggest expenses tend to be housing, medical, and auto. For the heavily in debt, you can add in credit cards. Housing and medical are skyrocketing while auto is rising more modestly. Funny enough, to take advantage of low prices in large stores like Walmart, you need a motorcar, which will, in all likelyhood, cost you more than all of your spending at said stores.

If you really want to help the working class, break up the pharmaceutical and medical cartels and push for subdividing our oversized houses and building affordable housing to get rents and property prices under control. Reducing auto expenses would require a massive overhaul of our cities and infrastructure, but the benefits would be massive.

Walmart could push the cost of food, clothing, and appliances to $0 and in several years rising health, housing, and auto costs will eat that all up.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[ZoneGray]

More to the point... American dollars go to India, and there are only two things that can happen:

1. They spend the money on American goods

2. They just keep the money

Case 1 is a wash, and Case 2 (which never happens), would be wonderful... we could just keep printing dollar bills and never have to work. Unfortunately, when we import goods or services, the other countries want something in return.

America is prosperous largely because it's a huge free-trade zone. Imagine if people in Massachusetts complained about imports of cars from Michigan, and passed a law that said you had to buy a car made in Massachusetts, so that jobs wouldn't be lost to low-cost labor in Michigan. Or suppose Massachusetts insisted that Michigan adopt all of Massachusetts' labor laws. Would the people in Michigan want that? Would the people in Massachusetts want to drive cars designed in Brockton?

Or another example... suppose a state complained about all the computers "imported" from California or Texas, and insisted that any computers in be made and designed in the home state. Who would be hurt by that? People who can't afford expensive computers, that's who. It doesn't happen, nobody even suggests it, because it's freaking brain-dead stupid.

Some states make certain products, other states make others. Free trade among states reduces income inequality among states, and allows us to be peaceful neighbors.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[OwnedByTwoCats]

You've got to look at the full cycle. Jobs are outsourced to India. Indian companies and workers get American dollars. Those dollars will eventually make their way back to this country and buy American products or investments.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[ZoneGray]

Fact is, if a company's costs go down, then their prices go down, whether they like it or not. The reason is simple... a big profit margin is an open invitation to competition. If one company's are reduced, then their competitiors' are reduced, too.

That said, there are any number of politcal tactics a company can use to insulate themselves from that competition, to benefit unfairly, and to maintain some of that extra profit. Ironically, many of those actions are taken in the name of "protecting jobs." What they're really doing is protecting companies from offshore competition.

And it should be noted that while free trade doesn't create or destroy jobs, it does cause some displacement. For conservatives & libertarians, that often doesn't register, since the people displaced eventually end up in other jobs with equal earning potential... unfortunately, it's not a 1-for-1 replacement; some will do better and some will do worse.

Statistcally, there's no permanent loss of jobs or prosperity (otherwise, there would be no jobs left in America by now). But there is a social cost that doesn't show up in a good economic analysis.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[BJZQ8]

If people in Massachusetts were trying to maintain their standard of living, and Michigan were a country where major killers were things like starvation and dysentary, I would see no problem with banning car imports from Detroit. All of this outsourcing is serving to do one thing; balance the economies of the U.S. and India/China. They gain, and we lose.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[dood]

No, that's not true that you only benefit if you're a shareholder. A company with more capital is able to hire more non-techinal people (product managers, biz dev, accountants) and put more $ into the economy in terms of capital expenditures (computers, notepads, etc).

Further, half your argument assumes foreign workers are exploited by the US corp - that's just not the case. Making $20/hr as a programmer in Russia is a good salary and it's a job they're eager to have (ie, it's not a sweatshop!).

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[ZoneGray]

It's perhaps justifiable to ban trade with a country on moral grounds. I'm personally somewhat conflicted on it... it worked well and advanced reform in South Africa; but in Cuba and Iraq, it just seems to have punished the people and had no effect on the dictators.

But you seem to suggest that the reason to avoid trade with India or China is that they're too poor. What's the morality of that?

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[BJZQ8]

I believe preserving this country's standing as a dominant world power is morality enough...certainly equal to the morality of putting a hard-working American out on the street after 30 years of labor for a company. If it were only a question of morality, we would be dividing up our cumulative wealth and spreading it equally about the earth; but the reality is that is we MUST not do that, lest we be equally divided in national strength.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because they get paid in American dollars doesn't mean those dollars will be invested in the US. Last time I heard you could spend dollars in places like Europe too.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[ZoneGray]

Wealth, on a national level, is determined not by what you have, but what you can produce.

We could redistribute every penny of current American wealth equally around the globe, and within a short period of time, the same order would redevlop, the same nations would be prosperous and the same nations would be poor. The Soviet Union had an incredible stash of natural resources, and a very educated and capable population, but they were piss-poor because they insisted on taking five dollars' worth of materials and labor and using them to produce two-dollar shoes.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[BJZQ8]

Well we can produce less as we ship it all overseas. I have been in the manufacturing industry in the past, and one of the larger problems is becoming finding tool and die makers. After all, it's nice to internet this and program that, but somebody has to make the die that stamps the case out for your computer. In the 80's, apprenticeship programs were eliminated left and right, as we would theoratically never need such "old style" skills anymore. Things were shipped overseas and the entire skill pool in this country evaporated. I can see the same thing happening across the board. Just extract this situation to its logical conclusion; every job here is outsourced to India/China/etc. What is left in the US?

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[4of12]

so there is no real reason to think about the long term survival of the corporation either...

Quite so.

I've often thought the capital gains tax rate should be very high initially and very low in the long term. Something drastic like exp(-time/5 years), for example.

The main objective being to motivate shareholders and executives to think of the company's long term best interest and not just jack up earnings by cutting maintenance, R&D, selling the family jewels, etc.

One worrying development is just how much executives are motivated to sacrifice a company's long term health in order to meet earnings estimates put out by the Wall Street analysts.

If there were a similar way to make politicians or the public fiscally-minded, too, it would be nice. Something along the lines of "your share of this year's federal deficit is going onto your VISA card on April 15" would help shape things up in a hurry.

Your choice: pay more taxes, spend less, or lock yourself into an onerous debt. Most politicians are only too happy to give people less taxes, more spending and retire before the debt comes due.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Anonymous Coward]

"We only benefit from the cheap labor if we are a stockholder."

However, companies give stock option only after you spent there a year. If you give up earlier the 'dirty saving' goes to the company. Besides, a stock option does not guarantee financial gain.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[elbarrio]

For the most part I agree with your concerns (though I am ambivalent when it comes to issues of free trade). That said, I would like to disagree with your point on automobiles. Cost of owning a car is exactly the type of thing that the current system of trade helps. Lower cost imports keep car prices down so that middle and working class people can afford them. Arguably, one could say that if these people don't have jobs to begin with, they can't get the cars, but I don't think that's what you were trying to say, right? I 100 % agree with your sentiments on housing and health... although I'm not sure that we can't both have free trade and social benefits at the same time.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[SirChive]

"Free trade benefits both parties."

This is a common and widely-believed simplification.

There are many "sides" to Global "Free Trade". Multinational Corporations and their stockholders benefit the most. Politicians, lawyers and bankers tend to benefit as the Corporations spread money around to grease the wheels of trade. People who are already wealthy benefit from the cheap prices.

But the American Middle Class most certainly does not benefit in the long run. Remember that thirty years ago a person could get a job in a factory or a machine shop and buy a house and a car and raise a family on his earnings. Not everybody wants to or is able to be a businessman or a "knowledge" worker.

But this is ending. America is on the path to becoming a two class society: the business class who are becoming very wealthy and the service class who just barely scrape out a minimal existence.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[elbarrio]

The argument you've made basically boils down to "we've seen this before and it didn't hurt us". However, your assumption that we have seen this before does not seem accurate. In the past we've seen exportation of unskilled labor, mostly factory jobs. The argument at the time was that we will retrain and become more skilled and a higher quality workforce than other nations, which will in turn raise our standard of living. However, now we're seeing job loss in white collar educated positions. How can you tell someone who has a PhD already that they need to retrain? that they're not educated enough? As such, it's hard to say this is not the beginning of a long downward spiral, where the money at the top of the paradigm begins to shift to other nations over the long run. You may make the case this is good for world stability as a whole, but I'm not so sure it's good for citizens of the U.S..

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes indeed - eventually, the average individual who under Clinton was able to put money in the stock market, is now living off that money. Eventually, only personal services and top tier managment will be left. So, if you like 2nd level desktop support, get ready to do it for a very very long time.

The stock index, as it is right now, is once again based on fallacy. The numbers reflect that those companies are more or less competitive with the others in their field, and the only way to maintain its competitive edge is to be a ruthless bastard and to cut into the bone.

I predict by 2010 that if the trend doesn't turn around, there will be very violent uprisings in city centers of displaced Gen-X and Gen-Y, pissed off Baby Boomers whose retirement accounts were raided and stock holders who got ripped off. I mean seriously - you invest your money in a company, it loses money hand over fist because of poor managment decisions, yet the CEO still takes home $50 million? WTF is that?

So Bush is pushing the new party line that outsourcing is good for the US economy. What utter bullshit. His people have been saying that we are in an economic recovery, even though we continue to lose jobs. According to USA Today's Op-ed yesterday, 4.7 million white collar works, most of which are 25-34 are not only unemployed, but have given up hope of finding a job at all.

Just remember this lying sack of shit's lies in November.

Lie #1 - We had no warning of 9/11
Lie #2 - Saddam has WMD's, and intends to use them
Lie #3 - Outsourcing jobs will create jobs.

That third one should be so freaking obvious it doesn't even need explanation.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Fulcrum of Evil]

If there were a similar way to make politicians or the public fiscally-minded, too, it would be nice. Something along the lines of "your share of this year's federal deficit is going onto your VISA card on April 15" would help shape things up in a hurry.

Oh sure, W spends $500B and it goes on my credit card (at 10%, no less) - that's fair! If I'm going to pay for the deficit, then I get a veto too.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Anonymous Coward]

free trade? what the hell is that? Oh yeah you must be in america...
Look on the other side of the borders and see how free the trade is. I haven't seen anything change since free trade was introduced. There's still tariffs on everything, softwood lumber the #1 coming to mind.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[corbettw]

Oh sure, W spends $500B and it goes on my credit card (at 10%, no less) - that's fair! If I'm going to pay for the deficit, then I get a veto too.

I think that was the point of the original post. If Joe Sixpack American had to pony up extra money out of his wallet every year to pay off the deficit (and not just through withholding taxes, I mean having to write an actual check), how long do you think it would be before there was a full scale revolt?

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[E_elven]

> a big profit margin is an open invitation to competition.

Ah yes. We witness this every day with the overwhelming competition for Microsoft, the oil companies, the HMO's and such entities.

This is the real world now.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[SirChive]

"Take an economics class. So we loose a few US jobs. US companies are making those jobs, which means US companies will be reaping the profits"

Oh man, you are so completely off track it boggles the mind. You have swallowed the propaganda hook, line and sinker. This is the Big Lie that Corporations and Politicians use to get the laws passed that they want.

In reality, these are primarily Global Multinational corporations that benefit. And they are not passing on the wealth by hiring vast numbers of new managers. In fact these big companies are finding that they need fewer and fewer managers. When was the last time you saw a headline like "Big Company Hires 10,000 New American White-Collar Workers"?

When a factory moves to China it doesn't just create jobs for assembly line workers. It also creates jobs for supervisors and managers and maintenance workers and so forth. And once all the actual production has been shipped overseas there's no real reason to keep the services and support staff here either. Hence the accounting and programming jobs are starting to go.

We are witnessing the complete hollowing out of the American Economy.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Anonymous Coward]

There are still skilled machinists in the USA. However, most of the work is now very high precision consisting of things like artificial heart valves and pieces for helicoptor rotor assemblies for example. Most low precision stuff has left the USA.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[4of12]

Oh sure, W spends $500B and it goes on my credit card (at 10%, no less) - that's fair! If I'm going to pay for the deficit, then I get a veto too.

Transposition error.

You don't get a veto, you get a vote.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[corbettw]

For conservatives & libertarians, that often doesn't register...

You do realize that libertarians are usually the ones screaming for completely open markets, don't you? Many conservatives are also in favor of outsourcing to reduce costs. It's mostly liberals and populists who are against it (though not completely, I consider myself a "conservative", but don't like offshore outsourcing...the national security concerns keep me up at night).

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[lawrencekhoo]

how come Indians aren't eager to outsource all the jobs back to the US?

It's not Indians, but rather CEO's in the US who decide on outsourcing. Outsourcing to India is essentially the same as buying Indian software, and it's always the buyer who decides what to buy, and who to buy from.

OTOH, Indians are eager to buy all sorts of US goods. Just ask Coca-Cola, MacDonalds and Starbucks.

Or more pertinently, Intel, Motorola, Seagate, etc ...

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Anonymous Coward]

Housing is definitely on of the largest issues. There's a simple explanation.

When the poor have to compete against the middle-class and higher incomes on the free market, for housing, they will always lose.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[BJZQ8]

I am talking about tool and die makers, not just machinists...T&D's are the elite of the elite machinists, highly skilled and specialized. The elimination of apprenticeship programs and the exporting of jobs has led to their virtual elimination in this country, and now many companies are hurting for it (Caterpillar Tractor Company for one of them)...but they are much happier sending the jobs elsewhere. That's fine and dandy. I say because of that, we are a weaker country, becoming more dependent on others in the world. We have exported our prosperity, you might say. As this progresses, we will soon be nothing but an administrative shell of a country. We cannot sustain a great nation on politics alone.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[cayenne8]

"Ah. You never shop at WalMart? You don't care about the prices you pay for the toys you buy?"

I think I have actually been INSIDE a Walmart maybe once or twice in the past 5 years. And that was only to buy some plants for the garden I think...

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[cayenne8]

And who are all these new 'managers' going to manage? Whoops....no one left in the US to 'manage'...they're all overseas....so, don't need you there. You need those accountants and managers and other jobs to support tech people and other's whose jobs are being sent offshore. If you get rid of those people, then you really don't need that many support bodies to take care of them now do you?

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[jedidiah]

Mindless nonsense.

Imported automobiles are not useful for their upfront cost. They're useful for their lower TCO. This has less to do with "free trade" than Detroit's insistence in subjecting us to forced obsolescence.

A well engineered automobile should have a useful life of no less than 10 years.

Auto imports are useful not because of sticker price but because the associated corporations are trying to please consumers rather than Wall Street.

Tokyo: Let's make the best engines.
Detroit: Let's be the best salesmen.

BTW, my favorite brand of rice burner is built in OHIO.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop it with this World Economy bullshit, you must be a CEO. I can tell when someone is blowing smoke up my ass, and this is a full blown refinery smokestack you are trying to shove up my virgin ass. I cant believe you are so vain as to think I am that stupid. Unless you are one of those people who think that because someone has a lot of money they are better than you somehow.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[elbarrio]

I think you misunderstood him. What he was saying is that conservatives tend to be in support of free trade because in the long run at the macro scale there is no change to overall employment..... however, what they don't realize is that there is very real tangible change on the individual scale where people's fortunes fluctuate up and down during times of job "displacement". Basically, he called conservatives like yourself dumb because they are unable to do anything but add and subtract, and when that's all you do, job displacement looks great.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Anonymous Coward]

It definitely would get everyone's attention. With W's corporate welfare and big spending on the military - on platforms totally not related to terrorism - everyone is getting stuck with a $1600/year credit card bill.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[ZoneGray]

Microsoft: has government protection from competition though the intellectual property laws. One Microsoft is plenty, I can't imagine we'd be any better off with two. But even in the absence of commercial alternatives, we have Linux, MySQL, etc, which is fine by me. The point of an economy is to produce goods and services, not to produce profits.

Oil companies: They simply don't have high profit margins; commodities like oil generally provide small margins. Even OPEC can't maintain price discipline within the cartel longer than a couple of months. Oil is profiatble by virtue of volume and predictable demand.

The reason people are stuck in sucky HMO's is because the coverage is tied to their jobs by the tax code, which is perverted. HMO's are guaranteed a certain amount of business, it's hard for unsatisfied customers to leave, and so they suck. Problem is, the last guy who tried to fix it did so by proposing a national HMO that had no competition. Oh, well, maybe next time. Hard to imagine any politician could come up with a worse system than the one we have, but they continue to do just that.

A much more interesting illustration is the one in which a shoe company makes shoes overseas for pennies, and then sells them here, with a jock endorsing them, for mucho dollars. But it turns out that there's competition to sign those jocks to the endorsement deals, so if Nike offers too little, then Reebok offers a little more. If Nike saves a few pennies by moving the plant from one Asian country to another, then the long-term savings probably won't accrue to Nike or to consumers, but to the jocks who subsequently sign endorsement deals.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Fulcrum of Evil]

If Joe Sixpack American had to pony up extra money out of his wallet every year to pay off the deficit (and not just through withholding taxes, I mean having to write an actual check), how long do you think it would be before there was a full scale revolt?

And rightly so - It's one thing to tell someone that they need to pony up 30% (still nasty), but try going back after the fact and saying "Woops, I spent too much - here's the bill". It's not like that'd be in any way legal.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[GileadGreene]

The biggest expenses tend to be housing, medical, and auto. For the heavily in debt, you can add in credit cards. Housing and medical are skyrocketing while auto is rising more modestly.

So get a job in the building or real estate industries, the auto industry, or the medical industry. There's clearly a demand out there, otherwise prices wouldn't be rising.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[cinni]

AMEN

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[jonadab]

> "The US" is not benefiting from cheap labor

Yeah, yeah, the evil corporations soak it all up, blah, blah, blah, but you
obviously don't understand how the ecconomy works if you think that money will
disappear into executives' pockets and cease to exist. What, you think they
line their mattresses with it? They spend or invest it, and it stays in the
ecconomy.

The real benefit to the US ecconomy, however, happens when India suddenly has
a lot of US money to turn around and spend; ultimately that has to make its
way back here. They'll use it to buy US goods and services, or they'll buy
from another nation that in turn buys from the US, or whatever. It all comes
back. So you have the US buying cheap labour from India, and India buying
more advanced finished goods and services from the US. This creates a
favorable trade situation and pumps up the US ecconomy (which would be a
good thing about now, incidentally).

Your same "The US doesn't benefit" argument was used against NAFTA, against
free trade with Europe in the 1700s and 1800s, against trade with Asia later,
and every other time anyone has proposed international trade. But it always
comes from a lack of understanding of basic undergraduate ecconomics.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[ClosedSource]

Tills, yes, but it takes coordination to flip burgers. Let's face it. If it weren't for computers we'd starve.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[cluckshot]

I have some good news. You are mistaken about this being capitalism. It isn't! You can still love capitalism and hate this!

Capitalism is where you invest money and if it pays off you receive a return on your investment either as interest or dividends or as property in some form or another. Honestly what is going on has nothing to do with this. Investors are not getting paid and Interest is essentially gone as well. Property is disappearing as fast as it has ever gone in history or faster. So this isn't capitalism

The reality is quite simple. There is a Trade War by the US Congress against the American People. India and China are not at fault. They are merely opportunists who are taking what comes to them. The US Congress is tariffing the US Labor to a level that causes about a 150% markup. Because no other labor in the US Market or Goods or Services pays this tariff, the situation is definitionally a Trade War.

While suffering this Trade War US Labor has been led to believe that it was suffering foreign attack. In reality the US Government was spending their money like a drunken sailor. (Apologies to drunken sailors here) The reason US Labor is too expensive is simply that it is burdened down with this spending but is not protected by the one who is doing the spending.

The behaviour of CEO's under the current tax laws which have essentially outlawed Capitalism and earning a profit in the USA is quite expectable. These guys cannot earn money and pay dividends or the USA will tax them out of existence. The alternatives are to treat the company like your own private cookie jar or to go out of business. (Not very pretty options)

In this environment Capitalism has no chance. For with all the tarrifs on labor the amaizing reality is that US Labor earns profits. When it does, the US Corporate Income Tax punishes them for doing so. For if one earns for his employer more than about 2.25 times the cost for freight on import for goods and or services there is a definite Tax Incentive to Export the job. This leaves US Workers in the Damned position that if they actually earn money (As capitalism is supposed to reward) for their boss, they actually cause themselves to be fired! If they don't earn money than any reason to keep them on the payroll fails to exist. The only safe zone is the modest level where freight protects the trade by making an advantage for the local population.

For those in the rest of the world this has terrifying potential as well. For what happens is that US Labor being the Cheapest Labor on Earth (Per UNIT OF PRODUCTION) now finds itself having to discount sale its products into your markets driving your wages down as well. If the USA enacts measures that compensate for the Taxes Domestically, the great efficiency differentials of US Capital absolutely wipe you from the market.

The effect is that this Trade War against US Labor Crushes world wide labor. It has disrupted the economies of Asia, Europe, the Americas and Africa. The result has been the collapse of many governments and social systems. The resulting situation threatens all civil order. This is in no small part a CAUSE OF THE WAR ON TERROR.

Islamic Forces are gathering force because of this underlying world wide trade war, which the National Geographic refered to as "Slavery." Frankly this policy is the greatest expanision of Slavery in the history of the world. The Circumstances in Central America have the USA seeing the greatest Illegal Immigration Flood in its history. It should be noted that what Americans know as the "Irish Potato Famine" was in fact a Trade War of "Free Traders" in England of exactly the same type policy and effect. It caused a flood of refugees then.

India's great economic troubles post world war II were also from such a "Free Trade" policy set. These "Free Trade" policies were justified and encouraged by the "Old South" of the (CSA) US (1861-1865). They even said that the "Economy will collapse" if they stopped. Actually the Economy Collaps

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Mr. Piddle]

"The US" is not benefiting from cheap labor....

However, protectionist policies that don't allow the world to stabilize will only make things worse. Providing people with a legislated fantasy that all is well will lead to an overpopulated and ruined nation in the long run. Also, the best way to prevent war is to help keep other nations grow in their wealth. The USA has already bred a politically-indifferent idle middle class, just wait until the rest of the world becomes like that, too. "Jihad? But I don't want to miss tonight's Friends episode, and my pizza will get cold."

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[TheSync]

New housing costs, on a square foot basis, are much lower than they have ever been in real dollar terms.

But average new home prices are increasing, some people need "McMansions..."

Health costs are rising, but it is because of increasing health technology.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Anonymous Coward]

3. They spend the money on American _real estate_
and debt.

4. They buy politicians to create more liquidation
of American assets

5. When the above game has run its course, they
simply use the money to destabilize the US
government-and put one of their liking in its
place.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Mr. Piddle]

Ah yes. We witness this every day with the overwhelming competition for Microsoft, the oil companies, the HMO's and such entities.

Microsoft: Linux, GNOME, KDE, Sun JDE, IBM Linux-on-mainframe, etc. Just wait.

Oil: Only government back patting is keeping alternative energies from our homes. You must think companies are evil in isolation?

HMOs: I'm pretty sure there is a trend away from HMOs. In fact, the last company I worked for was phasing out its HMO option. They said that they found both patients and doctors hated HMOs. HMOs were created by the government, anyway.

I really wish people would look around and see why businesses are the way they are. You might find that it is not uncommon for regulations to be the source of the perverse business models we see. People are always complaining about health care, saying the free market failed. Well, there hasn't been a free market in health care in my lifetime, because all the good-intentioned-yet-naive politicians thought they knew how to fix it all. Yeah, right. All the people who felt god-like enough to meddle are to blame. The businesses are just doing what they can with the tools they are given. Set up 1000 rules and laws, and suddenly it becomes profitable to break the law--go figure.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Mr. Piddle]

What is left in the US?

Overpopulation.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[superdude72]

It's the same thing here. The US benefits from cheap labor, and India benefits by providing it. You learn this stuff on the first day of any economics 101 class.

Spoken like someone who has never taken econ 101...

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Mr. Piddle]

But the American Middle Class most certainly does not benefit in the long run. Remember that thirty years ago a person could get a job in a factory or a machine shop and buy a house and a car and raise a family on his earnings.

Since we're playing the blame game, why not blame Realtors, whose absurd commissions help drive a real estate market that prices most people out of even entry-level homes. Homes that used to sell for $80,000 now sell for $140,000+, and they are real pieces of crap (built by ex-cons with crappy drywall and water pipes with 20-year life spans).
Oh, and Realtors make their money based on the thousands of regulations put in place by our friendly legislators that make home-buying so damn complex. I've even heard lawyers complaining about the contracts. Further, with so much fine print, it is now trivial to slip in arbitration clauses--more fuel for the fire, I must say.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Anonymous Coward]

The debates capitalism vs socialism, regulation vs deregulation, etc are just smokescreens. Everything exists within a context. The real debate should be the nature of this context that best upholds our sacred values. Corporations want to be US corporations because of the respect for property rights, political stability, etc of the US. These aspects of our society exist because of a stable middle class, the same middle class these corporations are selling out. Thus this situation is not sustainable and should not be allowed. The economy should not be a tool for the enrichment of the elite or a pawn of foreign policy.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of many "independent" economic reports that are soon to be release by the Karl Rove administration. Expect a lot more, as they they step up their laundering efforts.

BELIEVE IT AT YOUR PERIL.

Do you really think that the US Department of Labor can predict a net gain of 20 million jobs over a multi-year period, when they can not even accurately measure current rates of employment without significant "revisions" in month-to-month figures. Remember, this was one of the first agencies to have recieved Karl Rove's attention during the initial restaffing in 2000.

One has really got to laugh at the recent 2.6 mjpy gain they are projecting for the election year. They're all going to be high-tech programmer's jobs too!

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[BJZQ8]

I as as much of a misanthropist as the next person...but I doubt there's much we can do about overpopulation.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[superdude72]

More to the point... American dollars go to India, and there are only two things that can happen:

1. They spend the money on American goods

2. They just keep the money


What about (3): They spend the money on non-American goods.

America is prosperous largely because it's a huge free-trade zone. Imagine if people in Massachusetts complained about imports of cars from Michigan, and passed a law that said you had to buy a car made in Massachusetts, so that jobs wouldn't be lost to low-cost labor in Michigan.

America is also united under a single federal government that redistributes wealth from rich states to poor states. Arkansas is poorer than New York, but at least they have water, electricity, highways, police and fire protection, courts, national defense, etc. They couldn't afford it without help from the federal government (ie, subsidies from rich states.) Workers are also allowed to move freely from state to state, and it is relatively easy to do so because Arkansas isn't halfway around the world from New York--geographically, culturally, or linguistically.

So although US states can't impose tariffs on goods from other states, there are quite a few restrictions built into the system to ensure an outcome that doesn't impoverish the masses. It's quite a remarkable system. The poor states can vote to have the rich states subsidize them, and the rich states have to comply! There is no analogous institution internationally. The UN can't force Europe and the US to spend $2 trillion bringing India's infrastructure up to Western standards. But that is, in effect, what the US Congress does when a majority votes to spend money on infrastructure in poor states. The poor states don't have to pay for it themselves. It comes out of the federal budget, and rich states don't have the option of declining to pay their share if the majority votes against them.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Anonymous Coward]

" "The US" is not benefiting from cheap labor - the benefits a corporation gains from outsourcing is passed mainly to the executives of the corporation through non-salary compesentation (options, bonuses, etc.), and to a lesser extent to the shareholders of said corporations. The public is benefiting in the short term from the continually lowering retail price of consumer goods manufactured primarily in China."

You've refuted your own claim. Outsourcing makes a company more competitive, which benefits the owners of the company. Lower costs can be passed on to consumers, which benefits consumers. Why you claim this is a short-term benefit for consumers is beyond me. Protecting US jobs using tariffs is a short term fix for US labor that infltes US labor value at the expense of consumers, and does not work in a global economy anyway. If you want to be competitve in a global economy, you must either replace American workers with foreigner workers, or make the American workers more productive with better machinery. The only moral obligation is to not use labor being exploited by foreign govts. through socialism and other forms of tyranny.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[BitterOak]

"The US" is not benefiting from cheap labor - the benefits a corporation gains from outsourcing is passed mainly to the executives of the corporation through non-salary compesentation (options, bonuses, etc.), and to a lesser extent to the shareholders of said corporations.

In the short term, that might happen to some extent, but in the longer term, those companies that don't pass the savings along to the consumers will not be able to compete with those that do, and thus will be weeded out of existence by the very free market capitalist system which many here seem to be criticizing despite the fact that every comment posted talks about how wonderful capitalism is!

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[toiletmonster]

i kind of agree maybe. i might not mind seeing some rules tweaked to emphasize the long term.

but don't sell short the gains the US has gotten from cheap labor and free trade.

low costs of consumer goods is good for the poor/middle class/everyone in america. think of all the people a company like wallmart employs -- from low skilled workers to high skilled workers. think of all the companies which support wall mart and the high skilled jobs that were created there -- computer software, hardware, equipment, shipping, finance, lawyers, etc, etc. china gets something they want and we get something we want.

when companies are successful, shareholders make money too and thats huge. how will you retire without your 401k?

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[toiletmonster]

i agree with your concerns (not sure about the solutions). but i don't see that ruining free trade would help with those concerns. it would just add to people's expenses, perhaps making the cost of walmart products a problem equal to the healthcare problem.

but maybe thats not what you were trying to say.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[jorjun]

There are a billion humans living in India.

That is it. (puts feet up on desk)

I will employ 5 guys to do 5 jobs for me while I take the commission :

Now I don't need to be an accountant, lawyer, programmer, architect, customer service operator.

Just an employment agent 'further up the value chain'.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[qtp]

You are assuming either that there will be as many higher paying jobs made available, or that you will be one of the winners in the outsourcing lottery.

I hope you've got the right family and friends who can hand you that high-paying gig, as that's one drawing that everyone knows is fixed.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Mr. Piddle]

The only humane thing is very agressive education about birth control. It seems it is the better-off people who put off reproducing for some reason; I guess sex is entertainment among poorer people. Perhaps, it is fashionable for a high-school-age girl to be lugging two infants through a grocery store in some places? I really don't know.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Anonymous Coward]

If every other country had thought like this and banned all the American products, US wouldn't have had the economic superiority at all. First remember that most of the citizens in US don't even belong to this country and maybe you yourself came here from a country with dysentry. Grow up guys. Grow up. Stop whining and be productive.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand the first thing about Economics.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[jaoswald]

[if] Michigan were a country where major killers were things like starvation and dysentary, I would see no problem with banning car imports from Detroit....Michigan were a country where major killers were things like starvation and dysentary, I would see no problem with banning car imports from Detroit.

Your economic thinking is about 250 years out of date, in addition to being wrong. Please download the David Ricardo patch to correct this bug.

Economics and international trade are most definitely NOT a zero sum game. Importing services from India does not directly impoverish the United States. In fact, it allows the United States to produce more by deploying its labor in *relatively* more efficient ways. Your error is one of composition: simply because one programmer in the U.S. is displaced does not mean that there is a net loss in economic welfare in the U.S.

Trade barriers hurt the general economy while avoiding dislocation of a very visible but small sector of the economy. Nonetheless, the net impact is NEGATIVE for both the importer and exporter. Trade barriers REDUCE the total amount of economic output that can be generated by the economy. They keep the pie small, while the slice that represents the protected sector stays relatively large.

If instead, we dropped barriers and redeployed our labor and capital according to the freed market, the total output of the two economies combined will increase. Redeployment is painful, but it is more painful the longer it is delayed. Evidently, too many people in the U.S. are working in jobs that can be outsourced, and not enough people in India are working at those jobs. The people in the U.S. need to find other ways to employ their labor where the rewards are higher. Just like they went into software because they could get jobs there in the past.

The world is a dynamic place. Trade barriers make things stay the same for a little longer, but only because they impede economic growth.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[BJZQ8]

"Your error is one of composition: simply because one programmer in the U.S. is displaced does not mean that there is a net loss in economic welfare in the U.S." I am speaking of the devastation of an entire generation, the disappearance of an age when a person could complete secular schools and have a chance at a decent job. One programmer may lose his job and not have an effect on economic welfare, but entire segments of the (US) economy have been wiped out by outsourcing. "The people in the U.S. need to find other ways to employ their labor where the rewards are higher. Just like they went into software because they could get jobs there in the past." Where are the jobs going to come from? Everything is outsourced as fast as people can discover new ways to produce it now. I am against trade barriers on pricipal; but I have seen firsthand the devastation of an entire community from outsourcing. Perhaps, on a global scale, we are increasing the size of the pie...but at the same time, we are creating an underclass in this country of people identical to those in India; we are lowering our median level of prosperity, while increasing the average level. More people work for $5 per hour while a shrinking percentage are multi-billionaires. It is the Wal-Mart effect and the concentration of wealth...and it is corporate greed driving the entire thing. Overall, until I see something other than outsourcing un-employing millions of people in this country, my opinion of it will not change. At least we can have a somewhat civilized discussion of this...

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[jonadab]

> The argument you've made basically boils down to "we've seen this before
> and it didn't hurt us". However, your assumption that we have seen this
> before does not seem accurate. In the past we've seen exportation of
> unskilled labor, mostly factory jobs.

Huh? Have you studied the tarrif issues that divided the north from the south
politically ever since before the revolution and, combined with the states'
rights issue and the slavery thingy gave birth to the civil war? Those were
finished goods and services we were importing (mostly from Europe), one of
the most advanced segments of the eccomony at the time, and the business
owners, the wealthy, wanted them taxed heavily to "protect American business",
by which they meant their personal profit margins. Sound familiar? But those
weren't the "cheap" jobs we were protecting; at the time, the low-end jobs
were all in agriculture, and we were *exporting* food and cotton. The
tariffs were meant to protect people in a higher ecconomic bracket. When
we got rid of the tariffs and had free trade, it was good for the ecconomy.

Now, there is an upward trend in terms of what we're exporting. Things
that used to be advanced goods and services that we exported are now
basic enough that we once again import them, along with raw materiels,
because the things we export are even more advanced. (Think in terms of
stereo equipment and stuff here; that was technology in the 60s, and we
exported it. Now it's basic cheap junk, and we import it.) Okay, so some
of the stuff we're importing now is scaring some people because it's more
advanced than what we used to import -- it's still less advanced than what
we export (except food; we've never stopped exporting food). In the 1700s
we exported mostly raw materiels. In the 1800s we exported manufactured
goods, but they were pretty basic. In the 1900s we exported more advanced
manufactured goods and started to export product designs. Now we're starting
to export more and more design stuff and marketing and whatnot. Software
in the 1980s was a very advanced product; now it's in the process of being
outsourced and commoditized (thanks in part to the open-source movement,
and thanks in part to India) because what we're producing here is more
advanced -- we don't just make software anymore; we produce complete
solutions, with full integration and on-site support and the pricetag to
go with all that. In the 1980s, computer *hardware* was pretty advanced
stuff, and we exported it. Now we create the chip fabrication process
but outsource a lot of the actual hardware production overseas.

Now, prepare to get really worried, because I'm about to take a stab at
predicting a hundred years into the future, what we will have outsourced...
Writing, including journalistic writing. Not just chip fabrication but
the actual design process too. Not just programming but software design
and specification and quality assurance. *All* manufacturing-related jobs,
most telecommunications jobs, and virtually all technical support, except
for on-site support contracts. Most systems administration (because all
the servers will be overseas anyway, including the thinclient servers;
over here we'll have screens and keyboards and mice). Almost all data
entry, except for information that really has to be done locally. Most
retail sales, except for the few remaining types of stores that really
*need* to be brick-and-mortar (such as groceries). The majority of all
sales positions. All accounting positions and most HR positions. All
middle-management positions. The list could go on, but you get the idea.

In the 1900s we went from a blue collar eccomony with white collar segments
to a primarily white collar ecconomy. Now we're moving onward -- a lot of
white collar jobs are low-end, boring, and repetitive by our new standards.
Isn't the American Dream (TM) for everyone to be some kind of executive or
celebrity or hold some other exotically high-end job? Why are you afraid?

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[instarx]

The main objective being to motivate shareholders and executives to think of the company's long term best interest and not just jack up earnings by cutting maintenance, R&D, selling the family jewels, etc.

Don't blame shareholders - they have almost no influence on the corporate direction unless they are major shareholders. Although it is possible for shareholders to vote executives out, in reality it is almost impossible. Blame the executives directly.

If there were a similar way to make politicians or the public fiscally-minded, too, it would be nice.

Don't blame the public - they have almost no influence on the deficit direction. In fact, a major plank of the GOP platform has always been deficit reduction and less government spending. No politician gets elected by promising to increase the deficit. I can hear it now: G.W.Bush in 1999 - Elect me in 2000! I promise to take a 1.5 trillion dollar surplus and make it a 3.7 trilllion dollar deficit in four short years! Think he would have been eleced? No way. Blame the liers directly!

Of course one could argue that Bush wasn't elected at all.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[instarx]

So you have the US buying cheap labour from India, and India buying
more advanced finished goods and services from the US. This creates a
favorable trade situation and pumps up the US ecconomy

Excuse me, but that's only the positive half of the equation. All those dollars that India is supposed to be spending to improve our balance of payments came from sending the dollars out of the US in the first place. Even if every dollar returns to the US (unlikely because of market inefficiency) the net balance is zero. As a result, all that is happening is that the economy gets pumped up from a depressed state back to something approaching the situation before all those resources were shipped overseas.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[Thimma]

All these days you gained and they lost now let it be the other way around.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[cubicleguy]

You don't get a veto, you get a vote.

The difference being that the first one counts for something, while the last one rarely does.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[jonadab]

> Excuse me, but that's only the positive half of the equation.

No, ecconomics doesn't work that way. It's not zero-sum. It doesn't have
a positive half and a negative half that balance against eachother like that.

> All those dollars that India is supposed to be spending to improve our
> balance of payments came from sending the dollars out of the US in the
> first place.

You seem to be of the impression that a nation gets wealthy when it has a lot
of currency in it. If that were so, Mexico would be the wealthiest country
in North America. Wealth is created when money is *exchanged* as part of a
*purchase* arrangement. The mere existence of currency doesn't do squat.

> Even if every dollar returns to the US (unlikely because of market
> inefficiency) the net balance is zero.

The net balance of how much currency we have would be zero, but that's
irrelevant. (As far as some currency not coming back... if there were a
shortage, the treasury would print more. Most of it comes back though.)

> As a result, all that is happening is that the economy gets pumped up
> from a depressed state back to something approaching the situation before
> all those resources were shipped overseas.

Let's say EvilCorp (which is based somewhere on the US west coast) has been
spending fifty billion dollars per year on the salaries of workers who
produce the Foo service, but now they're going to outsource the Foo service
to workers in ubbledubgong, which costs only twenty billion dollars because
of the lower wage expectations and cost of living there. Now, four things
have happened:

1. US workers are unemployed to the tune of fifty billion.
2. Workers in Ubbledubgong are employed to the tune of twenty billion.
3. EvilCorp has thirty billion dollars to dispose of in some other
fashion.
4. There are twenty billion dollars of US currency in Ubbledubgong.

(This ignores the stock market; if EvilCorp is public, there may be some
additional results related to that, but we'll skip them for now.)

The amount of wealth created by EvilCorp has not changed, since the Foo
service is still being provided. (This assumes the Ubbledubgongese are
able to provide the service as well as the US workers. In some cases
(e.g., phone tech support) there are problems with that, but that's a
separate issue from outsourcing per se.) The people who are buying the
Foo service from EvilCorp are still getting what they're paying for, so
there's no change there. Well, actually, there is -- since that twenty
billion is being produced by Ubbledubgong, not the US, the GNP of the
US goes down twenty billion, and the GNP of Ubbledubgong goes up by the
same amount.

The unemployed workers in the US will have to find some new jobs, which
is unfortunate. But this will get balanced out; sit tight for a minute.

EvilCorp is going to do *something* with that thirty billion. Unless they're
doing something that involves permanently removing it from the ecconomy (such
as using million-dollar bills as wallpaper for executive bathroom), it's still
going to get spent. Say, for example, that they spend five billion paying off
debts. The banks will then lend that money to someone else who will spend it,
creating wealth and adding five billion to the GNP. Wait, there's still
another twenty-five billion. Let's say the executives line their personal
pockets with twenty billion and spend the other five billion on seminars and
meetings and publicity and whatnot to "sell" the outsourcing decision to
the employees, the public, and so forth. The five billion that they spend
on all that stuff goes right into the ecconomy. $GNP += another five billion.

The other twenty billion goes into the ecconomy too, though perhaps
indirectly. If the executives spend it on new houses and cars and stuff,
it goes in directly; if the

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[instarx]

Aha - a nice, well written discourse. However, the crux of the matter is down near the bottom where you say:

When that happens, which will usually
be sooner rather than later, the US ecconomy regains the twenty billion in
GNP that it lost due to the oursourcing.

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I am sure you will do), but isn't that EXACTLY what I said that you disagreed with, saying economics doesn't work that way? I continue to quote:

Now we're at zero, as you say. *However*, the ecconomy of Ubbledubgong is
still up some fourty billion or so. The people there are going to be buying
more Coca Cola, because they now can afford it.

Let's bring down your 'free-trade is good for everyone' argument to a more human level and get the Uggalabalongs out of it.

In the depression in the 30's many farmers (i.e. American workers) who had lost everything to the banks had to put their families to work as migrant workers picking crops. Now this income was needed to buy food so they literally would not starve to death, so getting those jobs was about as critical as could be. Crop owners (mainly agri-business, a term not yet coined) would advertize jobs at $1/day (a great wage) so hundreds of workers would show up - many more than there were actual jobs. Then the owners would announce they were only paying .25 per day but they still filled all the slots because the jobs meant children would eat that night. But the next day the owners announced they were only going to pay .10 per day. "If you don't want to take it, there are a hundred people outside the fence waiting for your job.", they'd say - and sure enough, there were.

Now, according to your argument, this is fine and dandy because all these growers were saving money that they would then spend on whatever, eventually making jobs for the starving people outside their fence (assuming, of course, they were still alive to work). According to you, and I quote: "The unemployed workers in the US will have to find some new jobs, which is unfortunate. But this will get balanced out.

The outsourcing of jobs to the absolute cheapest labor possible without regard for the welfare and humanity of the citizens who have made it possible for those companies to prosper is the current equivalent of depression-era 'greed above all else' thinking. Do you see the parallel? Tech workers today are out of a job because the companies found a cheaper labor force, but when they try to find another job there are more candidates than jobs so salaries go down and they are lucky to get a job at ANY wage. That brings wages down across the board - not just in tech. And who rakes in the profits from both ends (cheap wages overseas and lower wages at home)- the corporations who started the whole thing by outsourcing. What a racket!

Those inexpensive offshore workers who will work for 20% of what US workers need are the new people outside the fence. As soon as they get inside the fence (India today) they will find to their dismay that there are new workers (Burmese, Thai, you name a place) standing outside the fence willing to work for less to get THEIR jobs. And who rakes in the cash? You guessed it - CEO's. Sure, the Indian, Thai or Burmese workers get their new low wages, which is, after all, better than starving to death...and doesn't THAT sound familiar!

It isn't the Indian, Thai or US workers who are the villians here, it is the greed-driven growers (oops, Companies) who are gleefully exploiting human lives for profit. And the irony is the American companies are crying crocodile tears for the poor under-developed countries they are helping and chanting "Ain't Free Trade wonderful!" at the same time. If they were really interested in helping they would invest in the countries' infrastructures to build local jobs, not by exploiting the lower wage requirements of developing countries' workers.

Although many people don't know it, this country was on th

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[jaoswald]

Where are the jobs going to come from?

From the same place that software jobs came from: new companies developing new technologies to serve new markets.

Way back around the time of the American revolution, about 90% of the U.S. population was employed in agriculture. Today, the corresponding percentage is something below 5%. My god, all those farmers losing jobs! How could you possibly replace all those farmers?

The answer is that the farmers became immeasurably more productive (actually, there are still too much farming in America due to wasteful subsidies and trade barriers) while the rest of the population found some other job due to this thing called the Industrial Revolution.

Does anyone think the U.S. has some huge shortage of farming jobs? Someday, we'll feel the same way about tool-and-die makers.

If I invented some "magic software machine" that worked in response to e-mail and voice commands to produce software according to specification for a small material cost, then that would be a tremendous boost to productivity. I don't have to spend time and effort coding myself, I just have to work on the specs, and the magic software machine writes and tests it for me.

Given how much Slashdot can gush over the latest gcc release or Java IDE advancement, you'd think people would recognize this kind of machine as a tremendously powerful tool for eliminating grunt work and speeding development.

Yet, because the "magic software machine" is actually a bunch of Indian programmers at the other end of the phone/e-mail connection, this is somehow a terrible and destructive thing.

There isn't some limited amount of "work to be done" which has to be divided among workers. Adding workers to the economy does not reduce the amount of work available for each worker. Instead, it expands the amount that can be produced.

If India offered to ship us low-cost machine tools, would you turn them down?

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[myom]

I'll just ignore your outburst of curses, and want to point out that my main point was that money does not reflect the real value of resources and work (which is exactly the opposite of what you accuse me of claiming) and that the world (and many countries budget defecits) can benefit from a more equal distribution of money, which I already mentioned is a very bad tool.

p.s. I am not a CEO, and am a liberal socialist d.s.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[jonadab]

> > When that happens, which will usually be sooner rather than later, the
> > US ecconomy regains the twenty billion in GNP that it lost due to the
> > oursourcing.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong (which I am sure you will do), but isn't that
> EXACTLY what I said that you disagreed with, saying economics doesn't
> work that way?

I then went on to explain why it doesn't work that way, but apparently my
explanation wasn't clear enough for you.

> Let's bring down your argument to a more human level

In other words, let's make an emotional plea instead of being rational, so we
can get people excited about the starving children of the farmers, so they'll
forget about the ecconomics of the situation. Try to remember that the
depression was not caused by outsourcing jobs to the third world but by a
sudden correction in the stock market, which had become greatly inflated in
the previous years, due to not having enough smaller downward corrections.

> Tech workers today are out of a job because the companies found a cheaper
> labor force, but when they try to find another job there are more candidates
> than jobs so salaries go down and they are lucky to get a job at ANY wage.

You exaggerate. Greatly. We're not starving. Most of us aren't even
completely without work. In fact, it's still a fairly decent field to be in,
on the whole. Tech workers have just experienced for the first time what
workers in other industries have known about for centuries: a labor surplus.
This is not mostly the result of outsourcing (though that can aggravate the
situation a bit); it's *mostly* the result of the dotcom bust -- which,
incidentally, was a necessary correction; if the boom had gone on too much
longer, the stock market continuing to do the sorts of crazy things it was
doing in the nineties, we'd have ended up in another ten or fifteen years with
a second great depression. As it is, we got off with a relatively mild
depression, as things go. Anyway, about the labor surplus: the world of
nursing goes through this every twenty years or so; the main reason is because
it's an attractive field to certain types of people, and so whenever there are
plenty of jobs available in the field, lots of people study to become a nurse.
Then when they all graduate and go get jobs, there's a surplus. Some of the
nurses end up getting jobs in other fields, then. This corrects itself after
a few years, because the lower wages cause guidance counsellors and parents to
steer people away from nursing toward other careers, and then when all those
surplus nurses hit retirement age there's a shortage, and the cycle repeats.
Any type of job that makes people think, "Gosh, I want to do *that* for a
living" will have this sort of cycle (*unless* it's got such great appeal
that in the middle of a labor surplus when it's virtually impossible to get
work in the field, people still think, "Gosh, I want to do *that* with my
life, and try to make a living at it; fields such as acting and professional
sports have a perpetual labor surplus for this reason).

It is true that outsourcing is aggravating the current labor surplus in
information technology. Back to that point:

> when they try to find another job there are more candidates than jobs
> so salaries go down and they are lucky to get a job at ANY wage.

If they don't get a job in IT, there *are* other fields. The normal thing
that happens when a particular line of work no longer pays is that you go
and get a job in another line of work. These IT workers are not dustbowl
farmers unqualified for any other job, and we do not have anything remotely
close the sort of runaway unemployment that leads to people starving to death.

> That brings wages down across the board - not just in tech.

That's called a "recession" (or, if you will, a "depression", which is

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[instarx]

In other words, let's make an emotional plea instead of being rational, More correctly my argument is made from an extremely rational and realistic point of view - rather than some ivory-tower rationalized economic theories where real people don't suffer losing their jobs, their livelihoods, or their homes to satisfy the never-ending greed of corporations.

then went on to explain why it doesn't work that way
No you didn't. Your tract was about issues that I did not raise. The original argument was that all those dollars (read "resources" since you clearly have a tendency to misinterpret by re-statement)sent out of the country to pay overseas workers only come back to the US to improve the economy. That contention, that it is better to send those dollars overseas than to pay US workers, is falacious since it does not take into account that 1)the funds coming back only offset the losses incurred when they left, and 2)the funds were not available for investment in this country while they were gone. Your wealth-building scenario for India that results from the infux of US dollars (again, read "resources") is true, but your conclusion - that investment in India's workers is more valuable for the US than investment in US workers is plain wrong.

Tech workers have just experienced for the first time what
workers in other industries have known about for centuries: a labor surplus.
This is not mostly the result of outsourcing (though that can aggravate the
situation a bit); it's *mostly* the result of the dotcom bust
Most IT professioinals do not or did not work in the dotcom arena. Most IT workers are emplyed by corporatons, large and small, that need to maintain an information system within their organization. There is a labor surplus - you are correct - but it is being fueled by outsourcing jobs to cheap foreign labor.

Today the bottom 10% (much less the bottom 90%) in the
US have a higher standard of living than they had a scant twenty years ago.
Today our "poor" throw away more food, eat out at restaurants more often,
buy more clothes, and have more high-tech gadgets than they did in 1985.

First, you clearly don't know what "poor" means. Is your idea of "poor" a family that has to use last-year's cellphones while wondering where the rent is coming from this month? Second, the important factor is 'expectations' and how they relate to reality. As reality gets further from expectations revolution arises. The "revolution" here meaning changing jobs, getting a divorce, changing an administration, or toppling a government. For the first time EVER, most Americans do not think that their children will be able to have a better life then they have had. The decades old middle-class expectations of a better life for their children has crashed into the reality wall in this country. (I mentioned children here - so I suppose you are going to accuse me of being irrational again).

You exaggerate. Greatly. We're not starving
I never said IT workers are starving. I even used the word "metaphor" in my post. You seem to be a fairly intelligent person, so why do you insult your intelligence by obtusely interpreting what I wrote as saying workers in the US are starving. You re-interpreted my ideas throughout your reply. Read what the other person says - not what you wish they had said. Your original post was intelligent and interesting. However, your replies seem to fall back on the tired-old spin techniques of restating the other person's opinions in an inaccurate manner and then rebutting the re-statement. That is intellectually lazy.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[BJZQ8]

Based on experience, those jobs never manifest themselves. The town I am from went from being a "factory town" to a town full of public-assistance recipients and Wal-Mart employees. My point is not that there won't be jobs somewhere...but they are either A.Woefully underpaid and under-benefitted or B.Not available until the next generation comes along. Economics and Capitalism takes time. In that time, we have laid waste to an entire generation that will never know what it's like to be financially secure or be able to save for their future. If I was making macro-economic decisions, yes, I would turn down India's offer of low-cost machine tools, and I do the equivalent often in picking U.S. producers where I can. But the way the world is going, there won't be any before long. Another thing that I have often noticed is that people are all for outsourcing and "eliminating grunt work"...until it eliminates their job and they are left struggling to survive.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[CyberdogOSX]

when money goes to India, it only benefits Indians

when i buy a car in NC from Detroit, the taxes go to benefit us all(SS, Unemployment, Medicare, etc), and pays our the salaries of our government.

money outsourced is never seen again.

we're a country that does have necessary divisions, but also communal benefits. this allows us to keep equality between the states which does not exist between us and India. this way no one state can exploit another.

outsourcing is bad, m'kay?

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[jaoswald]

How can you possibly say you would turn down low-cost machine tools? They're exactly the way to support all those advanced machinist jobs you claim are so great: get some machinists machine tools and let them go to work.

If I put American in front of the machine tools, I assume you would accept them? Even though you would be taking business from a high-cost American machine tool maker, and giving business to a low-cost American machine tool maker?

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[BJZQ8]

That would be great except for one thing; the employers in this country are just as likely to ship the "advanced machinist" jobs out to another country too. If, given a choice, I buy the foreign low-cost machine tool, somewhere in the US I am getting rid of an entire department full of high-paying jobs, and replacing them with low-paying jobs in another country. Perhaps in the very short term I am gaining...but I don't imagine, as a company producing something in the US, that I will get many orders from India. So the normal cycle of things turns into a one-way street.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[jaoswald]

These hypothetical machine tools are NO GOOD without corresponding machinists to use them. They make it cheaper to give machinists jobs. Still don't want them? Then you must be against the machinist jobs you claim you want to create.

A key concept you are missing is that exporting is the "disadvantage" of international trade. Working to produce goods is not the chief reward in life, being able to *consume* goods is! Other countries sending us stuff we want is the advantage of trade. This country sending out stuff that other countries want is the burden.

And what "normal cycle" of things are you talking about? International trade is not barter by individuals or individual companies. Just because you personally don't get orders from India doesn't mean that nobody else gets orders from them.

In fact, to a first approximation, all those U.S. dollars that get sent to India to compensate for software services *have* to come back to the U.S. in exchange for something, because they don't have value elsewhere.

Like I said, READ ABOUT DAVID RICARDO, who understood these issues much better than you seem to way back in the early 1800s. Until you do, suffice it to say that your apparent views on how international trade works are inaccurate, misleading, and in the hands of politicians, positively dangerous to economic well-being.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[BJZQ8]

Sheesh, stop assuming so many things about me, I'm trying to have a civil discussion. I am not against insternational trade or similar exportation/importation...but when it devastates economies and communities, you bet I am. That's what's happened to the town I am from, and many other towns...economic destruction in the name of "efficiency" and "profits." Just once, perhaps we should think about the little guy at the bottom, losing his job, and not the corporate CEO getting a bonus for making another profit target. The fact is that if my job is sent overseas, no matter how many cheap machine tools flood the market, it has affected me, personally, in a negative way. Perhaps my children or my grandchildren will be around to see the benefits...but in the mean time you have displaced me and ruined my life.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[jaoswald]

International trade simply does not devastate economies and communities. CHANGE can devastate communities. Look what happens to mining towns when the ore runs out. Pin your hopes on the wrong cause, and you are going to suffer. That is called LIFE.

People at the "bottom" have jobs *because* these jobs are part of profitable organizations. Companies that lose money do not provide jobs for long. Nobody owes you a job just because you are a nice guy, or a little guy. You get a job because your labor is being put to use in a profitable way.

When your community cannot provide a use for your labor, then you should either upgrade your labor or move. That's life. You shouldn't blame some international trade bogeyman that you claim to like except when it hurts you, which seems to be all the time.

Look at the bright side: at least nobody tried to "ethnically cleanse" you. *That* devastates communities.

Re:Sauces, use thereof

[BJZQ8]

Huge corporations and their CEO's and the like wouldn't exist without the working stiff at the bottom...but in your arguments I see little appreciation for that fact. If it were possible to move to India, I imagine a lot of unemployed Americans would. But unlike the aforementioned corporations, that is impossible for them. So you are left with "upgrading." Which means what...getting an education? What do you tell a 54-year-old guy that just got laid off from his job of 35 years? Go to college for four? The pain of many people is often left behind in the cause of macroecomomic advancement...and while in the lesser sense, companies like HP and such have greater profits, in the greater sense, our country is that much poorer for it. If you are going to try to make people feel better by using the "at least you're still alive" argument, well at least nobody in this country has been nuked yet...I'm sure that makes everyone feel much better too. As I said before...lots of people are pro-globalization...until it happens to them.

Some more statistics on the subject

[prostoalex]

US unemployment right now is 5.6%, the lowest it had been in 2 years.

Silicon Valley will ad 17,000 jobs this year and 33,000 next year.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[Eskarel]

Unemployment statistics are trash. They don't include recent college grads or those who have been unemployed for a prolonged period of time because no one bothers to register unless they are eligable for unemployment benefits. After a while people are no longer eligable and so they stop registering as unemployed, the statistics assume they are employed which isn't necessarily the case.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[Anonymous Coward]

the unemployment rate is markedly low ONLY because so many people have actually left the work force altogether and stopped seeking employment. these people are therefore not counted as 'unemployed' and hence not figured into the calculation of the unemployment rate.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[Monkelectric]

and they dont count underemployment. I know alot of engineers who are flipping burgers and selling stereos burdened by student loans (which survive bankrupcy!).

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[gurustu]

And still more :

• In the last three months, more than 40 percent of the unemployed have been out of work more than 15 weeks. That's the worst number since 1983.
• According to the monthly payroll survey for January, jobs rose by 112,000. Before you start cheering, that doesn't actually keep up with population growth.
• Since the recovery officially began in November 2001, employment has actually fallen by half a percent, while the working-age population has increased about 2.4 percent.

All of these facts (with more available) come from Paul Krugman's editorial in the NYT today. His column should be required reading for anybody who wants to talk about the economy.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[Axe]

Yep.

The region lost 62,000 jobs last year and shed 268,000 between the end of 2000 and the end of last year.

So it will take about 10 years to get back to 2000 at this rate.

But honestly - there are still too many people out here.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly do you register as unemployed? My UI ran out in January so I don't get any more paperwork. I am still unemployed.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[be-fan]

Both of you are wrong. The different statistics are measured seperately, but the numbers you hear on TV *do* take into account underemployment and those who have given up looking.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[kir]

I know alot of engineers who are flipping burgers and selling stereos burdened by student loans

Wait... I thought all the illegal immigrants had those jobs?

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[edwdig]

After 6 months or so of being unemployed, you are no longer counted as unemployed. Instead, you're counted as disheartened or something like that. Basically they figure you've gone so long without finding a job that you don't care anymore, and just sit around feeling miserable and don't look for a job.

Someone else probably knows more precisely what I mean; it's been 3 years since I took microeconomics, so I'm rusty.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[grape jelly]

After a while people are no longer eligable and so they stop registering as unemployed, the statistics assume they are employed which isn't necessarily the case.

To clarify, the statistics don't assume they are employed. Actually, a clarification of terms is in order:

Employed: duh.
Unemployed: Not currently employed but looking for a job
Everyone else: Not currently employed and not looking for a job

The percent of the population that is unemployed == (unemployed)/(employed + unemployed). If you're out of work and not looking for work, you don't count.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[Rotten168]

Ummm, no. They do a household survey and if you haven't looked for work in 4 weeks, then you are counted as underemployed.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi /.

I haven't eaten or slept in 2 days. I'm so fucking sick of theorems and polynomials and aiigh. I'd scream but I don't have the nrg. One more piece. It's probably time for me to slip once again back into the ether. Here's to hoping I can find a job this year.

TANITH & THE LION TREE

She fed the lion candy
So its teeth turned pink and scattered.
She gathered up the pieces,
Hid them deep beneath her bed...

Made a wish for lion trees
So roses grew...
Red roses...
And the lion watched
His ghost go hunting bees...

Bees which hovered, dropped and split
As thorns grew moist and ripped...
Black, yellow, dripping red...

It wrecked the carpet,
Made the lion weep for his meat...

Live meat.

Raw meat.

Tanith climbed the lion tree.
The lion tree was very pleased.
She gave the lions candy
She handed out the straws...

Tanith climbed the lion tree.
The lion tree was very pleased.
She gave the lions candy
She handed out the straws...

I'm going to bed before I become delerious.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[Anonymous Coward]

they also don't really describe actual rates of job creation and demand - the current rate doesn't even cover the rate at which new workers are entering the workforce.

And just imagine what happens when (if) Bush brings the national guard back from Iraq, all the temps that are filling those places will be out on their ears ... 100,000s of positions ....

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[foobario]

ummm... they posted similar numbers *last* year, and damned if everything doesn't still suck.

People can tweak the numbers any way they want, the fact remains that a hell of a lot of educated and trained Americans are out of work, out of unemployment, and out of hope. I know this, because I meet with them for lunch every Thursday.

Those predictions have been wrong for 3 years in a row, and as for this coming year, I think it's Groundhog Day again:

"Tomorrow? What makes you think there's gonna be a tomorrow? There wasn't one today."

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[sybert]

Krugman is a very poor source of facts (he never has to correct himself when his facts are wrong, unlike the rest of the paper). First, the vast majority of unemployed workers get new jobs either very quickly or just before their benefits run out. Since benefits have been extended repeatedly, due to the Clinton recession and 9/11, the increased length of unemployment is not surprising. If you want to reduce the length of unemployment, reduce the length of benefits. The new (bls.gov) household survey shows employment up 496k in January, far more than population growth. Since November 2001 payroll is down while employment is up 2.3M. Krugman mixes up his facts.

Since June 2003, before the most recent tax cuts, unemployment has fallen from a 6.3 peak to 5.6. The tax cuts specifically reduce personal income tax rates, not corporate tax rates, and increase business-like personal income deductions. This makes self and small business employment more competitive against business establishment employment than before. It is no surprise that the employment has increased significantly since then while payroll job numbers have been flat. This divergence is a good thing. Working for yourself or directly for a small business owner is much preferable than working for pointy-haired-bosses in big corporations. I guess most slashdotters would prefer to work for PHBs, and so they only pay attention to the establishment payroll statistics.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean this Paul Krugman? The economist/journalist that is rated as 2nd-most partisan author in the States?

Might be required reading... but it would hardly give you a very objective view of things.

The Economist:

"As the site documents exhaustively, the vast majority of Mr Krugman's columns feature attacks on Republicans; almost none criticise Democrats. Unsurprisingly, this has made him a sort of ivory-tower folk-hero of the American left--a thinking person's Michael Moore. "

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[GMontag]

They also ignore new businesses. 1099s are on a rise, and the people getting them do not show up as "employed" in the employer serveys that the government uses for it's statistics.

They show up more readily in the household survey, as do the things you and other posters to this thread are concerned about, but the survey results seem to go against your intuition.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[GMontag]

Yes, like the payroll statistics.

Also, as mentioned earlier by me, rises in 1099s do not show in the "employment" numbers as surveyed of employers. They do show up in the household survey.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[salesgeek]

They are also inaccurate because they count people who don't want to work as part of the workforce.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[Anonymous Coward]

It also doesn't count those of us who LIKE being unemployed. You can't apply for unemployment benefits if you aren't looking for a job, and you can't be looking for a job when you have 50 EQ characters to powerlevel in your underwear while living with your parents!

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[Thomasje]

By that logic, if you really want to make a dent in unemployment, you should get rid of unemployment benefits altogether. No one will register, hence zero percent unemployment. Not even the Communists ever did better than that!

You, sir, sound as partisan as you seem to accuse Krugman of being. You just quote different sources, refuse to deal with Krugman's reasoning, and then blame the recession on Clinton, and finally conjure up a booming self-employment industry. I have yet to see any evidence of all that.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[EvilBuu]

Additionally they don't count incarcerated felons. This may seem ridiculous but seeing as how there are over 1.3 MILLION people in the prison system, it is quite a sizable population (more than Rhode Island!) to exclude from employment statistics.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[bored_geek]

Here are some real statistics:

I'm a software engineer making $35k LESS than I was in 2001, 2000 or 1999.

My facility will probably close by the end of this year.

When we export enough prosperity to bring the rest of the world up to our level, we will not have any left for us.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[Azghoul]

LOL. Well, I guess if you haven't seen it, it isn't true...

At least the grandparent posted some sources, which is better than spouting leftist dire rhetoric like the majority around here.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[cyberon22]

Stop being shrill. Population growth clearly outpaced employment creation from November 2001-January 2004, exactly as Krugman says in his article. How you misread him as making a claim about the December-January period is beyond me, as is why you think any respectable economist would write a piece about unemployment TRENDS based on one month of statistical data.

But assuming you're are serious, I'd remind you that the recorded employment growth of 496,000 hardly outpaces growth in the size of the labour force 422,000. Nor does that slight gain really mean much when considered in historical context. At the very least, any suggestion that the US is in the midst of a job-creation euphoria driven by the June 2003 tax cuts, is sharply contradicted by a simple glance at the historical data:

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[big-giant-head]

Exactly there is truth, lies and damned statistics..... the ONLY REASON THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE HAS DROPPED IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS IS THAT A COUPLE OF MILLION PEOPLE HAVE QUIT LOOKING FOR A JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All these billions of dollars in tax cuts that the prez has handed out have resulted in a grand total of 60,0000 something new jobs being created (net) since all of this started. Now many of the same people want us to believe that by some unknown magic here (the same that was supposed to create a couple of million new jobs by now, not 60,0000 +/- 10000) that all of these new millions of jobs will be created??? I'm still waiting to see the first 2 million new jobs that were supposed have happened by now. A vast majority of that money will end up in some CEO's pocked will we the bright prospect of our children growing up and being able to work at wal-mart or starbucks or join the military.

I'll believe some of this drivel when I actully see some of these 'new' jobs. My guess here is that alot of those 60_thousand_something new jobs are probably directly related to defense spending. Who knows if Bush not gone into Irag and spent the 89 billion on NASA he might have created you know 80,000something new jobs???

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[twinpot]

One thing I do find curious is that despite lower % unemployment figures from the US, I know more IT people in the US who are out of work or "underemployed" than I know here in Europe (with unemployment rates of ~5 to 10 % depending on country).

Are the measurements of unemployment directly comparable on both sides of the ditch? Over here, the unemployment benefits are decent, which does encourage people to register. Do people in the US just not bother reporting as unemployed?

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[HMA2000]

If you bothered to even look at the bls.gov site you would see that they do keep tabs on exactly the people you are saying they don't.

But then that kind of defeats your sensationalism that everything "the authorities" tell us is "trash"

Look at the U-1 through U-6 then take a look at the rest of the site you might be surprised at what they find. And if you don't believe the BLS you can always benchmark it against 3rd party sources like challenger and gray.

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[Anonymous Coward]

Running out of unemployment benefits != "given up looking". Note also that unemployment is a count, not a statistic. There is no count of underemployment or the long-term unemployed.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[Kombat]

Uh... so? If someone doesn't want to work, then what's the problem? They're not collecting EI, and they're not unhappy about being unemployed, so why should anyone care? They're doing exactly what they want to do. I don't see a problem there.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[CashCarSTAR]

No, they don't.

Whenever you hear the unemployment rate on TV, it's about 5.6%. This in NO way is counting underemployment/discouraged workers. If those were counted, the unemployment rate would be closer to 9%.

The numbers are VERY politicized, and not to be trusted. Even further, you hear talk about "new jobs', being created, even though that's just a positive number, with no indication of the negative, (Jobs leaving+People entering workfore).

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[Anonymous Coward]

They also do not coun't unemployed people who are not actively looking for jobs.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[SirChive]

But what kind of new jobs are they?

Here's what we are staring to see in a typical month:
Lose 100,000 manufacturing jobs that support a middle-class lifestyle.
Gain 150,000 service jobs that provide a just over poverty line lifestyle.

And then the politicians crow, "Look, we done gained 50,000 jobs"

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[SirChive]

You are very much correct!

And don't forget that the economy has to create something like 100,000 new jobs a month just to say even with a growing population.

Question: Since we are having trouble creating enough jobs that provide a decent living for our existing population why are we still letting in over 2 million new immigrants a year?

Answer: Big business loves it because it provides more and more downward pressure on wages. In our current society the desires of Big Business triumph all else.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[autophile]

Unemployment statistics are trash. The assumption is that someone is unemployed only if they are looking for a job. Employment statistics (specifically, non-farm employment) is what you need to be looking at.

So looking at those two, we see that unemployment has dropped... but so has non-farm employment. Which means, of course, that millions of people have given up looking for work.

And if unemployment is so low, why do you see the phrase "largest jobless recovery in history" all over the place?

--Rob

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[SirChive]

Personally I've seen a bit of a boom in the self-employment industry.

I see a lot of desperate people trying to sell candles or trinkets to friends and relatives just to make ends meet.

When our Republican leaders see a guy offering to mow his neighbor's lawn because he can't find a job that pays a livable wage they smile and say, "look we seeing a boom in self-employment"

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[Anonymous Coward]

It also does not take into account another group - temp and contract workers. Sure some contractors are paid really good rates, but most are struggling from contract to contract, without benefits, and generally earning less than an equivalent full-time position.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[big-giant-head]

Sad thing is the tax cut cost the gov't something like 500 or 600 billion dollars this year, if we had just made up jobs for those 2.3 million people at $60,000.00 a year, it would only cost the Gov't 138 billion.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[Anonymous Coward]

Job prospects for college grads are also better this year.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[cluckshot]

Here are some statistics that don't lie

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03tc18fy.xls

The IRS Tax Collection on Social Security tell a story that the Bush Administration does not want out. Please note that the July-Oct and Oct-Dec stats are not in the report because the Bushies are delaying their posting to keep the facts from coming out. The Economy isn't cooking folks it is falling bad. Remember it must rise 3.5% per annum to keep static. The simple fact is that we are in deep trouble

When you read these stats, be sure to go back to 2000 and project forward at 3.5% per annum to see where the ZERO line should be! That tells the whole story. We are cutting the slices of the steak thinner and thinner.

Take that in your eye you Statistics cookers! These are the raw real numbers and they tell a stunning story. The story of a Trade War against the American People disguised in cute words, where we tariff the American People out of business while leaving the rest of the world to pick their bones.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject

[Anonymous Coward]

That is BS - over 70% of unemployed IT workers have *fully exhausted their UI benefits without finding work*. Are you really so deluded that you believe they were all just stalling or something so they could collect that phat 1000/month in UI benefits to replace their 60,000/year salary? Please allow reality to intrude on your thought processes once in a while.

Well look at that

[Sarojin]

An Indian journal reporting that Indian outsourcing is good!

Re:Well look at that

[Anonymous Coward]

its a fair comment so why the hell did u moderators make it a troll?

Re:Well look at that

[judicar]

Because they didn't agree with it. duh!

Re:Well look at that

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you do not agree with someone does not make that person a troll. Complaining about the moderation is kind of pointless anyway, though, this being slashdot and all.

Re:Well look at that

[judicar]

Plz mod parent as troll. I don't agree with him thx.

Re:Well look at that

[BobPaul]

McKinsey Global Institute is a US company. They're the ones who did the research.

Ask Alan Greenspan, ask the Adam Smith, ask John Forbes Nash, Jr, ask the Italian Merchantilasts who failed misserably (along with all the rest of the Merchantilasts).

Tarrifs bad, Free Trade Good.

It's good when your customers have money. That's how we sell them things. India is soon to be the largest country in the world. We damn well better give them jobs so that they can buy the products that we manufacture and develope. That gives money back to America and allows for more jobs on the home front.

Wealth hording doesn't work.

Re:Well look at that

[sql*kitten]

An Indian journal reporting that Indian outsourcing is good!

The thing that winds me up about India is that it is quite two faced (as a country I mean, this isn't a criticism of any individual Indians). On the one hand, it's happy to take Western high-tech jobs. But on the other hand, it's always after aid and handouts from Western taxpayers. The way I see it, it can be a poor country that gets state aid, or it can be a wealthy country that competes with us, but it can't be both.

India needs to be told once and for all by Western governments, right, you are a high tech country now, you are taking jobs from our taxpayers which proves it, we'll spend our state aid budgets on real poor countries from now on. 'Cos once India needs to start paying for its own vaccination programmes and reading classes, suddenly it'll have to start taxing its own people to pay for it, and the artificial advantage in price will disappear. Then we'll see how well India competes on a level playing field.

Re:Well look at that

[Knuckles]

McKinsey Global Institute is a US company.

McKinsey & Company is a global company with offices in Delhi and Mumbai just as in NYC

Re:Well look at that

[jigyasubalak]

RTFA! An Indian Journal reporting an American Company's Director saying that, doh!
RTFA, modders!

Re:Well look at that

[Anonymous Coward]

What products are we manufacturing and developing IN THE US WITH US WORKERS anymore?

You should be modded down.

Re:Well look at that

[triumphDriver]

Free Trade is good, however Free and Fair Trade is much better.
Our Major trading partners, China and India will never be fair until they stop managing their economies an allow us complete access to their markets in the same manner they have to ours. Our companies are free to purchase goods and services freely from them in a way that they are not allowed to from ours. China and India artificially manage the value of their currencies to keep them artificially low. Not only do they have those artificial restrictions, but they also do not have the same environmental laws and labor practices which required to by US law.

Could you imagine OSHA in India or China?

Re:Well look at that

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, hopefully Pakistan will just drop a few nukes on India so I could have my old job back. ;)

It's a joke, alright?!

Re:Well look at that

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing that winds me up about America is that it is quite two faced (as a country I mean, this isn't a criticism of any individual Americans). On the one hand, it's happy to boast about high moral standards and personal freedom. But on the other hand, it's always after world dominance and evangelism of democrary. The way I see it, it can be a self-proclaimed moral policeman, or it can be a power-hungry country that screws the whole world up, but it can't be both.

Now how crazy does that sound.

Grow up, my friend. National policies are not what you can decide sitting at home, there are shades of grey all over. Once you appreciate this better, come back, and we can listen to you.

Re:Well look at that

[alphakappa]

As an Indian, I completely agree with you that India should be using its own money to pay for vaccination and education and everything else. As an Indian, I also know that there is no *real* reason why India should be taking 'aid' from other nations since there is not really any problem of 'existence of wealth' in India - the problem is one of 'distribution of wealth' and 'proper utilization of wealth without losing much of it to due to corruption'.

As an Indian, I'll be the happiest person in the world when my country uses its existing resources well to pay for its needs. And really, it's not like Indians are grouping together and plotting to steal western jobs - there are jobs available and they are taking it - do you seriously expect them to say that, "No, we won't take those jobs"? Competition is good for the world as a whole. Jobs will always be redistributed - that's how the world has worked for the past century and even before that - people have always found new ways to create jobs and that's what brings new ideas and keeps the world going. The United States is *NOT* going down the drain - americans are not stupid enough to let that happen.

Re:Well look at that

[sql*kitten]

The way I see it, it can be a self-proclaimed moral policeman, or it can be a power-hungry country that screws the whole world up, but it can't be both.

Very true. And that's why, for example, when the US doesn't toe the free-trade line it preaches, the WTO chastises it. India, on the other hand, does get away with duplicity.

Re:Well look at that

[alphakappa]

and what I forgot to mention is that - it is not foreign aid that pays for education/healthcare in India - there is definitely aid coming in - but don't you think something like $25 million is but a pittance for such a large population - almost everything is paid for by Indians themselves - the aid helps a few specific programs, and not everything.

Re:Well look at that

[sql*kitten]

do you seriously expect them to say that, "No, we won't take those jobs"? Competition is good for the world as a whole. Jobs will always be redistributed - that's how the world has worked for the past century and even before that

Aye, you're right. However, India is a leading member of the G23, the nations that walked out of the WTO summit at Cancun, as is South Korea, another nation that plays a double game. Both are examples of countries that want the short-term benefits of globalization but aren't willing to pay the short-term price. They're undeveloped countries when it suits (i.e. asking for handouts from the West) and developed when it suits (i.e. competing for jobs). Eventually, the mainstream of the Western public will notice this.

Re:Well look at that

[Anonymous Coward]

It is better than calling Superbowl champions as world champions. Guys grow up. Come out of your closed cubicle.

Re:Well look at that

[mamba-mamba]

The other problem with the article was the complete abscence of any facts or detailed rationale to support the basic assertion that outsourcing is good for the US. I mean, I would be willing to consider a logical argument without facts, but the article was just complete fluff, and so not very convincing.

MM
--

Re:Well look at that

[jp10558]

Well, no - America just lies to itself. Or better said, it is self deluded. We(the policymakers) think we are a moral policeman, but we are really a "power-hungry country that screws the whole world up". What someone or some orginazation thinks it is will be much less a concrete point than whether it has money or not. However I think most of India is still pretty poor. The issue is that it makes no sense for a capitalist nation to help it's competitors beat it. So America is right(or would be right) to stop providing aid. The sad part is that capilitism never really promotes charity or human causes itself.

Re:Well look at that

[jp10558]

The United States is *NOT* going down the drain - americans are not stupid enough to let that happen

As an American, I think you may overestimate Americans.

$22 million in jobs

[Transient0]

or in dividends to stock holders.

The argument that India will need to import American goods for the growing tech sector and that this will result in even more jobs seems a little specious.

Is the global economy being turned on it's ear? Will the U.S. now be making cheap consumables to send to the IP producing countries in Asia? And why would India not simply start manufacturing the products it needs itself?

Re:$22 million in jobs

[gid13]

"why would India not simply start manufacturing the products it needs itself?"

Because China will still be cheaper. But yeah, the U.S. is still pretty much doomed on that front. :)

Re:$22 million in jobs

[PhyreFox]

I think that's "22 million jobs", not having anything to do with a monetary figure (22 million dollars is next to nothing in today's economy).

Re:$22 million in jobs

[smallpaul]

$22 million in jobs or in dividends to stock holders.

Do you think that shareholders stick their money in socks when they get it? I don't. I either invest it again (which creates jobs) or I spend it (ditto).

The argument that India will need to import American goods for the growing tech sector and that this will result in even more jobs seems a little specious.

Why? There are things we make that they do not and vice versa?

Is the global economy being turned on it's ear? Will the U.S. now be making cheap consumables to send to the IP producing countries in Asia?

Manufacturing does not imply "cheap consumables." You can also make high end sewing machines. Robotics. Advanced materials.

And why would India not simply start manufacturing the products it needs itself?

Sigh. Have you never heard of comparative advantage? The total output of the Indian economy is limited by all sorts of infrastructural issues which make it impossible for them to manufacture everything themselves cheaply.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[Lemmy Caution]

The wealthy need not spend their money in ways that create jobs. They can buy land - which drives up the price of land for the ones who don't have it yet - they can buy goods from overseas and luxury goods - the production of which doesn't create very many jobs.

A flatter distribution of income creates more jobs producing things that benefit more people: the more important a part of the market the lower to middle class is, the more productive power goes to address their needs.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[leigao84]

Please remember that trade is not a zero sum game! US doesn't loose when India wins. Trades happen not because the WTO point a gun at US's head and force them to trade. Trade makes everyone better off! >Will the U.S. now be making cheap consumables to send to the IP producing countries >in Asia? The number one miss conception about international trade is that a country like US must make cheap consumables to compete with manufacturing countries. Nations trade because trade gives it an opportunity to import things on the international market; export is not the main focus of international trade. In fact most gains a country make from trade is the fact that cheaper items will be available to them at things they are relatively bad at producing. The US is relatively good at producing things like commercial airliners, movies, and medicine, and India is good at producing labor intensive things like programming optimization and tech supporting. The gain is enormous for both nations. Over all, we consumers gains most from trade because we can buy things at lower prices! >And why would India not simply start manufacturing the products it needs itself? I'm sure India can produce commercial medicine by itself. But what are the costs? Costs not in nominal terms but in terms of real good. They may have to give up producing things they are relatively good in to produce in something they are relatively bad in. Now that's very illogical! They would gain much more from trade by buying them from the United States. Jobs are more macroeconomics and trade often don't have much effect on it. In the short run, they depend more on aggregate demand, and in the long run the nation's natural unemployment rate. We have seen that tariffs and protectionism have little effect on employment rates.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[gtshafted]

"Manufacturing does not imply "cheap consumables." You can also make high end sewing machines. Robotics. Advanced materials... Sigh. Have you never heard of comparative advantage? The total output of the Indian economy is limited by all sorts of infrastructural issues which make it impossible for them to manufacture everything themselves cheaply."

Unfortunatly, China makes a lot of manufactured goods that US companies sell - take for instance almost every computer component... The question is - does India need a US middleman and China is right next door?

Re:$22 million in jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think that shareholders stick their money in socks when they get it? I don't. I either invest it again (which creates jobs)

Somehow I doubt it. Most people will invest in those very companies that are outsourcing as much as possible. Tell me again how that creates jobs.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

The total output of the Indian economy is limited by all sorts of infrastructural issues which make it impossible for them to manufacture everything themselves cheaply.

And so they'll turn to China to make their goods for them just like we do. How does that help the US?

Re:$22 million in jobs

[Rotten168]

Ricardo said for comparative advantage to be applicable, the factors of production have to be immobile. If the factors of production are mobile (and service jobs are perfectly mobile) then the factors of production will move to the country with the greatest absolute advantage.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh. Have you never heard of comparative advantage?

Comparative advantage may be not as fun. e.g.

this and this

Re:$22 million in jobs

[Rotten168]

There are certian situations where trade is indeed a zero-sum game or at least close to it. You're right that it's not a perfect zero-sum game. Economists, however, know that regions can decline in standard of living because of normal economic forces. To assume that countries cannot decline is naive.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[BobPaul]

Thousands of over-educated egotisitcal nerds and nobody understands Macro-Economics....

Re:$22 million in jobs

[puneetb]

> > $22 million in jobs or in dividends to stock holders.
> Do you think that shareholders stick their money in socks when they get it? I don't. I either invest it again (which creates jobs) or I spend it (ditto).

Nice. Its exactly this impression that the rich want everyone to have. Screw the middle class, and they dont even know it.
Check this out.
our tax system now forces most Americans to subsidize the lifestyles of the very rich, who enjoy the benefits of our democracy without paying their fair share of its price..... The author exposes how tax cuts supposedly intended to help the middle class benefit the super rich far more...

Re:$22 million in jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

smallpaul wrote:
>
> Do you think that shareholders stick their money in socks when they get it? I don't.
> I either invest it again (which creates jobs) or I spend it (ditto).

There is nothing that forces people to invest in American companies or buy American products. You could very well be investing in foreign firms (say the fast growing Indian IT industry) or foreign goods, or even foreign money (since the dollar has been tanking against some of the major world currencies like the Euro and the Pound).

Re:$22 million in jobs

[TheOldFart]

That's usually the case for those who can't adapt. There may be an argument to be made there but either way, if you keep having 10 children and all or most of them survive (because of better infrastructure and so on) things begin to get a little unbalanced to say the least. Like that, there are many many reasons that cause this decline. Invariably it relates to slow, or the lack all together of adaptability. This is not peculiar to screwed up third world countries. Just take a look at "First World" places such as France.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[rcs1000]

If they buy land, then they buy it from somebody. The person that has sold the land now has the money in his (or her) pocket.

If they spend their money overseas, then it creates jobs in Italy or Taiwan, and the money is spent on video games made by Nintendo or Electronic Arts.

Which means these companies make a profit, which is good because otherwise your 401K would be empty and you wouldn't be able to afford to retire.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[superwiz]

India can produce most manufacturing products itself. The ones it cannot produce it will buy from China or (in the case of cars) from Japan. What it cannot buy from almost any other country in the world is food. U.S. is the largest producer of food in the world. That is the only reason why U.S. remains stable than any other country in the world despite the largest per person debt.

We are essentially a banana republic that sells many varities of "bananas". U.S. high tech and manufacturing exports pale in comparision to the exports of food.

The 22m jobs statistic is a joke. It's just plain wrong. Federal Government pays most farmers to be paid to be idle. So now they'll work just a little bit more to satisfy the Indian demand. The only jobs that this might create in the U.S. will be in the shipping industry. But there won't be 22m of them.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[tarunthegreat]

Yes. Chinese may be good at Manufacturing, but they SUCK at marketing.... do u think China could convince the world that there are WMDs in Tibet and they should be attacked? Doubtful. But Have an American do the branding and the Marketing, but stamp a Made in China label on the back, the good is sold as American and bought in India as "High Quality Imported American"... So your answer is yes - an American Middleman is required.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

you sound bitter and none-too-well informed.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[marcopo]

Of course shareholders will reinvest the money, but if money is flowing out of a country then less money is spent on wages for workers. There are conservation laws here.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[iserlohn]

>If they spend their money overseas, then it creates jobs in Italy or Taiwan, and the money is spent on video games made by Nintendo or Electronic Arts.

Produced by Indian game developers. The only people that is going to make a real profit is the top execs.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[muckdog]

Buying stock that is already public doesn't create and jobs and is not really investing. It really doesn't help the economy. Sticking the money in a bank account does help somewhat bacause thats more money that banks can lend startup companies. Only investing in new companies or existing companies that release new shares is really investing.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[amplt1337]

There are things we make that they do not and vice versa?

That's just the problem -- since the 1980's, we don't make much of anything any more.

Being a "knowledge worker" is all well and good, until you realize that everybody's got some knowledge to work with...

Re:$22 million in jobs

[autophile]

Do you think that shareholders stick their money in socks when they get it? I don't. I either invest it again (which creates jobs) or I spend it (ditto).

Actually, as far as you're concerned, I stick it in socks. All of my stock is in an individually-managed retirement plan. There are too many tax benefits to doing it that way, and too many tax penalties if I don't. Also, I can't take that money out before retirement (age 65 to 70 1/2 now, and rising) unless I want to pay really big penalties. And I can't take the money out for another 35 years.

So basically, any gains *I* might make from outsourcing won't be seen until 2040. By which time a lot of the unemployed will be dead.

--Rob

Re:$22 million in jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think you are going to have a 401K by the time you retire? Oh the naivatie!!

Re:$22 million in jobs

[Rotten168]

That's usually the case for those who can't adapt.

Nonsense, this has nothing to do with adaptability beyond the ability to adapt to a lowered standard of living.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and the money people use to buy land goes directly to the land fairy and is never put back into the economy.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think that shareholders stick their money in socks when they get it? I don't. I either invest it again (which creates jobs) or I spend it (ditto).

When do instiutional investors (401k Holders, Mutual Fund companies) Go out and buy stuff? They don't. They *DO* put it back in their socks, er stocks.

Unfortuantely, they are the majority of investors.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

"Which means these companies make a profit, which is good because otherwise your 401K would be empty and you wouldn't be able to afford to retire. "

I'm fearful to even say it, but I believe the fear is that we won't be able to afford to retire either way...

Re:$22 million in jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument that India will need to import American goods for the growing tech sector and that this will result in even more jobs seems a little specious.

Why? There are things we make that they do not and vice versa?

Yeah, I can see these people who are making $30 per day buying an American car. Sure.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[smallpaul]

Jobs are not a factor of production. People are a factor of production. People are much less mobile than jobs. There is a lot of other stuff that is not very mobile: telecommunications and road infrastructure, universities, natural resources, knowledge clusters like Hollywood and Silicon Valley, etc.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[jafac]

The problem with this is that we don't manufacture anything in America anymore.

I recently hosted a Chinese exchange student for a week. We took him shopping so he could buy some gifts for his friends back home, and we couldn't find a damn thing he couldn't buy back in Shanghai - cheaper. Even at Wal Mart.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[wcrowe]

We took him shopping so he could buy some gifts for his friends back home, and we couldn't find a damn thing he couldn't buy back in Shanghai - cheaper. Even at Wal Mart.

Well, there's your problem. Everything at Wal-Mart comes from China.

If you wanted to show him something uniquely American you should have taken him to a gun shop.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[jafac]

Our Wal Mart sells guns.

Guns made in China.

Re:$22 million in jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

If they buy land, then they buy it from somebody. The person that has sold the land now has the money in his (or her) pocket.

Yes, but no jobs were created, and we're back where we started. See the problem?

Re:$22 million in jobs

[bgoss]

Please provide some proof that you (or anyone else) "investing" in the stock market creates jobs (other than Wall Street jobs). Selling or buying stocks has little impact on the company whose stock you're buying. Purchasing a stock from someone only benefits you, the seller, and a stock broker/trader. No money goes to the company (ie they have no more money to do things like create jobs just because you purchased or sold a stock). So exactly how are you creating jobs when investing in stocks??

Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

The tech recession is obviously already over. We are already very near full employment for tech workers even here in the Silicon Valley and San Francisco. Why else would you be seeing things like this:

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals is seeking approval of a labor condition application for the period of February 26, 2004 to February 26, 2007 to permit employment of one H-1B worker in the classification of Programmer Analyst. The salary for this job is $77,501 per year. The H-1B worker will be employed at our facility located at 501 Lennon Lane, Walnut Creek, California 94598. The labor condition application relating to this employee is available for public inspection at our main office located at One Kaiser Plaza, Oakland, California 94612. Complaints alleging misrepresentation of material facts in the labor condition application and/or failure to comply with the terms of the labor condition application may be filed with any office of the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor.

Posted January 26, 2004
(can't read the signature)

Re: Right.

[Black Parrot]

> The tech recession is obviously already over. We are already very near full employment for tech workers even here in the Silicon Valley and San Francisco. Why else would you be seeing things like this:

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals is seeking approval of a labor condition application for the period of February 26, 2004 to February 26, 2007 to permit employment of one H-1B worker in the classification of Programmer Analyst. The salary for this job is $77,501 per year.

Especially since so many US citizens formerly working in the IT sector are now out of work.

Re: Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

this article should end with "no, really.".

Re:Right.

[CrazyDuke]

I'll work for 1/3 of that! Maybe even less. And I live in the US. Beats all these "created" part time jobs that pay next to nothing.

NOPE DON'T BUY IT

[Anonymous Coward]

This does not fit into my conspiratorial pessimistic view of the world.

Sa...

[cgranade]

I wonder how politicized this report is. Here we are, Bush is taking heat on the same thing that doomed his daddy: the economy. Not to mention that we're neck deep in the election cycle.

Re:Sa...

[Doc Ruby]

They're both incompetent kleptocrats. The economy isn't some compartmentalized number - it's a description of how productive are our interactions, which have been paralyzed and debased by Bush's screwups and terrorwashed coverups. Hopefully Jr will follow Sr into the dustbin of history, before he bankrupts and kills the rest of us.

Re:Sa...

[Anonymous Coward]

Blame Bush, but everyone conveniently forgets that it's that asshole Clinton who signed all of these damned globalization freetrade agreements like friggin NAFTA.

Blaming our current economic woes on Bush is like blaming the great depression on Hoover. He was just the unlucky bastard that inherited his predecessor's short-sighted fuckups. Not that Bush hasn't created his own short-sighted fuckups *cough*Iraq*cough*, but ya can't really blame the economy on him.

Re:Sa...

[Pros_n_Cons]

I wonder how politicized this report is. Here we are, Bush is taking heat on the same thing that doomed his daddy: the economy. Not to mention that we're neck deep in the election cycle.

I wonder if you hope the Economy tanks so you can blame Bush in an election year. There seems to be alot of people worried when the economy starts looking better.. why is that? Shouldn't we be happy? Or we should only be happy when its from the _other_ corrupt party?

after all it IS an election year and that isn't just for politicions. Why vote once when you can spead FUD in public forums and get people to vote for you.
I'm not letting you mod down an AC take my +2 and work for your job to silence my minority opnion.

Re:Sa...

[cgranade]

Uh... OK. I don't see how I was "spreading FUD" by merely asking a worthwhile (in my mind) question. It follows from one of my most deeply held axioms: "Never trust he with a motive to lie." Here, Bush has a large motive to lie: the economy sucks, and he knows it. Clinton had a lesser motive to lie: the economy didn't suck. Does that mean that if it came down to it, I would truse Clinton if the economy did suck? No. Rather, I am recognizing the circumstances that may lead Bush, and moveover his administration, to lie. It is thus that I ask: how politicized is this report? Do they (Beaeru of Labor Statistics) have a motive to fake it for Bush, or are they independant enough of Bush to say what they feel is true? That is, do they have a motive to lie, or is it just Bush?

Re:Sa...

[Doc Ruby]

Bush has been running the economy into the ground for 3 over years, and can take the "blame" in the same magnitude as he smirkingly demands credit for it. There's no luck involved - Bush Junior ran for, and stole, the Presidency on purpose. By this point in Clinton's presidency, 1995, the economy was fully into the unprecedented wealth creation so divergent from Bush Senior's "recession". This "blame" hangup is irrelevant - we just need to get rid of this liar ASAP, and learn from history just what happens when a Bush sleazes into the White House, so it doesn't happen again in 12 years, when they'll probably pitch Jenna at us.

Re:Sa...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your partisan bullshit doesn't sail well.

Why don't you go hang out on democraticunderground where you'd fit in better?

Re:Sa...

[Doc Ruby]

OK, ironic Anonymous partisan Coward, what's wrong with the facts in that post? Why don't you go hang out at Xinhua.cn where nonsensical lies about a mafioso tyrant, quoted along strict party propaganda, self-unaware of their orwellian grim humor, fit in like a goosestep at Nuremburg?

Re:Sa...

[Anonymous Coward]

"There seems to be alot of people worried when the economy starts looking better.."

if you feel the economy is heading up as of now, you must be on crack. Never mind George W. turned in his budget plan with some trillion dollars in deficit. He'll beef up defense and cut spending on education and health care. Sure, this will solve the problem.

Of course, there are a lot of propaganda from both parties in every election year. But obvious fallacy like this one (outsourcing to India creates more US jobs! Yeah babe!) to make people believe that we are doing well in economy is beyond stupid.

Shouldn't we be happy? Or we should only be happy when its from the _other_ corrupt party?

You are happy because you are in denial and repressing your mind to think without bias. Unlike talk radio enthusiasts like yourself, majority of American citizens are more interested in their own lives and inside of their wallets than political debates. US dumped the former president because he got BJs from some fat whore. What we got after all is casualties of wars and false sense of national security.

I'm happy that you are happy.

God bless.

Re:Sa...

[Anonymous Coward]

US dumped the former president because he got BJs from some fat whore. What we got after all is casualties of wars and false sense of national security

Could you please define what "is" is?
seriously I think he (clinton) had bigger problems than a blow job. people were not short of reasons to be upset with him
73 House and Senate witnesses who have pled the 5th Amendment and 17 witnesses who have fled the country to avoid testifying about Democratic campaign fund raising.
Cutting the Military by half, Stripping the CIA and gutting our foreign policy.
The 140 pardons of convicted felons and indicted felons-in-exile.
He forced Israel to give up Mohommed ATTA who they captured in 1986 but gave up cause Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all political prisoners be released even if they had blood on thier hands. If Atta's name sounds familar you might have heard about one of his greatest hits, it was the first world trade center tower in New York.
Clinton also appointed nearly HALF of our current judges right now and these people can not be fired. These are the liberal judges like Harry Rapkin who you may have seen in the news recently who's taking alot of flack for letting that guy go who killed the girl in florida last week.
Clinton was a frickin sleezebag, blow job's was a drop in the bucket. As for me thinking the Economy is good no. I know it is not. The sky isn't falling or anything but when we had that last quarter pickup you know.. (when we had our largest growth in 20 years?) people tried to act like nothing happened (as you just did).

in the long term

[tsunamifirestorm]

in the long term, a foreign country succeeding will make the entire world better...
of course in the long term, we'll all be dead.

Re:in the long term

[PhyreFox]

Nope. Given the current system, a foreign country succeeding will just put a foreign country on top for a few decades before it too falls flat on its face. Such is capitalism. What goes up must come down.

Re:in the long term

[yintercept]

Such is capitalism. What goes up must come down.

Capitalism works by reinvesting what gets earned. So, it is the best system for keeping things up.

The biggest worry for the economy right now is that big companies, big government and big unions will use people's fear to inact anti-market legislation and muck up positive market developments.

Don't you think it is odd that people are calling the outsourcing of jobs to India a "free market failure." Out sourcing is widening the income gap world wide. It is narrowing the income gap. The phenomenally poor in India are seeing a big jump in their standard of living, while the fat American is simply seeing a slow down in their accumulation of wealth.

If you take the world view that includes both the US and India, you would see that the number of jobs world wide is increasing substantially faster because of outsourcing.

Re:in the long term

[PhyreFox]

Don't you think it is odd that people are calling the outsourcing of jobs to India a "free market failure."

Semantics.

It's a failure of conscience as a result of free market economics. Big companies are outsourcing to third-world nations to save money on employment costs, at the expense of their former workforces whose only crime is expecting the same standard of living they've had for decades. Big government (neo-Republican or otherwise) isn't doing a damned thing to help the people they supposedly serve (the citizens, not themselves). Big unions only serve to make their constituents look like spoiled brats every time they demand a pay increase out of the middle of nowhere.

If I take the "world view", America deserves this. That's why I say screw the world view, screw India, let them pound sand for a living and keep the jobs in the 'States where they'll do the most good.

Re:in the long term

[Anonymous Coward]

Big business and big government are a tremendous worry. The things I find fault is with, however, was the bill that brought in hundreds of thousands of workers into a bait a switch operation geared toward keeping US wages down. The bait and switch caused a temporary brain drain that seriously hampered the natural IT development in India and elsewhere. Big government is apt to see countries competing for low wages and artificially lower wages. Unfortunately, we have this nice fear factor going, and big government feeds on fear.

Re:in the long term

[Savage-Rabbit]

The phenomenally poor in India are seeing a big jump in their standard of living, while the fat American is simply seeing a slow down in their accumulation of wealth.

It is not the phenominally poor in India who are benefitting from the export of high tech jobs it is India's upper and middle classes. India has a cast system and the people who are benefitting from this would rather drown than touch a rope that has previously been handled by one of Inda's phenominally poor low cast "Untouchables", unless of course the rope was ritually purified first.
It seems to me this has alot less to do with "fat Americans" and more to do with "short sighted greedy little American corporate executives" who are pissing away a highly trained workforce for short term gains and making a present of high technology to India which is only too happy to accept it since the technological exchange will eventually allow her to dispense with the Americans and compete with them.

Re:in the long term

[Eunuchswear]

keep the jobs in the 'States where they'll do the most good.

No, if you keep the jobs in the 'States they'll do the least good.

Re:in the long term

[tarunthegreat]

That's caste system. Second, the outsourcing and globalisation in general has help reduce the caste system to almost nothing in India, 'cept out in lower ArseholeVille... and I guess not allowing black ppl to drink from the same fountain is the best of example of American freedom. Oh what am I talking about. that was 100 years ago...oh no wait..it was only 40 years ago...whoops. So you don't know squat about what you're talking about you short sighted greedy little American

Re:in the long term

[cybermace5]

Ok, I'll bite: if the Indians perceive this as merely putting the fat Americans in their place, maybe they should remember that all those fat Americans somehow, in spite of their slothlike lazy habits, produced all the wealth that countries like India are siphoning out. And if they don't care about the fate of American workers, why should we care about theirs? "Oh, it's only serving to equalize the number of jobs, and the wealth." Come on! The cost of living in America is very high compared to that in India. You have to spend a lot of money to survive. While programmers in India get wages that allow them to buy large houses and retain servants, the average tech worker here is struggling to hold down a two-bedroom and make car and student loan payments.

Re:in the long term

[Savage-Rabbit]

Firstly, no I am not an American. Secondly keep in mind that while the caste system is still upheld in vast areas of India. Those short sighted greedy little Americans canned their own apartheit system with a single ruling of their Supreme Court. I would like to see Indians, and especially those of you who pride your selves on not being inhabitants of ArsholeVille, who let the cast system live on in other parts of your country, beat the Americans on that count. The Americans like all other people have their faults but when it comes to Apartheit they are way ahead of India.

Re:in the long term

[infinite9]

The phenomenally poor in India are seeing a big jump in their standard of living, while the fat American is simply seeing a slow down in their accumulation of wealth.


Because of outsourcing, i'm about to lose my house. I planned for a 50% pay cut because I knew the rates wouldn't last forever. I took a 66% pay cut in 8 months. I'm now making 1/3 what I used to. How many americans can absorb a 50% pay cut over night with no ill affects? Can you? I could. I was conservative. I guess it wasn't enough.

Thanks for these comforting words. I'm sure my children will appreciate them. Hey, I have an idea! How about the fabulously wealthy people in India pick up the tab for the phenomenally poor in India!

Re:in the long term

[fbform]

India has a cast system

OK first off that's "caste" not "cast". But the main point that prompted this reply is that caste is not relevant in this issue of outsourcing. It's true that caste still plays a huge role in rural (== backward) areas, but those areas have nothing whatsoever to do with India's recent economic trend. All the jobs and all the development is in urban areas, especially these five cities: Bangalore, Madras, Hyderabad, Bombay and New Delhi. All the job growth is in the private sector which as a rule does NOT bother about caste or religion or anything other than performance metrics.

Now the way it works is that a tribe of 20-somethings suddenly earn more than their parents put together, and thus the standard (and cost) of living goes up. This in turn leads to higher wages being demanded by servants, chauffers, sweepers...in urban areas.

So really, most people's standards of living have risen in the urban areas, irrespective of caste. Similarly, the standard of living has stayed the same or fallen in rural areas, again irrespective of caste. Maybe not entirely in the rural areas, but

And anyway, India has a bigger problem with reverse discrimination than casteism today. Someone decided that the best way to redress centuries of injustice to lower castes was to give them heaps of college degrees/diplomas on the sole weight of their birth and irrespective of their academic performance (or lack thereof). This started in the early 1990s. And from what I hear, a "high caste" indivudual has to slog his ass off to get into college or get a government job, while the "lower caste" members are being given free handouts.

India has been lucky so far - the past 10 years, most of the new workers (== mainly people who were admitted into college & graduated on the basis of their low caste), particularly engineering graduates, have been absorbed into call centers and software development, irrespective of what branch of engineering they specialized in. Face it, you really cannot screw up something in software. So you release a product riddled with holes. So what? Microsoft made a business model out of it. The longer-term threat to India is if for some reason the IT market weakens and some of these morons go back to the field they graduated in. Heaven forbid if that happens to be Civil or Chemical or Nuclear Engineering. I shouldn't be surprised if they have dam collapses and Bhopal-type industrial disasters, leave alone nuclear accidents.

Re:in the long term

[Anonymous Coward]

I have lived and worked in india. I have lived and worked in the US. You have NO CLUE. So please, spare me the "large houses" drivel.

Right...

[Einer2]

"People don't understand what a great opportunity offshoring is for US companies. Apart from huge savings, it allows US companies to concentrate on their core competencies and the people (in the US) can move on to higher paying, more creative, more value generating jobs."

...

You see, that doesn't quite work when it's the high-paying jobs going overseas. The only jobs that can't are those that require physical presence, and I can only see so many ways to creatively remove a clog from a toilet.

Re:Right...

[Frymaster]

it allows US companies to concentrate on their core competencies

ack! if i have to hear that "core competencies" argument one more time i will scream... louder.

it's basically just a rehash of david ricardo's "comparative advantage" argument. it goes like this: there is a surgeon and a typist. the surgeon types 60 wpm, the typist only 40. however, despite the fact that the surgeon is faster on the keyboard, it is better overall for the typist to do the typing and leave the surgeon to surgery.

that analogy, of course, makes good sense.... but when you start expanding it to global economics it becomes shakey. we in north america have been fancying ourselves the surgeons for a long time and been foisting the "typing" work (like making sweatshop running shoes) onto the "third world".

the breakdown is this: comparative advantage theory leads to a narrowing of the economic base. if your country doesn't have the infrastructure and labour force to create an auto industry the theory is you shouldn't try. just stick to labour-intensive, capital-light industries like agriculture or textiles. this has proven to be bad news for the developing nations of the world because it a) ties the entire economy to a few industries b) offers little room for development. an economic ghettoization if you will.

and now india is foisting this argument back on the united states.

the fact of the matter is this: every economy needs diversity. there need to be un and low-skilled jobs and there need to be highly-skilled jobs. there need to be labour and capital intensive industries.

if the united states focuses exclusively on "more creative, more value generating jobs" then a dot-com burst (or the equivalent) can do greater damage to the economy as a whole... in the same way that a bad coffee harvest can tank a small latin american country.

Re:Right...

[leigao84]

Why do all economy needs diversification?

Which economy is better? The US economy? Or the aggregate economy of the E.U.?

The obvious answer is that the US economy is stronger. Just compare the average GDP vs purchasing power index (PPI) and you'll see the US economy is way better.

Ok, so let's see which economy is more diverse? You'd be surprised to find that the EU economy is more diverse! Germany, which is about the size of Wisconsin with the population of New England has around 180 different industries. Mean while, the US northeast has only about 20.

This means that the US economy is more specialized! Specialization = efficiency = better economy!

Re:Right...

[skifreak87]

Well for one thing, I personally do not consider tech support/call centers as high paying jobs. Just because a job requires education, does not make it necessarily high-paying. It does not make economic sense (in terms of the global economy) to pay U.S. workers more than Indian workers for the same production - whether or not outsourced work is just as productive is a different argument. It only makes the U.S. companies less competitive.

The problem, as I see it, is that too many people are relying on their technology education as a guarantee that they will have a job. At my university, all engineering graduates are required to have a basic competency in programming. My Optimization course teaches utilizes AMPL (A mathematical Programming Language) for many of the problems we have to solve, and my linear algebra course used matlab for several problems. Basically what this means is that Computer Programming/scripting is becomming required knowledge in many other fields, reducing the need for someone who is simply a computer programmer.

While this obviously does not cover the entire technology sector, my point is, there are many "IT" skills that are now being learned by people in other industries. Yes we still need System Administrators, security consultants, etc. but there is no reason to have tech support people living in the United States, nor is there the same need (read: demand) for people whose main skill is programming. Yes there is still a demand, but it's lessened. This is a fact of life. There is no reason to hamper U.S. companies by requiring them to buy expensive labor if the same labor is available more cheaply. It simply makes the companies less competitive, in the long-run hurting our countries economy.

My analogy, which I mentioned before. Suppose OpenOffice and Microsoft Office are of the same quality. The argument that U.S. companies should not be allowed to outsource because it takes jobs away from "deserving" Americans, is the same as saying using OpenOffice is wrong because the money you save would otherwise have gone to Microsoft. Same "argument" SCO used when attacking the GPL and claiming that Open Source software was a detriment to the economy.

Re:Right...

[MechaStreisand]

Just one thing... Your analogy.

Suppose OpenOffice and Microsoft Office are of the same quality. The argument that U.S. companies should not be allowed to outsource because it takes jobs away from "deserving" Americans, is the same as saying using OpenOffice is wrong because the money you save would otherwise have gone to Microsoft. Same "argument" SCO used when attacking the GPL and claiming that Open Source software was a detriment to the economy.

Open source software has many things going for it, but being good for the economy is not one of them! If all software was open source, there would be far less money to be made in the software industry, as selling boxed software is a big part of it that would just disappear if it was all free. And don't talk about selling support: relying on that as a business model simply promotes the support of second-rate software, and futhermore, it can't make up for the volume of the lost sales.

Similarly, outsourcing is good for US companies, but bad for US workers. What difference does it make that executives and shareholders are making more money when the only jobs left are service jobs - the only kind that can't be outsourced? What we're seeing here is the beginning of the end of the middle class. Not good for our way of life. You should care about more than the economy as some aggregate number. The well-being of your country means more than that.

Re:Right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, right, lets see you list these 180 and 20 industries. Sounds more like you're just making up numbers. 20 industries in the entire US northeast? Maybe that was true in 1604, but not in 2004.

Re:Right...

[Eunuchswear]

Open source software has many things going for it, but being good for the economy is not one of them! If all software was open source, there would be far less money to be made in the software industry,

But that (less money made in the software industry) would be a good thing, the money could be spent on something more useful.

Like almost anything.

Re:Right...

[luckylindy]

I work for a company that makes various displays for the avaition industry. Many of the processes in making them are proprietary and also export controlled. Because they are export controlled the company still manufactures all of the product in the US and is vertically integrated. The products sell well all over the world and have a high margin of profit. There is no doubt in my mind that if the export controls were lifted or modified to be less constrictive that the corporate officers of the holding company would move production to mainland china within 2 years and instead of having 450 employees in this division there would only be about 25 management types. I think that the rules for small, medium and large companies should have more export controlls, and tax advantages should be geared to those business who employ 80% of their workers in the US of A. Those who move their business off shore for reduced cost but claim to be US business should have all tax benefits sundered, should have their products directly tariffed and to hell with the European Union meddling in US internal laws. I used to be a conservative voter and god knows both sides of the political thin coin that is our 2 party minority takes all system have great guilt in decimating our economy but Ross Perot was right all along. The giant sucking sound is the sound of all the decent paying jobs not only going south of the border but even leaving North America entirely. I will be voting very left wing in the next years as I head toward the vanishing goal or retirement. Our economy is ill served if we all work for mainland China ( excuse me: I meant Wall Mart).

Re:Right...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Apart from huge savings, it allows US companies to concentrate on their core competencies

Uh oh. US companies don't know what their core competencies are.

Comment adapted from a Dilbert comic strip.

Re:Right...

[Anonymous Coward]

I will be voting very left wing in the next years as I head toward the vanishing goal or retirement.

For Dog's sake, vote Democrat. No, it's not perfect, but it's better, and it's the ONLY way to get the Republicans out.

Re:Right...

[lawrencekhoo]

If you were right, countries that opened themselves to trade and the world economy would have found their economies stagnating. Yet, when you look around the world, this is obviously not true.

Consider South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia. All had high economic growth after they opened up to world trade. Consider the case of India itself. It had a stagnant economy when it was closed off from the world, now with an open door policy, its economy is booming.

Countries that trade grow, countries that close themselves off die. If you don't believe me, just visit North Korea some day ...

Re:Right...

[superflippy]

the people (in the US) can move on to higher paying, more creative, more value generating jobs

I keep hearing this, but no one ever gives specific examples. Can someone tell me what these "creative" jobs are? What is a job that almost any American can do that almost nobody in a foreign country can do more cheaply?

Re:Right...

[YoJ]

The point of comparative advantage is that the result is that the surgeon and the typist are both better off, and that by specializing and grouping together they are more productive. The lesson is that market forces drive productivity in a global sense; you can't just look at one activity and say that this person is the most efficient at this activity so they should do it.

Jobs are relative

[Neppy]

22 million more jobs, but how much will the population increase by then? this reduces the increase in employment, so the number 22 million looks a lot more impressive than it actually is.

Re:Jobs are relative

[PhyreFox]

It's a nice large vague number, it won't mean a damned thing except either the possibility of migrant workers taking up the slack or people with bachelors' and higher in computer science earning minimum wage at Mickey D's.

Re:Jobs are relative

[foidulus]

It actually depends on immigration(which, if offshoring is wildly successful, one would assume that immigration would drop as people can just stay home to have all the economic benefits that are currently present in the US). If you ignore immigration, then the US population is not growing very fast, and in a matter of 20 years or so will actually start shrinking. This is actually a problem economically, as there will be more and more non-workers(retired etc) for every worker. Which is why, as a US citizen, I think the country should be doing more to support immigration(while ensuring that there is still fair competetion for jobs, H1-B has this in theory, but has abused it, and the abusers are taking away a lot of visas that could be used for valid shortages, it needs to be changed). I personally think that instead of offering tuition waivers and stipends to foriegn grad students unconditionally, we should make them contingent upon their staying in the US after they graduate. IE make the waives and stipends a kind of loan, but one that you can either pay off with a) money or b) working in the country(every year that you work in the US, a year comes off your loan). This will make it much harder for people to come here, get a great education, then take all that knowledge(and investment) back home where it sees very little benefit to the US economy. We also need to get more engineering grad students, stop the oppressive fees etc that we all have to pay as undergrads and to a certain extent grads. That is really how the US can improve it's economy in the long run.

Re:Jobs are relative

[MechaStreisand]

You sad, misguided person. Yes, the US population is growing slowly and will soon be in a decline. But immigration is not the answer. You let in enough immigrants to offset the native population decline and what you will have is the end of the US as you know it. The immigrant populations are not assimilated into the American way of life: they bring their own cultures, they reproduce faster, and soon will displace the native Americans by there simply being many more of them. Nations cannot survive that kind of massive demographic change.

Immigration. Good for the economy, bad for the culture. Call me a racist if you want - I fear not your labels. The American culture (and Canadian too - I should know) will die, and what is now the United States will soon be New China, New India, and et cetera. Count the days.

Re:Jobs are relative

[foidulus]

This is the exact same thing the original English settlers of this land said about the Irish and the Germans coming in. This is the same thing the KKK said in the 20's about the Italians and Poles etc.(Sacco and Vanzetti ring a bell?) American culture has not died, now has it? Perhaps I should clarify, at my school I notice two types of foriegn students(mostly Indian and Chinese) the ones who keep to their own little groups, but these also tend to be the poorer students when it comes project time(they always try to get help off me, but refuse to give me help the few times I ask), but there are also ones who, while respecting their home culture, have also embraced US culture, and they tend to be the ones that find creative answers to problems versus just being able to spew the crap you feed them(which the grading system of most classes rewards, while punishing creative solutions). We need more of the latter, the former can be sent back to their own little elitist society and stagnate for all I care(their job will be automated eventually anyway), but maybe you have created a more fundamental question, what is American culture? Almost all of our customs come from Europe, but we just make them bigger and badder it seems. Or maybe what you are afraid of is an end of Western culture, well(being a white person myself) I can tell you that it's inevitable, there just aren't enough of us around, if you take the entire population of the US, Canada, and Western Europe, it's roughly a billion people, about the same size as India and 30% less than the size of China. What exact cultural items do you feel will come under fire? Most second-generation Americans I know(Chinese, Russian, Indian etc) are as "American" as I am. There is no greater cultural propaganda than the television. US entertainment(popular worldwide btw) will make sure that the US culture does not fall by the wayside any time soon.

Re:Jobs are relative

[MechaStreisand]

Glad you responded. Wish you used BR tags in your reply though... would have made it easier to read.

Anyway, the big problem as I see it here is one of numbers. The mere existence of immigrants is not itself a problem. The huge numbers of them in recent years is. You said it yourself - we're in a native population decline. This, combined with the massive influx, leads to an inevitable demographic shift. (I don't have the numbers handy - I could look them up if I felt like doing research, which I don't.)

Bad? Not for the immigrants. But for the rest of us? I don't know; how much does white Western culture mean to you? Perhaps not much, but to many others it means a lot. It's interesting that you say that our end is inevitable since there aren't enough of us white people around. It's interesting, because this wouldn't be the case if we could simply keep our own land. We have sufficient diversity in North America right now: there's no need to bring in any more. Close the doors, and start reproducing again, and we are assured of a home in our continent, instead of white people barely existing at all in 100 years... no more than the Native Indians who we displaced long ago.

It's not a bad thing for races to have their own land where they are not a minority.

Now, before you think of me as some ugly, racist person, know that I'm not. I don't think of Chinese or Indians as bad people. They aren't - in fact, I'd say they have more of a sense of unity and of family than we do right now. This holds them together. This keeps them reproducing. Unlike us... This keeps their way of life alive. I'm just worried about my own.

Re:Jobs are relative

[tarunthegreat]

Hey this is an interesting topic...I actually kind of agree with u with you 'Leave America to the Americans' policy...however (I'm sure u could feel a 'however coming along) the truth is that the diversity and wave of immigrants helps to renew the country, provide u with a new way of looking at things, and eventually results in the betterment of your country. My home country (India...yes I am somebody who stole an American's job..but hey, first I got kicked out of Amazon.com.. so I've balanced it out) has also been afflicted by waves of migrants (over period of 5000 years..) and the end rseult has been that it's been beneficial.. well 'cept for the fact that we're stuck with 170 million Muslims...

Re:Jobs are relative

[autophile]

22 million more jobs, but how much will the population increase by then?

The US Census Bureau reported that US population grew by one percent between July 1, 2002 and July 1, 2003, to 290.8 million. Let's make a wild-ass guess at what the population will be in January 2010.

July 2003 to Jan 2004 is about six months, so let's add (1.01)^0.5 to 290.8 million, to make 292.3 million.

Now, from Jan 2004 to Jan 2010 is 6 years, so let's add (1.01)^6 to 292.3 million, to make 310.3 million.

Bottom line: with some simple assumptions, population growth to 2010 will be about 18 million.

So in terms of *real* job growth, the BLS is actually predicting a population-adjusted increase of 3 million jobs, not 22 million.

Or, they could have just assumed a population growth of 22 million and assumed that job growth would also be 22 million. That's the great thing about predictions: you can hide your assumptions and get away with a few sound bites.

--Rob

Something for nothing....

[dictionaryattack]

If you set something free, and it comes back to you, etc, etc, etc. 2million lost = 22million gained? Maybe we'll all work in call centres, supporting Indian IT firms? This logic smacks of SCO, maybe they're consulting for these Indian firms?

So in short

[AmVidia HQ]

Offshore was about global wealth creation and integrating economies, she explained, adding that it would create more high-value jobs in the US than people could imagine today

So we are going to get more CEOs and less "lowly programmers"?

I'm Canadian btw, but we all know it's just another economically annexed state.

Re:So in short

[WankersRevenge]

I'm Canadian btw, but we all know it's just another economically annexed state.

universal health care ... low crime ... good beer ... sometimes i wish it were the other way round.

Re:So in short

[bluGill]

That you are Canadian proves that outsourcing works. Canada (though you grew more or less with the US) was once a place for rich nations to outsource expensive things, but as your economy grew it no longer is. Now Canada is about equal to those who were once outsourcing there, and everyone benifits. Suddenly we have more middle class people all around.

Unfortunately it takes time to get there, and there are a lot of people in India to bring up. (not to mention Russia, China, and all those countries in Africa...) I hope for their sakes that they make it before robots (which once set require no supervision) become even cheaper than they are.

so..

[Anonymous Coward]

we lose 2 million engineering jobs, and gain 22 million pizza delivery jobs. Sounds like a great trade-off to me!

Seriously, we can't sacrifice professional jobs for low-level service jobs, even if there are more of them. If we do that, we'll have a rich and poor caste system. Wait a minute...

Re:so..

[Skyshadow]

we lose 2 million engineering jobs, and gain 22 million pizza delivery jobs. Sounds like a great trade-off to me!

When all the tech jobs finally dry up and the only thing the US does better than the rest of the world is high-speed pizza delivery, I'll be first in line to work for Uncle Enzo. Being the Deliverator is actually sort of a long-standing ambition of mine...

The Deliverator used to make software. Still does, sometimes. But if life were a mellow elementary school run by well-meaning education PhD's, the Deliverator's report card would say: "Skyshadow is so bright and creative but needs to work harder on his cooperation skills...

The Deliverator is a Type A driver with rabies. He is zeroing in on his home base, CosaNostra Pizza #3569, cranking up the left lane of CSV-5 at a hundred and twenty kilometers. His car is a black lozenge, just a dark place that reflects the tunnel of franchise signs -- the loglo. A row of orange lights burbles and churns across the front, where the grille would be if this were an air-breathing car. The orange light looks like a gasoline fire. It comes in people's rear windows, bounces off their rearview mirrors, projects a fiery mask across their eyes, reaches into their subconcious, and unearths fears of being pinned, fully conscious, under a detonating gas tank, makes them want to pull over and let the Deliverator overtake them in his black chariot of pepperoni fire...

Re:so..

[value_added]

Someone's already sold your idea. Seems they skipped the pepperoni, but included a fast BMW and a cute Asian chic.

Re:so..

[Magada]

soo.... you read the book, or did you just cut and paste its beginning? Don't see many literati in my neck of the woods, so i'm asking...

Re:so..

[Volmarias]

Most unfortunate, as that's a near direct quote from Snow Crash, with the exception of replacing the name of the protagonist with the name of the poster.

Re:so..

[fufighter]

Wow, you've been thinking about this for a while, huh?

Re:so..

[toganet]

You crossed the line between allusion and plagiarism around line 4. Neal's lawyer will be contacting you soon.

Re:so..

[imadork]

You crossed the line between allusion and plagiarism around line 4. Neal's lawyer will be contacting you soon.

If Neil's lawyer scours Slashdot to find people who copy a few of his paragraphs for fun, then perhaps Neil isn't giving him enough to do...

Poor wording

[smallpaul]

Even though I am a fan of free trade and offshoring, I found this economist's choice of words disturbing: "People in the US are looking at it as a job issue. They are not economists and therefore, they don't necessarily see the whole picture." Funny, I thought that every human being (even economists) had only a part of the picture. People working in the dismal science should be more humble about what they know versus what they think they know.

Re:Poor wording

[leigao84]

But it's true. People usually see international trade as a job issue, when this is not entirely correct! Short term unemployement rate is based on aggregate demand, which has little to do with international trade.

Re:Poor wording

[Killswitch1968]

Ecomomists DO see the big picture. But the big picture does not mean seeing all the nit-picky details. Case in point: General consumer: Jobs will be lost because they are going overseas. Economists: Jobs will be gained because consumers the money that they save on cheaper imports can be spent/invested at home.

Re:Poor wording

[Concerned Onlooker]

They are not economists and therefore, they don't necessarily see the whole picture.

Yep, that'd be me. I certainly don't see the whole picture when I've been harped at for years to "buy American" only to see the corporations buying foreign when it comes to labor. Go ahead and call it sour grapes but I'll be looking for creative ways to "offshore" my money in the form of purchasing products from overseas. Yes, I know. I'm probably just making the problem worse.

Re:Poor wording

[Anonymous Coward]

When the CEOs start offshoring their own jobs I might believe a word they have to say on the matter.

Re:Poor wording

[gnuLNX]

I think the author was simply trying to say that most people are very narrow minded when it comes to fully analyzing a situation. Especially when it comes to the source of income. But you are right maybe aconomists should realize that they only see part of the picture as well. After all their jobs aren't being offshored.

Re:Poor wording

[jmulvey]

They are not economists and therefore, they don't necessarily see the whole picture

Well, you're right in having some skepticism about a statement like that. But in this case, I think it's true. What people see everyday are things like job availability, market prices for oranges, crap like that.

Economists study capital. They work for those with capital. They are paid to analyze and produce policy that increases capital. They have no "allegiance" to workers. Sometimes they have to propose solutions that cause pain to joe six-pack. Now nobody wants to tell Joe about this, and if he can't figure it out... well even better.

I'm reminded of this fact every time Alan Greenspan opens his pie-hole and spouts off about how open borders will increase jobs in America. What f*ing planet is he on? What type of jobs should unemployed Americans be retraining for (again)?

It seems clear to me that his stealth goal is reduction of the National Debt. The Debt now grows at $1.77 billion per day. Our government's spending is just out of control. So since the government refuses to cut spending (actually its increasing by alarming amounts), The only way the government will ever pay that off is by reducing the value of the dollar. If that means the lives of millions of middle-class Americans are decimated in the process, so be it. How do you reduce the value of the dollar? You make capital leave the country. Outsourcing! So it seems to me that the quote above is correct -- it's not a job issue. It's a dollar issue. It's a trade imbalance issue. It's why the Euro is skyrocketing, it's why Gold is going up, it's why the dollar is falling... and it is a SERIOUS threat to our nation. That's the "whole picture"... IMHO, anyway

Re:Poor wording

[Anonymous Coward]

>When the CEOs start offshoring their own jobs I might believe a word they have to say on the matter.
Good point. However that is not quite correct; it will be the board of directors that have to do that, being one step higher up and, supposedly, the representatives of the share holders.

In reality the executives and the board are too chummy, though I have heard of one company in Norway (Europe) state that the low cost of executives there makes the company competitive. Evidently Norway is not "Old Europe" or "New Europe" but the spanking new "Ahead of the curve Europe"

Another thing to note is that economists are one breed of people but macro economists are something completely different; these are often physicists and mathematicians, people capable of relating to big numbers without breaking out in cold sweat and plans of large scale corruption.

Re:Poor wording

[St. Alfonso]

Economists are one of the least credible branches of the sciences. You can easily see this by the manner in which they issue endless predictions that they never even bother to verify. When was the last time you saw an economist try to measure the skill or accuracy of their past predictions? Perhaps some studies exist in the academic journals, but I have yet to see one.

Put another way, does anyone remember what the economists predicted for 2003? I'd bet that their predictions for GDP, employment, the stock market, etc. were all wildly off base. Yet no one ever seems to hold them accountable. Even meteorologists attempt to verify the accuracy and skill of their predictions I'd argue that any forecaster who doesn't bother to even verify his own predictions has no more credibility than a fortune teller or astrologer.

Re:Poor wording

[LaCosaNostradamus]

I quote this poorly, but:

The reason economists' views seldom benefit the common man, is that the common man cannot afford to hire them. Governments, universities and corporations can.

Economists are essentially the economic lawyers for the upper classes, and work to validate class warfare by disguising it with academics. If you* listen to them, then more the fool you ... you're probably the type that thinks that brokers are giving you good investment advice.

*You in general, not you smallpaul.

Re:Poor wording

[smallpaul]

One needs to be very careful listening to individual economists but there is quite a bit of economic theory that plays itself out predictably in the real world. e.g. effects of interest rates on inflation, performance of decentralist capitalist economies versus centralized socialist economies and so forth. Academic economists see themselves as scientists and go through peer review processes just as scientists do. Their findings often contradict the line that most helps the ruling class.

Re:Poor wording

[smallpaul]

You're right that at this very moment the Bush administration is allowing the dollar to drop. But you've totally misunderstood the implications of that. The National Debt is _public money_. It is money literally owned (via your citizenship) by you. Making it go away is in your benefit more than George Bushes (because he has so much of his own money).

On the other hand, letting the dollar drop is terrible for rich people. Let's say that two dollars are worth a pound. Then rich americans can afford to buy chunks of Trafalgar square and to buy English companies. But let's say that THREE dollars are worth a pound. Relative to Brits, those rich Americans just had their wealth slashed and their purchasing power eroded.

So why would Bush let the dollar slip? Well, a cheap dollar is good for exports and exports are good for creating jobs and creating jobs is good for making people happy and making people happy is good for being re-elected. That's democracy at work. Another reason to let the dollar slip is because in the long run it is better for the economy which makes improves the lives of rich and poor alike. So the rich take a wealth hit in the short term hoping for a bonus in the long term.

Re:Poor wording

[jelle]

The same economists that claim to have the whole picture have been overoptimistic about the job market for 14 months now. While some finally are beginning to wonder if they have been wrong, others seem to be following the 'if you lose the bet, double your next bet' destructive strategy.

Economists have been wrong before, and have denied that before too.

Re:Poor wording

[jmulvey]

It is money literally owned (via your citizenship) by you. Making it go away is in your benefit more than George Bushes (because he has so much of his own money).

Well, except that George Bush is spending it on gifts to rich corporations who then move their money offshore... leaving the rest of us with the bag.

My point is that if our government didn't feel the need to spend itself into oblivion, we wouldn't be in this mess.

The federal government's spending is out of control, and rather than curtail spending they see loading up the National Debt and reducing the value of the dollar as a wonderful way to keep the largess flowing.

Re:Poor wording

[smallpaul]

You cannot use devaluation to clear up the national debt without also impoverishing everybody (especially the rich) with dollars in their bank account. Look at Venezuala. Anybody smart enough to think of devaluation as a way to get out of debt is smart enough to realize that it will also make everyone poorer. This hurts the rich more than the poor because the poor don't have dollars.

Re:Poor wording

[jmulvey]

Yup. I pretty much agree with you. It's stupid to impoverish everybody this way. But I ask you: why hasn't the spending stopped? For me, the situation becomes clear when I look at it from this angle: it's not about Rich Americans vs. Poor Americans. That's the old Republican vs. Democrat angle. Today, Republicans and Democrats are essentially the same party: the Corporate party. And the game has changed into corporations vs. individuals. Since individuals today either don't vote, or vote based on which candidate spends the most marketing dollar, our government has become enslaved by a campaign finance system that encourages corporations to contribute as much money as they like to the Corporate party. Governments doing something for the individuals (whether rich or poor) is as ridiculous an idea as a monopoly trying to break a sweat for its customers. Just my view...

Re:Poor wording

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps we'd get more realistic projections if we started asking Indian economists...

Just like Laffer

[eidechse]

I think they're holding the napkin upside down.

Re: Just like Laffer

[Black Parrot]

> I think they're holding the napkin upside down.

LOL!

New Jobs added WHERE?

[Elpacoloco]

I see no examples of these new jobs that they keep talking about. Just about corporations saving money.

Corporations saving money is no guarentee of employment at all -- they could just increase their dividends to attract more investment. They could just increase their CEO's salary.

Even if they do make new jobs, there's no distingishing between wage-slaving jobs against salaried professionals.

New jobs added WHERE, wise guy. :P

Re:New Jobs added WHERE?

[IAmMaxHarris]

Corporations do not arbitrarily decide how much to pay anyone.

There is a market for CEO talent, just like there's a market for every other position at any given company. Ever heard of supply and demand?

Public companies can't just increase dividends, either. There are formal processes, and shareholders to please. A dividend payment must be balanced against the outlook for the future.

I object to your use of the slur "wage-slaving". An employee is free to leave their job at any time in a capitalist society (which we do not yet live in - ours is a mixed socialist/capitalist economy), and is therefore NOT a slave. You should be ashamed of your equivocation, because real slaves (of which America was the first to emancipate) would have given (and would still give, in other parts of the world where slavery still exists) anything to be as free the people you call "wage slaves"!

Re:New Jobs added WHERE?

[toiletmonster]

yeah and if the corporations didn't save money and attract investment, they would go out of business because they're products would cost too much. and then how many jobs would be saved?

Great opportunity

[gtshafted]

Outsourcing middle class jobs is indeed a great opportunity... to the minority rich who are either high ranking execs or large shareholders. (I'm not one of them)

Besides, in the long run, is it really smart to transer all your knowledge to a potential competitor and not retain it?

Just one catch..

[eclectro]

From the article;

She pointed out that the Bureau of Labour Statistics was predicting a job gain of 22m in the US by '10, against a job loss of 2m due to offshoring.

All of these jobs are going to be in the "service sector". It does not say what the quality of those jobs are. Also, even "service sector" type jobs are being exported to india now (programming, call centers).

My prediction - in 2010 we will all be selling hamburgers to each other.

"Would you like to supersize that for just $.39
more??"

Re:Just one catch..

[gtshafted]

Just for the record, the department of labor was predicting a job gain of 17 million for 2003. In reality there was a loss of tens of thousands of jobs. The 22 million prediction sounds like re-election propaganda...

Re:Just one catch..

[Anonymous Coward]

My prediction - in 2010 we will all be selling hamburgers to each other.

"Would you like to supersize that for just $.39 more??"

Then McDonalds realises they can save 10 cents a burger by automating their restaurants using devices invented by the highly intelligent, skilled - and less expensive - foreign workers.

The last inhabitant of America will be a burger-selling robot that can't find anyone to sell burgers to. The entire human population of America having died off from eating too many burgers - or moved overseas to make burger-selling robots.

(Yes, there's probably the plot of a Cory Doctrow and a Harry Harrison story in there somewhere.)

Re:Just one catch..

[eclectro]

The 22 million prediction sounds like re-election propaganda...

Probably along the lines that they are going to cut the deficit in half in five years, and give rich peopl^H^H^Heveryone more tax breaks.

oh yeah, we're buying a rocket to Mars too.

Re:Just one catch..

[tarunthegreat]

Nothing so complex...we have McDonald's in India....and India's the only country not affected by Bird Flu so far... guess what else is gonna b outsourced....

Re:Just one catch..

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe per your sig you should go to law school in the coming years. Assuming you go somewhere good, you would have a great job coming out of it.

Re:Just one catch..

[Anonymous Coward]

Just something to look up: balloon payments

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9899

I heard this on NPR and though I didn't fully read this site, it looked to be on topic.

Re:Just one catch..

[Anonymous Coward]

My prediction - in 2010 we will all be selling hamburgers to each other.

I don't eat at fast food restaurants and hardly eat out at all. Maybe we'll be bagging each others groceries.

Re:Just one catch..

[Anonymous Coward]

Pesky decimal. 1.7 million.

One more stat

[missing000]

A net loss of 2.2 million jobs in less than 4 years.

Glad to know things are good.

In 6 more years?

[Malk-a-mite]

"She pointed out that the Bureau of Labour Statistics was predicting a job gain of 22m in the US by '10, against a job loss of 2m due to offshoring."

When have 5+ year estimates ever been accurate in economic matters?

Secondly -
Tomorrow's Jobs (from bls.gov)
http://www.bls.gov/oco/oco2003.htm
"Services. This is the largest and fastest growing major industry group and is expected to add 13.7 million new jobs by 2010, accounting for 3 out of every 5 new jobs created in the U.S. economy. Over two-thirds of this projected job growth is concentrated in three sectors of services industries-business, health, and social services."

Social services? Wheeee.... big money here I come..... :-/

Re:In 6 more years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares about money?

Re:In 6 more years?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you can say goodbye to those jobs when walmart institures RFID's at the checkout that automatically check you out with no human intervention needed. Bye Bye more jobs. Why cant we face it in this country, "REPUBLICANS MAKE AWFUL ECONOMISTS!!!". Sorry to all you republicans but that is the truth.

Cute...

[fluxrad]

From the article:

Daniel Grisworld, associate director, Centre for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute said, "People don't understand what a great opportunity offshoring is for US companies. Apart from huge savings, it allows US companies to concentrate on their core competencies and the people (in the US) can move on to higher paying, more creative, more value generating jobs."

Of course they don't tell you these "core competencies" he speaks of are all filled by job titles starting with "C."

Interestingly, a brief visit to freetrade.org (Cato's website) will give you a rather insightful look at where the CTPS guys are coming from. My only question is: are these guys being bankrolled exclusively by the WTO or what?

I think "The Economic Times" just earned itself a place in the karmic bread-line right next to the New York Post, Fox News, and Pravda.

Yep...

[Black Parrot]

If 2 million people each take on 11 "want fries with that?" jobs to maintain the income they lost when their professional jobs got offshored, everything will work out even.

Can't Outsource me

[king-manic]

There have always beens some jobs that cannot be outsourced. Even if a telecoms help desk is all foreign they can't outsource service crew off shore. It make sense that with a slow recovery of the US economy (no thanks to bush) that there will be more jobs.

Jobs like DB admin need to be close to the DB and to where the info is coming from to properly administer it. System Analysts and Network analysts must be on site to do their job. Service technicians can't do it from over seas. Web developers can be outsorced but it's almost artistic and cutural gulfs make workign with foreign firms difficult. (Our Firm tried, the indian firm kept trying to use Lime green in their color schemes, no matter hwo often we told them we don't like lime green that).

The outsourcing only spells the end to abundant positions as low level code monkeys. We'll just have to move on and try to adapt like workers did durign the 80's when many manufacturign firms went over seas. There are still a large amount of blue colalr workers despite this, and We'll still have jobs even though an indian firm might be competign with us.

PS: I don't like bush but I'm not a democrat, in fact I'm Canadian. We have more than a vested interest in your prosperity, because it spills oevr here. It does seem liek he's responsible for you current economic slump, by spending so much on defence and offering Tax cuts that the budget won't support. Think more debt. Real soon.

Re:Can't Outsource me

[great_flaming_foo]

The outsourcing only spells the end to abundant positions as low level code monkeys.

So much for my grand dreams of being a low level code monkey. I guess I'll have to settle for being a high level code monkey.

Re:Can't Outsource me

[emarkp]

The outsourcing only spells the end to abundant positions as low level code monkeys.

And unfortunately, there go the entry-level positions that help train people to be software architects.

Where will we get our next generation of engineers and architects? Hint: once all the low-level positions are outsourced, who will get trained for the advanced positions?

Re:Can't Outsource me

[Rotten168]

I predict a large transfer of wealth in the near future from industrialized nations to developing nations (it may have already started). As Asia has gained an absolute advantage with the US, as comparative advantage no longer applies, the factors of production are moving offshore. As such, revenue streams are diverted from the US. All nations must pay for their imports with their exports and as we have nothing to export our currency will collapse, as will our standard of living and our middle class.

Even if Canada wasn't closely allied to the US economically this would still affect you. Capitalism will seek out the countries/regions with the greatest absolute advantage when it can (and it most certain can today).

In the globalist free trade, having a high standard of living is a disadvantage. Therefor I can't think of many Western countries that are immune from this, unless their standard of living is low.

Re:Can't Outsource me

[ComputerSlicer23]

Uhhh, sounds like moving the database, and the system to India is a good idea then. You could save a lot of money if you did that. I'm pretty sure a really big fast pipe to India is cheaper then most large places IT staff to support servers and databases.

Look at how popular CoLo's are. They surely don't need to be in the local area. They could all easily move to India...

However, I think things are turblent, and that so many people have gone so long without realizing how good things have been on a relative scale. I've never lived thru rough times that I can remember. Born in 1977. The last really hard times we're in the early 70's during the oil crisis. Things on the relative scale are peachy keen relative to back then. Look at how brutual inflation, and unemployment we're back then. Then start telling me about how rough the 1% interest and 5.6% unemployment is.

Kirby

Re:Can't Outsource me

[BobPaul]

I don't know... The economy was running into a downturn BEFORE Bush took office. I think the bubble Clinton was riding just happened to burst (as everyone expected it to).

Don't put too much economic credit on the president. While you might not agree with it, war is ALWAYS helpful for the economy. There is never a time when borrowing money will not create jobs. Once jobs are created taxes can be paid and money is given back to repay the debts. When the economy dips, it's the governments job to borrow money and spend, regardless of what they spend it on and regardless of how large the debt already is. It's a big debt, sure, but it's also a huge country. Compare the debt to the American GDP. It's tiny. Not even a fleck.

If a countrys citizens would allow their government infinite debt they would be one of the riches countries on earth (and probably have a worhless currency, but America isn't in infinate debt, are we?)

So maybe there are times that debt is bad, but not many. The economic slump spreads many more factors than any single administration in any single country can take credit for. Sorry!

Re:Can't Outsource me

[Grei]

I hate to be a naysayer, but DB Admin work (or even DB maintenance work) does not require that much in the way of an onsite person. I've been doing remote DB work for 7 years, most of it international...only once have I ever been on a customer's site and that only to do a tape backup that hadn't been done in over 3 years.

With the right equipment on site, a person in their underwear and sitting in their home can do all of the necessary work. Believe me...I've been doing it for the last few years as part of the downsizing my company's going through (after all, why pay the extra money for an office after you've already cut all of the technical people's pay?).

Just my two cents.

Re:Can't Outsource me

[Anonymous Coward]

PS: I don't like bush

Is that the standard flame protection in political threads now? Much like the "I run linux at home" statements tacked onto the end of anything that might be preceived as pro-MS.

Re:Can't Outsource me

[sheriff_p]

Our Firm tried, the indian firm kept trying to use Lime green in their color schemes, no matter hwo often we told them we don't like lime green that

Seems unlikely. Using green for projects with an Indian audience is the archetypal example of American firms being absolutely culturally blind. Green being a colour very firmly affiliated with an armed and dangerous neighbour.

Re:Can't Outsource me

[tarunthegreat]

This is a valid point. I think they were outsourcing to citizens of that armed-and-dangerous neighbour...and those citizens were masquerading as Indians, to give Indians a bad name... speaking of fucking Pakis... can I ask all of you Americans a question (OFFTOPIC): 1) Pakistan definitely has WMDs 2) Pakistan is full of Jihadis, and no sign of anything remotely close to freedom of speech or democracy 3) Pakistan supported the Taliban, and they support Bin Laden... 4) Pakistan has been selling the nuclear 'secrets' it got from China (and America) to the countries belonging to the 'Axis of Evil' 5) And finally, they keep sending suicide bombers into India... So the question I want to ask is - Shouldn't Pakistan be declared a terrorist nation? Why does your country support those sons of bitches over India - India never has and never will threaten you in any violent way...so we took some jobs, we didn't fucking ram a plane into a building... Please, stop selling F-16s to those Paki bastards, so that we can move on with our lives... Just an appeal to the average American.

Re:Can't Outsource me

[sporty]

Jobs like DB admin need to be close to the DB and to where the info is coming from to properly administer it. System Analysts and Network analysts must be on site to do their job.

There's a oracle dba company, pythian. I've seen them used twice here in the states -- and they are based out in canada. The sysadmins you need local, but other than that, as long as you have a fast line, you are good. Same with systems analysts.. they can usually do their job from afar -- except in the case where they wish to perform on site evaluations, like interviews, working with people as they work,

Re:Can't Outsource me

[Anonymous Coward]

Jobs like DB admin need to be close to the DB and to where the info is coming from to properly administer it.

are you still in the 80s?

Re:Can't Outsource me

[Anonymous Coward]

Jobs like DB admin need to be close to the DB and to where the info is coming from to properly administer it.

no wonder you got outsourced.

Re:Can't Outsource me

[Anonymous Coward]

Jobs like DB admin need to be close to the DB and to where the info is coming from to properly administer it. System Analysts and Network analysts must be on site to do their job. Service technicians can't do it from over seas. Web developers can be outsorced but it's almost artistic and cutural gulfs make workign with foreign firms difficult.

What happens when they move the entire office overseas?

Re:Can't Outsource me

[micromoog]

Compare the debt to the American GDP. It's tiny. Not even a fleck.

2003 U.S. GDP: just shy of 11 trillion

Current U.S. national debt: just over 7 trillion, and growing at an absurd rate due to current fiscal policy.

We're fucked, my friend.

Re:Can't Outsource me

[LaCosaNostradamus]

I hear this "can't outsource me, nyah nyah" bullshit often enough. By spouting off about the first knockout punch (global outsourcing) being delivered to the middle class, you are being willfully ignorant of the second knockout punch of immigration.

The current United States executive administration is making it quite clear that whatever labor cannot be outsourced, will be imported. The H1B program is just a famous example for the Slashdot crowd.

Globalization of capital is also resulting in the globalization of citizenry, which means that droves of poor can not only cross borders illegally, but also fit into immigration programs. What remains to be seen if the next steps will actually be taken, in which some combination of weakness in visas and strength in transportation will result in a turning point by which those droves will move.

Re:Can't Outsource me

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind there *are* North American companies out there that rely on a business model of picking up new grads, grinding them through quick, cookbook coding at low salary until the next batch of grads arrive and the current have enough "experience" to leave (or just quit in disgust).

Re:Can't Outsource me

[Anonymous Coward]

President of Pakistan is not democraticly elected and got into power through military coup.

The Pakistan has WMD and willing to use it, against India at least. So unlike some Iraq it is a real threat.

Back to outsourcing:
What if Pakistan is armed to start a nuclear war with India? Both countries decimated in nuclear apocalypsis. Call centers and outsourcing companies are destroyed. IT jobs are back to US.
Profit to slashdot readers $$$$!

Re:Can't Outsource me

[Anonymous Coward]

Another way of looking at it is slowly losing $1600 per man, women and child in the United States per YEAR based on the current deficit! It may seem small compared to the cost of the US military and other expenditures, but it's large and largly UNNECCESSARY. I can understand taking on debt to buy a house, but this debt and deficit is begin accrued due to corporate welfare and military programs that don't fight terrorism.

Re:Can't Outsource me

[king-manic]

I currently work for one of those. Adn I'm leaving with 10 mmonths experience, numerous conenction ,and in disgust.

Re:Can't Outsource me

[MSBob]

Canadian, eh?

Actually the ripple effect of the US economy is not true. See how the Canadian economy grew while the US was stagnant? And how the Canadian economy gets sluggish when the US soars? This is a typical trend. Canada is a resource based economy and high energy prices which hurt the US economy a lot are actually good for Canadian exports. Thus the two economies are usually in an opposite phase to one antoher.

Re:Can't Outsource me

[Anonymous Coward]

There have always beens some jobs that cannot be outsourced.

We eliminate those with automation.

Re:Can't Outsource me

[Anonymous Coward]

BUSH ENDORSES U.S. JOBS MOVING OVERSEAS

On Labor Day, President Bush said, "I want people to understand that when somebody wants to work and can't find a job, it says we've got a problem in America that we're going to deal with. We want everybody in this country working." But yesterday, President Bush directly contradicted himself, releasing a report which "supports the shift of U.S. jobs overseas." When asked about the report and how it contradicts the president's supposed concern about job losses, the president's top economic adviser said, "Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade."

With more than two million jobs lost since President Bush took office, newspaper headlines across the country told readers of the White House's new support for the practice of wealthy corporations eliminating U.S. jobs and shipping them to lower-wage countries. The Seattle Times headline read, "Bush report: Sending jobs overseas helps U.S." The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said, "Bush Economic Report Praises 'Outsourcing' Jobs" and the Arizona Republic said, "Bush Report Lauds 'Outsourcing' Jobs."

And while this may be troubling to the millions in the United States who are out of work and suffering from stagnating wages, it was celebrated in India, where thousands of good paying, white-collar U.S. jobs have moved. The headlines in India read, "Bush Aides: Outsourcing win-win for India." The story said the Administration believes exporting jobs to India and other lower-wage countries "is a win-win for both exporter and importer" - failing to explain how this is a win for American workers who the president just months ago purported to care about.

Visit Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion. -->

Oh yeah...

[Kid Zero]

The Indians are pushing hard in congress and elsewhere to keep the US from seeing what a massive mistake outsourcing the US job market is. All this is is part of that plan to keep the jobs flowing their way and to gut the USA.

Re:Oh yeah...

[Kid Zero]

Flamebait? I tell the truth and get a "Flamebait"? Did I get someone mad? Too bad. It's the truth, losers.

Negative Public Opinion

[Da Rabid Duckie]

"'The negative public opinion, fanned by the media, can have real repercussions against the offshore wave,' Mr Gruber said. He added that he would advise the Indian government and IT companies to lobby hard and try and sell the positives to the US public."

You mean like being able to call tech support to reach a person that can barely speak english?

I've got a friend in Dallas that stands on the highway with a cardboard sign listing five years worth of certifications. He's jobless because his IT position was outsourced to India. He's had a great deal of trouble finding a job since then. So in the meantime, why don't the Indian government and the IT companies try to sell the postives to him instead?

Yummy..

[CowardNeal]

More curry and soy in my sauce.

Unemployment numbers may not tell the whole story

[UpLateDrinkingCoffee]

Remember, Unemployment numbers are calculated from people collecting unemployment benefits. Once the checks stop, there is very little incentive for people to continue to send their cards in every week. From my perspective (software engineer with 8 years experience) the job market is nearly non-existant. I do have friends that are into more sales type roles that don't seem to be having a problem, though.

Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

For one thing India is still at a trade deficit with US. For every job that indians get from US, there is are range of stuff US companies are dumping here and killing local business.

Opening the market works both ways. Deal with it.

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[Smokin Goat McGruff]

No doubt. For such a highly concentrated group of supposedly educated people, Slashdotters sure don't seem to know a thing about economics.

This will probably help the local economy here which relies on highly on office furniture manufacturing. All those Indian IT professionals have to sit on something.

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[foidulus]

Perhaps Mr. Facts might get in the way of your little imaginary world: http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5330. html Maybe it's just my American math, but when imports from India exceed exports to India by 7 billion dollars or so(and there has been a trade deficit for the past 15 years), that might just mean that India has a trade SURPLUS with the US. Try thinking before you open your mouth, you might just become a mute.

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[Killswitch1968]

I wish for ONCE someone would show concern for the INDIANS who will become impoverished again if protectionist policies are instituted, all out of blatant ignorance.

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[leigao84]

Still, trade imbalance seems like to have very little effect on a countries economic state... btw we have a much more higher trade imbalance with China and Japan....

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[FigWig]

I'm sure chinese chair makers are very excited about this too.

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[JumperCable]

I wish for ONCE someone would show concern for the INDIANS who will become impoverished again if protectionist policies are instituted, all out of blatant ignorance.

- Hey, you just did! ;-) That counts as once.
- The reason why you don't see much concern for the Indians in this instance is that they are not the ones who currently have a problem. In fact I am sure they are more than excited about the prospects. I can't say I blame them; I would be excited too. Realistically protectionist policies will not be instituted.
- The other reason you don't see many posts is that these forums are primarily filled with North American & European techs who are the ones directly getting the short end of the stick on this problem.
- With that said, I think it would be great to hear more of the India perspective on these issues. I suspect that there are at least a few out there lurking. But I do understand that it is usually tough for someone to say something constructive to a group of people who's jobs they now have.

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[Zusstin]

I am an Indian software programmer, working for US based company. I have been reading about the American feelings regarding outsourcing, and I get the impression that Americans dont like it much. Well, I dont know enough to comment on whether outsourcing is right/wrong for 'US of A'. But here is what I will say - I think I am going to turn down the offer that I have, to work in USA. I wanted to work in US, not to make any money but to go around that BIG country and meet some nice people. I have been working with people in LAX and DEN for a while. I like working with them. It would have been nice to talk to them face-to-face. It would have helped me learn much faster. But you guys make me feel that I will be taking away your job by coming to USA OR even by working in an outsourcing company. I think I will change my job soon. It was good while it lasted. Wish you luck with your elections and lawmakers. Should things change for better, and you guys start welcoming the Indians in USA, I will try to get myself a job over there....... Tia, Zusstin/From Mumbai.

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[tarunthegreat]

Well I'm a software programmer in India working for a company that outsources. Most people working over here are pretty similar to you guys (which is the point that Wired was trying to make)...all college educated people happy to get a 'stable' job which pays really well and allows us all to be able to pay a decent rent and buy cars and stuff. We do feel awful about the fact that ppl in USA are going to lose jobs...but the fact is it's not our fault American companies are coming here to scout for work. We need jobs, and they are offering, so naturally we're gonna take them. And they are paying us MORE than what we would be making otherwise. It is cheaper than America, but HIGH and COMFORTABLE by Indian standards. That being said... most of the work we get here is "Grunt Work". I'm responsible for 'maintenance' i.e. fixing bugs between release 4.1 and 4.1.1. That kind of stuff. It's a rare day we get to sit down and design an operating system, say, or a piece of software which actually can do something worthwhile. Most of us here feel that those kinds of fun things are given to the Americans to do in America, and to only call us if things break(or if they get bored with their product)....Many of us actually want to go to America and live there...failing that, having America come to us was the next best option...and many people like these jobs because it gives them an opportunity to go aborad (necessary for technology transfer)...
That is the Software perspective... The call-centre perspective is totally different. Call-centre people have to work all kinds of awful hours (8 pm to 6am) they have no social life and all kinds of health problems. On top of that, they have to deal with unruly, irate customers, among other things. Not a SINGLE person working in a call-centre here loves his/her job. They are just doing it for the Money. To make ends meet. Most people working in call-centres are people with reasonable college degrees but no scope of getting employment elsewhere. Everyone who works in a call-centre knows s/he will quit in a year and do something else with their life - the churn rate is VERY HIGH. Anyway - THAT is the Indian Perspective and the ground reality. Guys there's nothing constructive we can say to you - We are truly sorry that your jobs are being taken, but we didn't do the stealing - your CEOs did. I've been fired, I know what that's like.
And the truth is, many of us feel it is a good thing because it is putting more money in our pockets, and giving us a better life...but unlike you guys, we have no social security benefits if we lose our jobs.. I don't expect any pleasant replies to this, just giving a point of view from the land of Kama Sutra, Cow-Worshippers, Towel Heads, Sand-Niggers, Curry Munchers....

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

"they have no social life and all kinds of health problems"

Correlation is not causation. Just a thought. Well, unless the call centers are in asbestos-only buildings... *shudder*

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[hymie3]

It isn't so much that Americans don't quite care for Indians working in America--it's that we're *outsourcing* our jobs that really irks us. At least when a programming job is given to an Indian H1-B instead of to an American, there is a theoretical competition for the job. And even if it is a non-American, some of that money does go back into our economy in the form of taxes and rent and buying stuff.

Outsourcing our jobs overseas doesn't really do anything for America. The top .0001% of the population who are the CEOs and company owners like it a lot, but what about the common working person?

My personal gripe is that our jobs are being outsourced overseas *and* we're giving financial aid to the countries who are getting our jobs. Shouldn't the financial aid be decreased?

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[tommck]

That's because we were all pissed that those "business majors" had nothing to do in college and went out to bars all the time while us geeks were actually working for our degrees!

We shunned economics because it reminded us of the free wheeling Business slackers and their happy hours!

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, it's not you we're pissed off at . . . by all means, take the jobs you're offered. It's our own yankee execs undermining our economic future for personal gain that we're pissed at.

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an American honky working in I.T. with quite a few Indian immigrants. I harbor no hard feelings towards any of them . . . they are very good at what they do, and we've become close friends. YMMV.

If you do decide to take the job here, the main thing I would worry about if I were you is losing it . . . I expect when the I.T. economy starts to collapse, it will be the H1-Bs that get canned first (the companies don't want to look unpatriotic, after all). But if you live cheaply (not easy in the U.S., but possible) and sock away as much money as you can, you could take a small fortune back to Mumbai with you when and if you lose your job.

And you can never praise the experience gained from international travel too much . . . maybe someday I'll try to spend some time in Mumbai, but for now I can barely afford my mortgage :)

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[RickHunter]

Right... So the US gets all the cheap, sweatshop manufacturing jobs and India gets all the high-paying knowledge jobs... And we're supposed to be glad about this?

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[autophile]

there is are range of stuff US companies are dumping here and killing local business.

Also killing people, I heard. Something about Monsanto tricking farmers into buying genetically-altered seed, and then sticking the farmers with bills for millions of dollars? And then the farmers just suicide?

--Rob

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

So US sells more office furniture to India than it buys services/elephants from India??

Wherefrom do you get this nugget of insightfullness?

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[Mr. Piddle]

For such a highly concentrated group of supposedly educated people, Slashdotters sure don't seem to know a thing about economics.

I've heard that the majority of techies are Democrats. That may explain it. If this isn't true, then I'm baffled why California managed to screw itself up so much.

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[Billly Gates]

Right

American companies outsource the manufactoring to China and not even Indians will work as low as the Chinese.

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[FanaticalDesperado]

then I'm baffled why California managed to screw itself up so much

Obviously, you've never met anyone from California.

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[JumperCable]

Thanks for speaking up. Remember, the problem isn't with you. It's a situation that several us programmers (& other professions) now realize they are in. And until we find a solution on how to keep our own jobs & protect our income you will hear a lot of knee jerk reactions. Lots of people are going for the direct cause & effect (e.g. I lost my job to people over seas & any other jobs out there aren't paying anywhere near what they were paying before therefore the "solution" is to stop outsourcing). OK. We all know that really isn't going to work. I think the turning point will come once the people loosing out in this situation stop seeing outsourcing as a threat and start to find opportunities based on it (I know, not an easy task).

Part of the problem for US citizens is that a big part of the "American Dream" has turned into, I'll grow up; get a decent education; work for a big corporation for a high paying salary. The truth of the matter is that solution has never really worked for the majority of our population. The only ones who really earn the big bucks for our talents, efforts & skills are the corporate executives. The best we can hope for is a check mark next too "exceeded expectations as expected" on our annual review and get an increase that might match inflation.

The question we need to ask ourselves is, what can I do with a ton of programmers that will work for 1/10 of our salary. We can do a lot of things would not have been economically feasible before. We need to stop waiting for our allowance from Corporate Daddy Worbucks and return to the entrepreneurial spirit.

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /.

[tarunthegreat]

Hey waking up at 7 pm and going to bed at 7 am can totally screw up your system...

But what *kind* of jobs?

[JakiChan]

My worry is that the economists say "Oh don't worry, we'll replace those jobs." But not with anything I've remotely studied to do. A job at my current level may not be available or even practical. Most places won't let you get a second bachelors degree. And somehow I don't think a university will accept me for a chemistry masters program when I have a degree in Computer Science. Sometimes I get the feeling that to these economists going from being a skilled worker to a Deliverator is acceptable as long as I'm employed.

I used to think the reality portrayed in Snow Crash was just current trends taken to some unreal extreme. Now as I watch the destruction of the middle class I'm not so sure.

Re:But what *kind* of jobs?

[MagPulse]

Actually you should have no problem getting in to a Chemistry Masters program. You will have a longer prereq phase to catch up to those with an undergrad background in it. E-mail or call an admissions advisor at a school you're interested in. Even if you can't jump right in to their Masters program, they'll tell you what you have to do. Worst case you would have to be a non-degree student and take the classes you need.

It is true that most places frown on two Bachelors degrees unless they're from different colleges, like one in CS and one in art or theater. Once you get your Bachelors, you can load up on as many Masters and PhDs as you have time for.

Re:But what *kind* of jobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can already point to a real economy which offshoring has destroyed, and retail jobs now outnumber manufacturing ones: Pittsburgh. Once the manufacturing capital of the world, Pittsburgh now, according to a local paper, "has more people selling goods than making them" How can this work? About 13% of the population is employed in the retail sector, only about 11 or 12 now in manufacturing. But it is interesting to point out though that US Steel is now making more steel than it ever could back in the heydays when they had 100,000 employees.

Re:But what *kind* of jobs?

[Zarf]

Sometimes I get the feeling that to these economists going from being a skilled worker to a Deliverator is acceptable as long as I'm employed.

Yes, it is. These economists don't care a whit about your particular situation. You have to deal with your situation because no one else will. It's not the Economist's job to figure out how to bring back the dot-com bubble.

Tighten your belt and get a second skill set. Network with the people you take classes with... that you work with... ect. You may be in the position to start moving toward a chem degree and may have more connections than you realize. Monster isn't getting you a job in this economy and neither is having one skill set.

When I taught undergrads I would tell them that if they could they should double up their degrees. Get Computer Science and something... anything else. Too bad I didn't take my own advice! Go get your chem degree if you can, go back with no major and just take course work toward it... go part time... but do it if you can.

Re:But what *kind* of jobs?

[Lips]

Bingo! This is the truth about job creation in Australia for the last 10 years. Don't fall for these lies. While Australia's conservative govt crows about the "low" unemployment figure, the reality is that most of it has been as low paid part-time/casual jobs at the expense of full time jobs.

Re:But what *kind* of jobs?

[brauwerman]

Actually, you might be surprised. A mathematically-oriented background is a great preparation for advanced study other sciences. Advanced study in any field works its way toward mathematical (and these days computational) foundations. Master's programs will take anybody willing to pay, and if you've got a good dose of general intelligence and analytic ability, you can get accustomed to and succeed in a new field. At the worst, you'd be a few years behind schedule compared to your peers.

This post was spellchecked by Safari.

Re:But what *kind* of jobs?

[amplt1337]

Once you get your Bachelors, you can load up on as many Masters and PhDs as you have time for.

1. s/time/money/

2. Just don't be dumb and get a PhD -- we've been over the whole "overqualified" thing before. And with the bar always getting lower... well, let's just say I've seen a lot more job postings looking for a high school degree and four years' experience than I have looking for my summa Ivy diploma.

Unless you want to do hard science or teach, you want an MBA or a Law degree. And that'll be glutted fast enough, when there's nobody here left to manage...

Re:But what *kind* of jobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you want to do hard science or teach, you want an MBA or a Law degree. And that'll be glutted fast enough, when there's nobody here left to manage...

If you've got the time AND the money it doesn't hurt to get a phd. Just don't wave it at anyone who doesn't want to see it.

I agree with what you said about the MBA. But, sadly, regardless of how bad the US economy goes there will always be work for lawyers in criminal law.

Re:But what *kind* of jobs?

[avandesande]

We went (chemists) through this pain when the wall went down in eastern Europe. I knew Indian PHDs making 35K in New Jersey. One of the Harvard PHD chemists I worked with is overseeing a job mixing paints. Do a little research before you think the grass is greaner.

Hardly Reassuring

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, this story doesn't really help much.

According to this the White House predicted job growth of 1.7 million jobs in 2003. In the end, 53,000 jobs were lost overall. Now the White House is predicting 2.6 million for 2004. With numbers that far out of wack we should expect what, a couple hundred thousand?

If Mr. Bush wants to get re-elected this fall he had better make this predection come true or else he'll be losing a lot of votes.

Re:Hardly Reassuring

[Anonymous Coward]

If Mr. Bush wants to get re-elected this fall he had better make this predection come true or else he'll be losing a lot of votes.

If you want an oracle, Mr. Bush is the wrong choice. But since he has learned a little reading during his job as President of the United States, he will soon be a great economy expert. Just give him another chance.

In what building he will let his terrorists crash this time?

Wow, Wall-Mart must really be hiring

[Colonel Panic]

So outsourcing is supposed to give us a net gain of 20Million jobs by 2010, eh?

Sounds like Bush Administration propaganda to me. ("The economy is stronger than it has been in 20 years!", "The economy is expanding at a rapid clip")

Of course, they don't say what kinds of jobs those will be. Wall-Mart, Starbucks, Career Counselors, Retraining Experts.

Re:Wow, Wall-Mart must really be hiring

[dmobrien_2001]

Of course, they don't say what kinds of jobs those will be. Wall-Mart, Starbucks, Career Counselors, Retraining Experts.

and Consulting on Offshore/Outsourcing...

China makes a lot of "American" goods

[gtshafted]

First of all I'm Chinese American so don't mistake this as a racist rant... anyways being that the US's physical goods are being made in China and the US's abstract products are now being made in India - who profits in the US? I only see high ranking execs (CEO's, etc...) and people who own a ton of stock - making any money. What happens to the middle class? Will the US keep having a middle class?

Re:China makes a lot of "American" goods

[the arbiter]

No, the middle class is on its way out, big time.

A two class society is what we're getting, which is good. The middle class just screws everything up with their incessant caterwauling about "rights", "dignity" and their inexplicable habit of voting against the interests of those benefactors of society, the glorious corporations.

I'd like to believe, but

[NixLuver]

I just don't see this as a big motivator to the US economy. The 'savings' of outsourcing are mostly in the form of taxes not paid to the government (by the time the infrastructure - ie, Stateside project manager, Stateside liason, overseas liason, overseas management, and programmers, the actual salary savings is fairly small). Also, the profits of this reduced cost simply are not going to be realized in reduced cost of the product, but in terms of lining the pockets of the major stockholders (I hope I'm wrong, but history would suggest differently).

The largest percentage of the outsourced jobs are high-paying; perhaps we'll eliminate a single 80k job and replace it with 4 20k jobs? Or does somebody think that American business is going to hire local techies to architect products and the humble outsource labor forces will selflessly implement the design?

I have nothing against India or the programmers that are taking advantage of the avarice of American companies in order to better themselves. I would do the same thing in their shoes.

I do, however, blame an American business culture where todays stock prices have become more important than the ultimate survivability or long-term health of the company. After all, on a long enough timeline, everyone's surviveability is zero, eh?

Re:I'd like to believe, but

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, I just heard a report from the Social Security Administration that Soc Sec wont last another 15 years because no one is paying into it.

let china do the work

[kangman]

Hey why don't we just let China manufacture the cheap stuff for the entire world. They've got tons of cheap labor. India can make the software and tech goods they're a bit more expensive but its ok. while we'll(%1) "supervise" everyone else. Sound good?

Re:let china do the work

[Killswitch1968]

Ideally, yes. But the more people that get hired there the higher their wages will go up. Eventually they will lose their advantage.
America is far too advanced to concetrate on grunt manufacturing. People don't go to school for 12 years to work at a steel mill. If after 12 years of school you don't have the skills you needed, don't blame China, blame the public education system and teacher's unions.

It's the economy, stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. Our wonder boy in the White House has it all under control.

Just lowered the taxes of the most filthy rich 5% of the population, got us a $500 billion deficit and compensated for that by dismantling the useless social programs for the poor and old.

Maybe the rich will use that tax-break to create more job and not simply line their own pockets. And maybe those poor slackers on welfare/medicare will die away and stop siphooning money from the well-off, respectable, white protestant heterosexual married people like the rest of us.

Faulty logic and misleading headline!

[grape jelly]

[Ms Farrell] pointed out that the Bureau of Labour Statistics was predicting a job gain of 22m in the US by '10, against a job loss of 2m due to offshoring.

According to the labor predictions from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the total growth of jobs between 2000 and 2010 is 22,160,000 jobs. Surely you can't account for all of this growth strictly based on one aspect of corporate behavior.

Also, to satisfy the cynic in me, remember that these are merely predictions, which are possibly skewed to make the current market look like it'll be stronger, which will in turn (hopefully) make investors and consumers more confident, (hopefully) making the economy stronger.

Lastly, could this also be like George Bush's predictions that there would be approx. 1.7 million new jobs last year, as opposed to the 53,000 jobs lost last year (as reported by CBS news tonight).

Re:Faulty logic and misleading headline!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Also, to satisfy the cynic in me, remember that these are merely predictions,

Bravo for this display of common sense. Next time you see such predictions, see if they give confidence bounds. You will find that for most macro economic predictions, the prediction error margins render any forcast more than two years ahead completely worthless.

Re:Faulty logic and misleading headline!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just fuzzy math from the liberal media.

My spam mails from the RNC say Bush is creating jobs.

(Seriously. "3 more inches guaranteed!" next to "Tax cuts for the rich work!". I'm more inclined to believe the former.)

Where's the savings?

[MrDigital]

"Based on the research that the McKinsey institute had carried out, Ms Farrell said conservatively, for every dollar invested in the offshore space, $0.58 was directly saved. This could be either redistributed to investors or customers."

I call BS. Unless I'm misunderstanding the above quote, she's saying that companies are saving 58% in moving offshore and that somehow we consumers are going to see the benefit of that. Companies like Nike and DKNY have been using sweatshops for years and yet I'm still forced to pay hundreds of dollars to parade about in their fabulous brands.

Step 1: Outsource all high-paid jobs to overseas companies and save 60% on your bottom-line.
Step 2: Realize that unemployed people can't afford your products on their Taco Bell wages.
Step 3: Lower your product prices by 60% so previously high-paid ex-employees can afford them, while at the same time reducing profit margins to what they were pre-outsourcing.
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit!

I'm a registered Republican so I'm all about big business. However, I'm only about big business when those big businesses actually hire Americans. What good is an American corporation who doesn't employ Americans and thus feed more money back into our own economy? If I'm going to overpay for products I should be at least supporting my neighbors.

Re:Where's the savings?

[Smokin Goat McGruff]

Because Nike has a brand that people are willing to overpay for. Buy something without the name "Jordan" on it and you'll find shoes that aren't too expensive.

Re:Where's the savings?

[Anonymous Coward]

So your one of those morons that pay hundreds of dollars for sneakers.

Here I am spending 20 bucks for my shoes when they go on sale, thinking why the hell would anybody want to pay $150 for uglier versions of what I have?

Only economists can see the 'Whole Picture'

[Colonel Panic]

Great quote from the article:
They are not economists and therefore, they don't necessarily see the whole picture.

Yes, economists have such a great track record when it comes to figuring out what's going to happen next, don't they?

That's not what the BLS says...

[UpLateDrinkingCoffee]

The reason given by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for 22 million more jobs by 2010 is they are counting on the baby boomers to retire when they are supposed to. Whether this will happen or not probably depends on how well the stock market recovers... I think a lot of people lost a lot of retirement money in the dot com bust.

Of course it doesn't surprise me that a McKinsey executive, one of the companies benfiting the most from outsourcing, would spin the statistics.

Re:That's not what the BLS says...

[UpLateDrinkingCoffee]

Never mind... I'm thinking of the BLS projections on a worker shortage in the U.S., not job creation. It's late, what can I say?

Changing my major now

[lo2p]

Damit I should've been a psychology major instead of CS, no job prospects for both but at lest I get to look at pretty girls during class.

Re:Changing my major now

[kashgar1]

Yeah, just think, shrinks get to accept health insurance to boot!

So, we've found them ... !

[Anonymous Coward]

GW. Bush should plan to invade India, as they own billions of mass destruction weapon that are an immediate threat to US :)

Let's go for a NewDelhi carnage !

But, wait... they got no oil, only masses of poor people ... no better bomb switzerland, at least they got billions of mass destruction weapon in their banks banks. In swiss franc :))

Population change

[beakburke]

Actually, the US population is only growing right now because of immigration. Once the baby boomers start to retire in a couple years there will be lots of jobs by necessity, both caring for them and replacing them in the workforce, even if some of the jobs are obsoleted. Frankly, individuals time is just too expensive, even in "low paying jobs" for them to not use high levels of labor multiplying technology. So continuing growth in productivity is basically very important for the US, and that is happing now, which bodes well for the long term.

Sure offshoring is going to create more jobs

[MyFourthAccount]

And monkeys are flying out of my butt.

Say that again when I'm able to buy even a miserably small home.

You gotta love quotes like this:

adding that it would create more high-value jobs in the US than people could imagine today.

In laymen's terms: we're outsourcing the toilet-cleaning and we are all going to have nice jobs counting money.

When are people like that going to get off their high-freaking-horse?

Oh yeah, I forgot, people in the US are so incredibly smart, there simply isn't a comparison.

Well, this is starting to sound like flamebait, it's not what I intended. I just think it's about time they start taking into account some pretty damn serious issues in the 'homeland'. A government that couldn't care less about the constitution, supreme court judges that are corrupt, companies buying laws, patents and related lawsuits killing even the simplest of inovation, I hate to say it, but if nothing changes, then the future of the US looks pretty grim.

Gosh, it's on a website, it must be true

[Colonel Panic]

Silicon Valley will ad 17,000 jobs this year and 33,000 next year.

"Make it so" by putting it on a website.

Hey, maybe we should announce some other things on websites for a better tomorrow:
* The US Unemployment rate will be under 1% by 2006
* The US budget deficit will be 0 in 2005
* Martians will teach us how to harness zero point energy thus ending all reliance on foreign oil by 2010
* Nobody will die of malnutrition next year!
* All techies will get dates for Valentines day!

Re:Gosh, it's on a website, it must be true

[frdmfghtr]

You had me going for a second, until you got to the last one... :)

Re:Gosh, it's on a website, it must be true

[TheOldFart]

Well... if it's worth anything, I was laid off last week after almost 10 years working for this one company (outsourcing was the reason). I called a few people here and there and two hours later I had an offer. These have not stopped ever since. One company alone (in the Silicon Valley) was filling over 50 software engineering positions). Something is definitelly going on.

There is this poster at thinkgeek.com that reminds me a lot about those folks here. This may give you a clue...

Re:Gosh, it's on a website, it must be true

[Kombat]

The US Unemployment rate will be under 1% by 2006

Incidentally, this would be a bad thing. Low unemployment can be just as bad as high unemployment. The market requires a certain degree of job mobility in order to keep employers from exploiting workers (well, no moreso than they already are).

Also, lower unemployment rates, or a rapid fall in unemployment rates, can cause inflation, and rising interest rates, which would slow the economy and hurt the middle and lower-class's spending power.

Re:Gosh, it's on a website, it must be true

[infinite9]

Martians will teach us how to harness zero point energy thus ending all reliance on foreign oil by 2010


It doesn't matter. The martians will certainly make our bad way of life even worse.

Re:Gosh, it's on a website, it must be true

[Anonymous Coward]

Despair is indeed a great company. I got their Insecuri-tee as soon as it was released.

Re:Gosh, it's on a website, it must be true

[jp10558]

I think this is why so many people do not question anything the government puts out regarding how the economy is doing, because it is totally against common sense. I doubt many people even begin to understand the economy - I'm not sure if anyone really does. This is why I also think that trying to manage the economy is doomed to failure. When it seems to go well it is usually because the government stays out of it.

Economics overly quoted

[gtshafted]

Most of this article's arguments use economics as its basis. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't economics still more of an art than a real science? Isn't it just a bunch of "theories" that can't be repeatably validated in real life?

Re:Economics overly quoted

[Smokin Goat McGruff]

No, it's more like theories that were developed by observing the way things actually happen. It usually does an excellent job explaining things.

For example, do you know why CEOs like to get paid so much? Because it benefits them! See? Economics in action. :)

Bush administration stats..

[-tji]

This must be based on the same logic that Bush gave today claiming that 2.6 Million jobs will be created this year, mostly as a result of his brilliant tax cuts.

I can't believe he can say it with a straight face, after saying similar things last year. He claimed that last year's tax cuts would create 1.7 Million jobs. Instead, 53,000 jobs were lost.

He meets skyrocketing deficits with more tax cuts. Then tries to distract the voters with an oil war in Iraq, and protecting us from the scourge of gay marriage. Toss some faith based initiatives in there and he'll have the all important moron vote locked up.

hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like trash.

probably some BS spouting cronie trying to justify companies giving American workers the shaft.

Peaks and valleys

[yintercept]

Of course, if you looked at the stats in 1999, you would see the tech boom was pulling people out of retirement, it was pulling students out of school. A very large portion of the "lost jobs" stat was people who came from India because of the "labor shortage" in the US. What your 2.2 million stat does is compare peaks to valleys. In 2000, the papers were telling about how the brain drain was hurting countries like India. I am extremely happy that the globe is starting to see some economic balance.

Re:Peaks and valleys

[missing000]

That's BS and you know it.

I got laid off twice during this fucker's tenure; don't tell me it's all old people and foreigners. I'm 24.

You want economic balance? How about some good old fashioned tariffs to keep currency mismatches from killing our industry.

I have no problem with India or China, or Albania developing a tech industry. The point is that we shouldn't sell our best jobs just to get the fat cats richer.

Don't get me wrong; I'm also no Democrat. I will probably vote for them this year though, if only for one reason. There is no way they would try to take away my overtime pay.

The fix for our economy is plan. FDR's policies worked in an environment remarkably like this one.

Re:Peaks and valleys

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an imbecile and it's no surprise you've been laid off twice. The bubble burst in 2000, under Clinton's rule. There were a lot of BS jobs at the time based on false specualtion of market growth. These jobs have been weeded out as a natural result. The govt. has little control over a mostly free-market economy. You are yet another imbecile who believes govt. runs the economy.

things are bad

[Doc Ruby]

The Bush stats aren't the facts, they're the propaganda. Your angry denial works just as well when describing your willful ignorance of the additional facts in the posts that you merely deny. Why do you like the growth of the vast multitude of unemployed and underemployed? Why are you so sure of your own job? Do you work for the RNC? Better get your check while there's still money left in the Treasury to loot, or get your head out of the sand and help do something about the lies and misleadership.

Re:things are bad

[Doc Ruby]

I guess the Slashdot moderators are part of the vast left wing conspiracy that has impeached Bush for lying about uranium^W WMD^W Plame^W AWOL^W 9/11^W taxcuts^W AIDS money^W^W compassion^W uniter^W prescription drug costs^W^W^W what he actually does with his vacation time in Crawford. Of course you're not angry, you just post obnoxious sarcasm followed by shouting in all caps when you're happily denying the bleak reality of the US economy. A reported point below the reported world average "unemployment", which is 75% China/India/Russia/Arabia/Africa is nothing to be proud of even if it were an accurate picture. But I'm angry at the thieves in power, and the people in denial of their treachery who make it so easy for them to destroy my country as if it were just their private plantation.

The economy is run by Republicans. Bush Junior has been running the country, and just submitted an outrageous $2.5T budget, in a country which produces $10.5T - a feat of profligacy attempted previously only by President VP Bush Senior in the 1980s and his disastrous mask-removal in the 1990s. If the economy were working now, you'd be giving Bush the credit, wouldn't you? It's his job, like it was his job to run Harken Energy and all the other toys from Daddy - whoops, he did it again.

If you think I, and people like me, call your ilk on your dangerous denials only on Slashdot, you should get out more. People are pissed off, because your boys are destroying our country. Why do you hate America?

Re:things are bad

[kir]

My boys? I'm not even a Republican. You're grouping me with them because I don't agree with you. Is there a third catagory of people in your view of the world?

Look, it's obvious we come from two completely different planets. My last post was just a feeler - just something to get you to open up. And you did...

And now I'm tired of this thread. I was going to waste some time and post an intelligent reponse, but you've got your head so far up Michael Moore's ass (and his "ilk") that you'd never hear me anyway. I guess this ignorant, hill billy, uneducated closing will have to do.

You suck.

Re:things are bad

[Doc Ruby]

I'm grouping you with the Republicans because you act just like them, with your denial that things are that bad when it's obvious to everyone except the deluded and the paid off, doubletalk about ignoring facts, rather than any facts of your own. Things are really bad, and if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

That sarcastic, trivially false defense of Bush's economy was your "feeler" to open me up? Stick your feeler up your ass.

Re:things are bad

[theonetruekeebler]

The Bush stats aren't the facts, they're the propaganda.

So were the Clinton stats. My ghod, how +5 Insightful can you get, noticing that when the people trying to get reelected control the generation of the stats, the stats are always glowing. What's your point?

Do you work for the RNC?

Troll.

get your head out of the sand and help do something about the lies and misleadership.

Since I'm not a millionaire, I have no chance of getting on a ballot as a Democrat, either. This company (which I mistyped instead of "country", but will leave there) is controlled by corporations. Corporatism is the same as fascism: it sees citizens as a resource to exploit and expend, not as individuals with rights. In the case of fascism, we are cannon fodder; in the case of corporatism, we are consumers.

I never thought I would see the day that the Democrats were the party espousing fiscal responsibility. Things were at there best here when a fiscally responsible party controlled Congress and a socially conscious party had veto power.

Re:things are bad

[Doc Ruby]

In spite of the corporate profit lies emanating from Houston, TX and "Clinton", MS (Bush country if ever there was any), Clinton presided over the greatest wealth creation ever seen, possibly short of the aftermath of inventing fire, or maybe the calendar in Egypt. That Reagan/Bush ginormous debt was paid off to a surplus under Clinton's 8 long years of management, no thanks to the Republicans who loot the Treasury at every opoprtunity, hiding their tracks with doublespeak smokescreens of "fiscal responsibility". There's nothing
responsible", fiscally or otherwise, about the Republicans, unless you mean "guilty" - every Republican administration has been marked by severe Constitutional crises, recessions, wars, and stakes through the heart of the American spirit.

Don't take so much umbrage at the language in my posts required to keep the foggyminded critics, to whom I'm directly replying, focused on the facts without slipping into denial. At least you recognize the actual conflict: corporations are 1st class citizens, while people are left to pick over their refuse. But democracy isn't a spectator sport, best left to experts. Its strength lies in the tiny ties that bind real people. By just thinking through these issues with an eye to the facts, and your actual interest in selfpreservation, you're doing more than the mediacracy would rather. And by talking with your friends about what really concerns you, instead of the manufactured issues and spin from the pundit class, you bias the national agenda in favor of people, which is what keeps this country rolling forward in spite of the odds stacked against it.

Re:things are bad

[kir]

I didn't really provide a defense for "Bush's" economy? It's not even his economy. The President has very little to do with the way the economy runs. The President has the most influence on foriegn policy (I'm sure you could go on and on about this too. Bush lied! Bush lied!). You're just a pissed off liberal who didn't get his way in Florida.

There was no doubletalk and the only statement I made that I could have, but did not, backed up with facts was the following.

The entire world is in an unemployment slump and the U.S. is nearly a point under the world average (not bad if you ask me, regardless of what party holds power).

Here is a link for some facts. We are in a slump.

As for my "feeler", that's exactly what it was. You came back with exactly what I suspected. You're a very angry person who has a very narrow view of the world.

Re:things are bad

[EastCoastSurfer]

The economy is run by Republicans. Bush Junior has been running the country, and just submitted an outrageous $2.5T budget, in a country which produces $10.5T - a feat of profligacy attempted previously only by President VP Bush Senior in the 1980s and his disastrous mask-removal in the 1990s.

Most economist that I have read agree that when Bush came to office the economy was already on a downslope. Bush walked in to a tough time, and has attempted to do his best with what he had. I am leary about the deficit, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out though.

Re:things are bad

[OwnedByTwoCats]

The economy was grwoing up until until early 2001. The economy has been growing since late 2001.

The U.S. economy has been losing jobs hand-over-fist; there are over 2 million fewer jobs now than there were when Bush Jr. took office. No president has managed that feat since Herbert Hoover.

In February 2002, after 9/11, after the recession, the President's crack team of economic advisors projected a budget deficit for 2005 of 15 Billion dollars. Now Bush submits a budget with a 500 Billion dollar deficit, and that's with no money for the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan.

What a job!

Re:things are bad

[kir]

Wow. That was fast. I'm already -1, Troll.

That's a shame. Tools.

Re:things are bad

[SirChive]

Since late 2001 the Gross Domestic Product has increased something like 7%.

But wages and salaries have only increased 0.6%.

Think about it!

Re:things are bad

[TreeHugger04]

Here are some 'Bush' facts: Little Bush, Big Bush and all their cronies (B&C)had planned to invade Iraq from day 1 at the office. Why? Not because of Oil but because of Halliburton, Defence contracts, the fact that this was the easiest country to win over (as compared to North Korea, Iran, etc.) due to the sanctions and lastly, to avenge Daddy.

Thats the bottom line. If every american had been given a share of the money spent on Iraq and bombs, the country would be better off.

Look at his tax cuts: The biggest chunk of it went to the richest few. Now I am not saying they don't deserve it but at the time of recession, they are not the ones who need it most but guess who gets to benefit from it? B&C of course!

Finally look at his budget: Homeland security gets a miniscule percentage of the money as compared to Pentagon. Now why should our defence forces need so much more than our other priorities like health, education, social security and homeland security? Aren't we so far ahead of other countries as far as military superiority is concerned? Does Bush think that another 100 jets will scare the terrorists to stop doing what they are doing? Can't we just redistribute a bit of that money to some of other priorities?

Well Bush can't and I am sure he is working for special interest. And I haven't scratched the surface (The patriot act, unilateralism, environment, etc.). I am surprised how impotent our public and media is to do something about this administration and we are letting him get away with all that he wants to do. I just hope the people get out in force and vote this guy out! And I am sure the people realize this time how important a single vote is (Florida).

Re:things are bad

[ThresholdRPG]

Give me a break.

Clinton had the unbelieveably luck of presiding over the country during the dot-com boom. That isn't good management, that is enormous luck.

More importantly, the President has virtually ZERO power to significantly affect the economy. The President deserves about 1% of the credit or blame for whatever happens to the economy.

If people would learn that one fact, we would all be much better off.

None of the following Presidents deserve blame or credit for what happened economically during their Presidencies:

Reagan - doesn't deserve the credit
Bush 1 - doesn't deserve the blame
Clinton - doesn't deserve the credit
Bush 2 - doesn't deserve the blame

There you go. Totally fair and bipartisan.

Re:things are bad

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, after having read most of Doc Ruby's "things are bad" thread, I meta-modded your troll vote unfair. Your comment was relatively measured, except perhaps your last few words, and was perfectly in line with all the other comments in this thread. Either all the posts in "things are bad" should be moderated Troll, or none should. Hence unfair.

What's with the enormous focus on India these days

[jigyasubalak]

Could you cut some slack here.
Heck, I've been trying to get some outsourced work
done here for a month now.

Economically none of this is surprising

[Killswitch1968]

In the long run, shipping jobs overseas will increase employment in the home country.

Why? Because when products are made overseas, they are made for a whole lot cheaper. Consumers not only can buy more, but they use their excess cash to spend on other goods or to invest in other business, both of which stimulate the economy and the very people who 'lost' their jobs get hired back.

Re:Economically none of this is surprising

[ethx1]

Yes but what do we do now? Take meager jobs and sit and wait till 2010? I am sorry but thats not good enough.

Re:Economically none of this is surprising

[BlackHawk]

And exactly how much "excess cash" does a programmer, out of work for 15 months now and counting, with no prospects for any job paying more than $5.50/hr, have?

Your naivete is amazing if you think that this viscious cycle of corporate greed will result in anything good. Follow the logic: in order to get the cheaper products, the products are bought from overseas manufacturers. This in turn puts an American worker in that same industry out of work, as the company that makes that product offshores the job. That out-of-work worker now must accept any job he can get, probably in low-pating service, or in the actual sales of the products he used to manufacture (think Walmart stock boy). With his reduced income, he must purchase cheaper goods in order to maintain a level of lifestyle (or at least check its reduction). This means he's buying from a company that offshores its manufacturing as well, putting other American workers out of work, and into direct competition with him for that low-paying job. And so on, and so on.

Where does it end, given that the wealthy stockholders and executives of the corporations driving this machine can continue to rake in huge profits?

Re:Economically none of this is surprising

[Killswitch1968]

Like I said, this is a long run thing. The VAST majority of people will benefit in the short and longterm, whereas the a miniority will have a short term loss.

Standard of living has much less to do with how much you make, compared to how much you can purchase. When jobs go overseas, those products become cheaper and the majority of people benefit.

Who says you have to work at fucking McDonalds?! Do you think the only businesses that will expand from increased consumer spending will be fastfood?

Re:Economically none of this is surprising

[BlackHawk]

• Like I said, this is a long run thing. The VAST majority of people will benefit in the short and longterm, whereas the a miniority will have a short term loss.

  Standard of living has much less to do with how much you make, compared to how much you can purchase. When jobs go overseas, those products become cheaper and the majority of people benefit.

I don't agree with your assertions, because they are based on the idea that people will have money to spend. Exactly how cheap is my mortgage going to get when the products are made more cheaply overseas? What incentive does Visa have to lower my credit card interest?

On top of all that, where is the incentive for anyone to lower their prices at all? They will only do that if there is competition; when you've got people locked in to something they cannot do without, you can keep the prices artificially inflated and pocket the returns. That's why prices for gasoline skyrocket 20 to 25 cents per gallon, then creep down a few cents and sit. What are you going to do, not buy gasoline?

Frankly, your viewpoint of how this economy in the US is going to react wouldn't stand up to a casual analysis by a decent high school economics class. If you think that offshoring = cheaper production, you're right. But when you go with cheaper production = cheaper prices paid, you're wrong. Here's another place your little model fails: even if the prices fell on the backs of cheaper overseas labor, you think the average American is going to benefit? How, when the per capita income in real dollars has fallen in the last 20 years by over 10%? And in any case, how much "more purchasing power" does someone have who has been forced to take two jobs that pay on 70% of what they were making at one job before? It ain't just McDonald's that's paying so poorly.

The lie of job creation

[Anonymous Coward]

These politicians, pundits, and analysts are lying through their teeth.

Of course jobs will be created if we enter a time of sustained economic growth. But your job? No, your job that went to India or China or Russia is not coming.

Yes, that job. The job in the field which you and your parents invested life savings to prepare you for.

That job. The job that you have taken on in 4-6 years debt that you will be burdened with for the next 10 to 30 years regardless of your economic status.

That education. The one that you were owed. And don't let them tell you it was only a privilege. You point them to multi-million dollar CEO sallaries, pop stars, and Paris Hilton, and say that we are raped and pillaged - your fathers, you, your children, and your children's children - by the elite.

Oh, what a great injustice has befallen us! These elite - arrogant masters - should daily sing our praises that we permit them to exist; that we permit them to keep that wealth which is not according to their need when they utterly fail even to give according to their ability; that these coporations - privileged entities with no legitimate moral status - are permitted to exist at all.

We the people are powerful. We are mighty. Woe to the elitists on that day when justice shall rain down from the heavens! Woe to them on that day when we the people will unite with one voice and take this country back for the working man and woman!

We will drive them from their temples - the defiled shells of what once were our proud institutions!

We will drive them from our land - squatters every one!

Oh glorious day! The inevitable culmination and natural end of all history!

Workers of the world unite!

My brothers! My sisters! Join you with one another and let us sing the Internationale

From every mountain top; let freedom ring!

Poor wording All Right

[Kor49]

See, the economists ALWAYS see the big picture. How dare we mere mortals look at this from our own point of view ???

What suprises me is how the Americans (the exec's at least) are so willing to throw in the towel. Yeah, the Indians are charging less, but you'd think that a nation obsessed with plugging the word "American" in front of every product would say something along the lines of "Yeah, the Indians may charge less, but the American engineering is better..."

If they keep their current attitude of accepting the defeat, offshoring won't really bring any competition; instead it will bring Indian domination. Whatever happens, it'll take a while for India to get so filthy rich that they don't want to study engineering anymore (like the yanks now), and send those jobs back to the poor Americans of the future. (Yes, I am done exaggerating.)

Re:Poor wording All Right

[Tx]

The execs you speak of plug things as 'American' because they think that will help sell their products to Americans. You sound like you think they actually give a shit. What, did you think they were just being patriotic?

What they are obsessed by is the bottom line, and I find it strange that anyone is surprised by their ready use of offshoring, they don't see it as "defeat" at all. Surely you know these people will jump at any opportunity to increase profits, deliver "value" to shareholders, and by happy coincidence boost their bonuses.

BTW I'm British, but pretty much the same thing goes here, except companies need to be a little more circumspect when using the "buy British" line.

I smell bull

[shaldannon]

Diana Farrell, director, McKinsey Global Institute, said, "People in the US are looking at it as a job issue. They are not economists and therefore, they don't necessarily see the whole picture. What's going to happen is that offshoring is actually going to benefit US businesses even more than India." She said it was a profoundly new way of doing things and would change the structure of organisations. Offshore was about global wealth creation and integrating economies, she explained, adding that it would create more high-value jobs in the US than people could imagine today.

Based on the research that the McKinsey institute had carried out, Ms Farrell said conservatively, for every dollar invested in the offshore space, $0.58 was directly saved. This could be either redistributed to investors or customers. But she added that there were indirect benefits to the US, in terms of the import of US goods and services into India by Indian service providers, and so there was some transfer of profit back to the parent in the US. She pointed out that the Bureau of Labour Statistics was predicting a job gain of 22m in the US by '10, against a job loss of 2m due to offshoring.

I'd like to know what she's smoking. I see a lot of this as someone with a comfortable job spouting off:

1. Job loss in the last few years has continued unabated in the tech sector. By all reports, the new jobs created have been nontechnical, particularly in construction.
2. This doesn't account for the fact that many people have dropped out of the labor market altogether (going back to school, early retirement, panhandling).
3. Economists have a pathetic record for prediction. Right now we're in what's been termed a "jobless recovery." If that's a recovery (I remain unconvinced) then just where does Ms. Farrell see those 22 million jobs coming from in the next 6 years, and just when does she think they'll appear?
4. Additionally, Ms. Farrell claims that cost savings from shipping jobs overseas will be passed on to the consumer. Ignoring the tendency of corporations to pass cost savings on to executive compensation rather than to stockholders or even (gasp!) consumers, just how would consumer savings help the average unemployed Joe on the street get a new productive job?
5. On top of this, consider the setting for the comments. Ms. Farrell is telling a group of people in India not to feel bad about taking our jobs because eventually we'll turn out better than we started out. This is yet more bull in an article already reeking of manure. All it is designed to do is assuage someone's conscience.

It's one thing to say something substantive on the subject, but all that's been presented is trite expressions of hope that things will get better. I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping that they do get better, but until something meaningful is said, it's only so much bull.

Re:I smell bull

[schrockn]

All of this antiglobalization and anti-free trade banter drives me up the wall. The trend of outsourcing and globalizing IT jobs is about the best possible example of free trade I have ever seen, because the jobs being exported actually do have labor standards and do dignify the population; and it is very good for America.

Take some hypothetical math here. Say there are 100,000 U.S. Programmers making about 80,000 dollars a year (with benefits and business side social security tax). That's

80,000 * 100,000 = 8,000,000,000 dollars a year.

Now imagine, aggregated, U.S companies via outsourcing eliminate those jobs (so-called creative destruction) and instead pay 100,000 indian folks an average of 20,000 a year.

100,000 * 20,000 = 2,000,000,000 dollars a year.

So, for 2 billion dollars Indian programmers are delivering the exact same amount of business value as the 8 billion dollar American programmers.

The end result? Well, at first, 100,000 less American jobs, and 6 billion more dollars for our "evil" corporate masters.

Yes some of that money will go to the clever executive who thought of the idea. Yes some of that money will go (gasp!) investors, who probably include many of the readers here.

And where will the rest of that money go?: to investment; to research; to newer jobs, etc. This is the inexorable march of progress here people. Can I predict what those new jobs will be? Of course not. Otherwise I would have already thought of it. But someone will drive innovation. This is all about a more effecient allocation of resources.

Undeniably, it sucks for those 100,000 programmers. There are a lot of hidden costs to creative destruction, soceital costs that do not show up in GDP numbers (family and emotional distress, for one). But those people, like lots of other people have, will have to reinvent themselves, to discover new talents, to retrain. In the end, it will be good for the country, and the world, as a whole. I mean, I'm sure it sucked for typewriter makers when computers gained popularity, or for horse farmers when the car was first mass produced, but for the whole soceity the creative destruction of those jobs was a good thing.

In any case, this is the best possible outcome from the development of a large educated populace in India. We are utilizing their resources, rather than competing against them. A worse scenario, from the American perspective, are the Indians out-innovating us and driving entire American businesses out of business in the global marketplace.

Re:I smell bull

[Thomasje]

Offshore was about global wealth creation and integrating economies, she explained, adding that it would create more high-value jobs in the US than people could imagine today.

She's right. I can't imagine those new high-value jobs!
(Neither can she, or there'd be a few examples, no?)

Re:I smell bull

[iserlohn]

The problem is not one of cost and comparative advantage. First we started off with the manufacturing jobs, that ok, 'cause we have tons of opportunity in the service and other sectors. Now we are sheding the service sector jobs? What next? Will the only jobs left be the doctors, the lawyers the accountants? Will we become a nation of managers until we outsource them as well? What happens then?

Who is left to enjoy the added efficiency. Who is left to consume?

Re:I smell bull

[dmobrien_2001]

Statistics was predicting a job gain of 22m in the US by '10, against a job loss of 2m due to offshoring.

I'd like to know what she's smoking. I see a lot of this as someone with a comfortable job spouting off:

Ya, a job like recommending and defending outsourcing!

Re:I smell bull

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, someone that gets it! Folks, freeedom is not free! Slashdot readers as a whole tend to be a pretty liberal group, and it stuns me when the get all freaked out about "evil" corporations having that freedom as well. Hey, if you want something more like communism/isolationsim just take one of the boats back from Florida to Cuba. I'm sure they would love a few good programmers there. I assure you, Fidel won't be outsourcing any of his state run businesses. We are not just creating jobs, we are creating freedom as well....

Re:I smell bull

[Killswitch1968]

Hmm, exactly what I would have said, except articulated better. Thank you my good man.

Re:I smell bull

[Anonymous Coward]

This is NOT VERY INSIGHTFUL. Now that these centers overseas have become big areas of technology, these are the locations where that money is going to be reinvested. In fact, this is already happening as major corporations are opening RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT centers in India. See, that's the whole problem with the "we will move on to more creative and challenging jobs". All the momentum of the more "creative and challenging" jobs is aimed overseas, NOT BACK HERE.

Re:I smell bull

[figa]

We also have freedom to vote for universal healthcare to reduce the total cost of human ownership for our corporate overlords, or other legislation to gently remind them of their obligations to the communities that foster them and frankly are civil enough not to raid their executive golf courses and steal their gold-plated trash cans.

Why is it that we have to acknowledge the freedom of corporations to screw us, as in offshoring, but we are never allowed the freedom to protect our best interests against economic priniples every bit as destructive, short-sighted, and totalitarian as Communism? Supply-side economics fell along with the Berlin wall in 91. Get over it.

Corporations are inherently anti-human, as their ultimate goal is profit, not human good. When corporations can use prison, sweatshop, or slave labor, as they do now when offshoring in China and Africa, they prove that out. When corporations have private armies that kill people to defend their oil operations in Africa, I'd say that's evil. As a human, I feel morally obligated to look at it that way, and it pretty well coincides with my best interests. Are you incorporated, and view yourself as a corporation first, human second?

Re:I smell bull

[TheSync]

My job was created in the last few years, and is technical.

Re:I smell bull

[TALlama]

I mean, I'm sure it sucked for... horse farmers when the car was first mass produced, but for the whole soceity the creative destruction of those jobs was a good thing.

Ah, I remember the days back on the farm, strolling under the mustang trees and through the shetland pony bushes. My big brother Jeb and I used to play hide-and-seek in the Palamino fields, but when we got home Ma always had big glasses of American Cream Draft Juice ready for us.
But then the age of the automobile came and we realized that horse farming just couldn't support a family, and we had to sell off the land. I hear it's a ranch now.

Re:I smell bull

[member57]

1. India would NOT drive the US out. 2. The 6 billion you refer to is lining the pockets of the top 1% of US citizens. 3. CEOS are rewarded greatly for cutting costs and improving the "bottom line", labor=cost plain and simple. Greed it rewarded, instead of doing what is right, look at Enron, WorldCom, etc... 4. No matter how you look at it, it's bad for the US.

Re:I smell bull

[illumin8]

You just refuted your own argument. Let's take for example, the same 100,000 programmers you're talking about.

Take some hypothetical math here. Say there are 100,000 U.S. Programmers making about 80,000 dollars a year (with benefits and business side social security tax). That's

80,000 * 100,000 = 8,000,000,000 dollars a year.

That $8 billion is going directly into the pockets of US workers, who will spend the money buying goods and services here in the US, therefore, that $8 billion is going directly back into the US economy.

Now imagine, aggregated, U.S companies via outsourcing eliminate those jobs (so-called creative destruction) and instead pay 100,000 indian folks an average of 20,000 a year.

100,000 * 20,000 = 2,000,000,000 dollars a year.

Now, you've taken $2 billion directly out of the US economy and shipped it overseas to India. Sure, a few of those Indian programmers might buy computers made in the US, but you'll never see anywhere close to 100% of that money end up back over here. Not only that, the $6 billion you've saved ends up getting paid back to shareholders of the company in the form of dividends and profits on their stock. The people that receive that other $6 billion are not middle class Americans like the programmers that lost their jobs. They're most likely the upper few percentiles, who are the least likely to spend their money on goods and services. They're more likely to reinvest their money into another company that offshores their workers, and turn another tidy profit.

So let's see here, $8 billion directly into the US economy, or $2 billion lost, plus another $6 billion to the wealthy, privileged few? I think you've just refuted your own argument.

The thing that really irks me about all of this is that those on the top know what's happening. They know that a trade deficit this large is unsustainable, and that eventually, when there is no middle class in America to buy their goods and services, the whole global economy will collapse, and yet, they do nothing about it, and prefer to make a short-term profit, fucking the long term global economy. Eventually it will all come crashing down like a house of cards, but in the meantime, hey, crack open a bottle of Dom Perignon! The good times are rolling!

Re:I smell bull

[Shajenko42]

We also have freedom to vote for universal healthcare to reduce the total cost of human ownership for our corporate overlords, or other legislation to gently remind them of their obligations to the communities that foster them and frankly are civil enough not to raid their executive golf courses and steal their gold-plated trash cans.

Not quite: we can vote for people who claim that they will implement these policies, who then are bought lock, stock and barrel by the corporations that we voted them in to oppose.

Re:I smell bull

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful? More like redundant dogma.

This is all just blind faith in supply-side economics. "You gots to believe bothers and sisters"!

Nobody reasonable will argue that capitalism is not an efficent economic system. But come on, it's not magical and perfect. It creates monopolies. It tends to accumulate wealth in the hands of a small number of people, while creating a large povery class. There are examples of this througout the world and throughout history.

If you believe that Capitalism is this magical system that somehow creates paradise, your just as blind as the socialist that thinks a "nanny state" is the ideal economic system.

Re:I smell bull

[anandsr]

I guess you don't have many options regarding outsourcing as it is a global phenomenon. There will be outsourcing because producing software requires little proximity to the consumers.

When we are talking about 100K Jobs that are being outsourced we are also talking of some 10K jobs that will be there to manage these 100K outsourced workers. Its not that you are going to outsource everything, if a company tries to offsource everything they will fail. These are the 10K jobs at the higher conceptual level than coding.

If you try to stop outsourcing through legislation. There will be some jobs that are for local consumption like the Call Center jobs, which are actually like the Pizza Delivary jobs. These can be prevented but rest of the IT jobs will move out. What will happen is that companies will start moving out of USA, because they will find that working under drakonian laws they are not able to compete with companies which are not in the USA. The companies that don't move out will die out, because they will not be able to compete internationally. You will also be losing out on the 10K jobs that have a higher creative/ management content.

We (in India) have suffered under protectionism before we started opening up in 1990. If we hadn't given up on protectionism then we would not be in this position now. Not understanding this is fine, its a common misperception that protectionism helps. What is not understandable is the following quote.

They know that a trade deficit this large is unsustainable, and that eventually, when there is no middle class in America to buy their goods and services, the whole global economy will collapse, and yet, they do nothing about it, and prefer to make a short-term profit, fucking the long term global economy.

What makes you so sure that America is the center of the global economy. You might not know it but gradually America is losing the central place. Even the Doller is no longer the solid currency it used to be. Heck even the Indian Rupee is gaining over it.

And how does collapsing of American economy cause long term global economy collapse. Granted there will be a short term collapse but nothing that a couple of years will not solve.

Don't think that America will remain the biggest consumers by 2010. If America does put laws in place to prevent outsourcing, I can wager that the crash will happen much much sooner. The crash may be there even without these laws because of the huge deficit. You can blame your Governments for spending so much for defence which is more than what the spending of the other top 7 defence spenders. India also spends much too much, but at least we have a neighbouring terrorist state as an excuse.

I am from India and can tell you that it is not just the Americans that should be feeling the outsourcing problems. In my company we have got projects mainly from Japan and Europe. American is the traditional business, but percent-wise its much less than before. I don't see protests from other contries as much. IMHO its like crying over spilt milk. There is nothing that can be done other than learn new skills and move on.

The reason why most outsourcing happens to India is because of two reasons India is cheaper, and in comparison to other Asian contries we know English as a near first language. Both the reason may not be true for a very long time. But if the first reason ceases to be valid then living conditions would have grown to a much higher level and that will be good news. We will do something else by that time.

So should you.

Re:I smell bull

[illumin8]

I appreciate your response, and I do agree with you that protectionism doesn't work, but it is also naive to think that America doesn't make up the majority of the global economy. 80% of the wealth in the world is in America, so if our economy collapses it is pretty certain to take the rest of the 1st world countries down with it. Would you disagree? I simply think that if CEOs and others that are making the outsourcing decisions cared about the bigger picture (trade deficit, putting dollars into local economy, etc.) rather than making a quick buck, we would all be better off. Let the Indian tech companies compete head-to-head with American tech companies. They will have the benefit of cheap labor and we will have the benefit of sharing the same culture as the local customer. It would also be nice to see India create some local technology consumers of it's own. With the blossoming tech economy in India, it can't be too long until there are local companies that need code written.

Another thing I would like to mention is that protectionism is a two-way street. Right now it is unfairly balanced in the favor of the Indian programmer. You are allowed to take my job, but I am not allowed to move to India and take yours. I am just using this as an example, because I'm not a programmer, I'm a Unix sysadmin. All things being equal, I should be more qualified for a job in India than a native, because I speak English as my first language, plus I understand the culture here in America and can interface better with management in America that writes technical specs. So why can't I go to India and take your job? You are allowed to come here and take mine through a government sanctioned H1B visa. With the low cost of living I bet I could live really well over there for a small salary. Also, I've been in IT for 14 years, which is probably much longer than your IT industry has even been around.

So if you really want protectionism to go away completely, be careful what you wish for.

Re:I smell bull

[Anonymous Coward]

The above is one of the best posts in this entire discussion. I applaud your wisdom and see it the same way.

Re:I smell bull

[anandsr]

I would say that USA has the highest concentration of money but I don't agree with 80%, I wouldn't even agree with 50%. But I don't have any data to back it up maybe you have. I didn't say the rest of the world will not crash but I said that a couple of years will be enough to recover for the rest of the world.

Actually not all software is required for the local consumption. The ones that are required will eventually return to you because they will be done better there. Ofcourse CEOs make stupid decisions sometimes knowingly these days because of the crazy stock markets. I think there is a major need for reform there.

You mean you don't mind losing the Oracles, the IBMs, the Microsofts of USA because they are not doing anything that is local. Well I would think losing them will be a major downer. In my opinion this is not the time to look within. You have had your progress because you were open and were selling products abroad. You should think about how to reduce the deficit and other things will fall in place. Some people will suffer anyway like in every generation. That shouldn't stop you from growing in other fields.

I don't know why you think that we are only developing things for the outside world. We are also consumers. We do use computers just like US companies and mostly we are using Windows, but these days Linux is gaining share. We can use Western software much easily because of English, but that doesn't mean we don't have locallized software. How else do you think we manage our Railway Reservation systems, microsoft doesn't supply that. We have had local software for reservations since some 10 years ago.

It is not true that you are not allowed to take my job but you may not get more salary than our president, which is pretty low ;-). But that is not such a big hinderance as long as your company is willing to hire you. Bribing officials is not a big task here, and you can get much more salary than that.

Well you would be a better fit to interface with the client, and you will need to interface with the locals as well where you will not be a great fit. How things work here is that the Clients interface with the Business group people here which in turn interface with the people here. The Business people do know how to speak your accent also, its not too difficult you know. They are the people who worked in USA for a few years and then came back when it became more profitable to work here. For technical problems Managers and developers interface with the Client since we already know english well (we learn english from the beginning of education). And it is not that big a problem when we are talking about technical things.

If you really wanted to take my job you would have to learn how to interface with indian people learn a bit of the local language and culture. With your experience you can join the Business group in which case you will probably be posted in the country where the client stays and only make trips to India once in a while. There are only two other types of jobs and they don't suit you.

The first is highly technical position where you will be supposed to know and be abreast of a large no. of things so that you can think where the company should be going, you should be able to consult various divisions of the companies on technology directions. This job really requires depth and width of knowledge. I don't know if you are up to it.

The second is managing lots of people, this requires knowledge of local language and local customs and culture. This does not fit you.

In India if you are 6-7 years you would not be getting a programming job you should have already lead a team of small size. Being in a technical job for more than 10 years is not good for your career, you would be out of job most probably.
Sysadmins are the worst affected, their job is not considered terribly important. They are normally inexperienced people who are in it because they couldn't get an engineering education or co

Bureau of Labour Statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

Without Labor, the BLS becomes BS.

surplus value

[Doc Ruby]

The US product is about $10.5T:year, with about 100M workers earning about $40K:year. The $4T income are less than 40% of the revenue, with the other 60% representing corporate profit and taxes. Since corporations pay so little proportionately in taxes, and capital gains less still, the extra value is taken in corporate profits funneled to the very rich. Some estimates indicate that 15K US households (probably about 75K people, or .001%) own 5% of the Earth's property. The lack of job growth in the US, despite the looting of the Treasury for subsidies to these rich people, once again destroys the argument of "supply side" economics. After the debacle of Reagan's supply side, the last time these unemployment numbers were close to this high (excepting Bush Sr's next-closest nadir), you'd think this nonsense would be rejected. But I guess greed blinds even the survival instinct, when so much loot is flying through the air, without any merit to where it lands.

Re:surplus value

[idiotnot]

First of all, corporations don't pay taxes. They might have monies withdrawn from their accounts by the government, but they do not pay taxes. Individuals pay taxes, whether it be employees ("payroll taxes" are parts of your paycheck that you never see), customers, or shareholders (in the form of lost profits/dividends).

Even so, assuming a 25% tax rate on revenue (ungodly high), your math yields 35% in profits.

It doesn't compute.

Why? Well, you don't take into account at all costs of doing business other than salary.

Yes, there are greedy corporations. Yes, things could be better. Some of us are proactively working towards that end within the corporate world. I, personally, have no desire to be involved with offshoring, or the excesses of public corporations. In a private corporation, I'm free to take a smaller profit, and steadfastly refuse to offshore, up to the point where I cannot make money any longer. It's just a matter of principle. I couldn't do that with the gamblers on Wall Street who believe they should get 20% returns on their 401k's every year. Which is what the dot com bubble brought about. Supply-side economics has very little to do with it.

Quit trolling.

Re:surplus value

[Doc Ruby]

What are you talking about? The corporation that I own pays taxes, but less than I would if I were the legal entity in its place. Your numbers are nonsense. All the other costs of doing business, except taxes, are revenue for someone else, or some other corporation. I applaud the few of you working "within the corporate world towards greedy corporations being better", whatever you actually mean. But all you're doing is becoming less competitive against the greedy ones, unless you're lobbying for accounting reforms to replace the ripoffs perpetrated by the accounting firms which for so long underwrote even the economic integrity of corporate America. That integrity took 65 years to regenerate since the 1934 banking reforms following the 1929 crash, and is being shredded more every day that Martha Stewart is paraded as a smokescreen for Ken Lay.

Supply side economics are the economic theory for stimulating the US economy with giant tax cuts, even when the Bushers admit it's going to the rich people and corporations. The connection between that ripoff and the attack on un/organized labor is political, just like the rest of the control wielded by Washington on the economic self-determination of American people, which threatens their corporate agenda.

Re:surplus value

[Anonymous Coward]

...the looting of the Treasury for subsidies to these rich people...

oh, I must be mistaken, I thought you meant allowing them to keep more of their own money - but then I realized you must live in Venezuela or some other third world socialist piss-hole to make a statement like that.

Re:surplus value

[MoneyT]

I think what he was saying was that weather it's through the shareholders or the customers, all the taxes on businesses get passed on to individuals.

Re:surplus value

[Dr. Bent]

Some estimates indicate that 15K US households (probably about 75K people, or .001%) own 5% of the Earth's property.

There will always be rich people, my friend. It's a fundemental feature of human social structure. Someone has to decide what times the train run (Rich People) and someone has to run them (Poor People).

500 years ago, there were maybe a couple dozen people who owned a good 80% of the earth's property...they're called Monarchs. The real difference between then and now is not that the rich people have slightly less, it's that we've invented a whole new class of people: The Middle Class.

And the middle class is hurt the most by high income taxes (at any level). I don't know if you've noticed it or not, but rich people already have money. More accurately, they already have assets (stock, real estate, bonds, annunities, etc...). People who think that high income taxes put the tax burden on the rich are fooling themselves. If you really wanted to put the tax burden on the rich, you'd have a wealth tax, but putting the tax burden on the rich isn't what the income tax is all about.

The purpose of a progressive income tax is to prevent the middle class from becoming rich. Since middle class people are almost entirely dependent on thier income, taxing it ensures that they will never have enough disposable cash to start a business, invest in a new private business, or do anything else that might lead to financial independence. This is why a progressive income tax is a key plank in the communist manifesto. It's designed to crush the ability of the middle class to raise enough capital to become financially independent.

Re:surplus value

[demachina]

"First of all, corporations don't pay taxes."

You are correct that they generally don't, BUT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO. The entire Republican rationale for cutting the tax on dividends was that it was double taxation, the corporation paid taxes on their profits, then gave them out again as dividends which were taxed again.

The problem is that all big corporations have adept accountants that exploit every loop hole in the tax code imaginable, something beyond the means of small companies and individuals. They also pay off their congressman, in the form of campaign contributions, to insert new loopholes they can exploit if they start to run out.

So the big companies generally don't pay taxes on their profits and now dividend taxes have been slashed which means wealthy stockholders make out like bandits. Its no coincidence Microsoft has started paying dividends since they are now a great tax dodge, especially for the wealthy. Meanwhile interest rates are so low and taxes on interest income is so high that you have to be insane to actually save mony in CD's or money markets which is why American's don't save money anymore. They run up credit card bills and gamble on the stock market.

Its also no accident the stock market is in a new bubble. It is so juiced by the new tax rates, subsidized by massive budget deficits, everyone is rushing back in. This new bubble is very desirable for the Republicans because real soon now they are going to want to "reform" Social Security. To translate they are going to start pushing people to put their social security taxes in to the stock market which will juice the profit margins and wealth of Wall Street. Perhaps it will make big returns for you when you retire, or perhaps stock market crashes and manipulation will wipe it out and you will starve on the streets like people did before Social Security.

I have one question as to why people think investing in the stock market always creates new jobs. The only time it leads to new capital for a company is in an IPO or a subsequent stock offering. When you buy stock from another shareholder all you're doing is enriching that shareholder as a reward for their gamble. It is true that the company has an incentive to grow, and perhaps create jobs, to push their stock price up but that is an indirect incentive.

Venture capitalists, wealthy snakes that they are, tend to be the ones that really create companies and jobs. The stock market tends to just be a mechanism to reward them when their gambles succeeed. Its pretty much just high stakes gambling for everyone else.

In the modern age where capital and jobs can flow easily around the world its even less likely an investment in the stock market is going to create jobs in the U.S.

Re:surplus value

[smallpaul]

Some estimates indicate that 15K US households (probably about 75K people, or .001%) own 5% of the Earth's property.

What do you mean by property? Do they own tangible things like land and water, thus depriving the rest of us? Or do they own intangibles like IP, shares, virtual dollars and so forth. If the latter, why do you care? I have enough land, water, food and it seems clear there is enough to go around (in North America at least). Therefore I really couldn't give a rats ass about the fact that Bill Gates is much, much, richer than me. The vast majority of his wealth is virtual and the very act of making it concrete (by buying something) transfers it to someone with less money.

None of this is suppy-side economics. I'm not saying that giving money to rich people makes poor people richer. I'm saying that giving more money to rich people _does not make poor people poorer_. The obvious exception is when this money is transferred through a shift in the tax burden which is what Bush and Reagan did. In that case you are literally taking money out of the pockets of poor people (in government services) and giving it to rich people. But this process is outside of the system of capitalism.

Income disparity is not as important as the left argues it is and ordinary people can see that fact plainly. Our first task is to make everyone richer. A much, much smaller secondary concern is trying to make income distribution fairer. If you have a program like outsourcing that makes the poor richer but also increases income disparity you still have a good thing. Reducing poverty is good even if it makes billionaires into trillionaires as a side effect.

Re:surplus value

[workindev]

The lack of job growth in the US, despite the looting of the Treasury for subsidies to these rich people, once again destroys the argument of "supply side" economics. After the debacle of Reagan's supply side, the last time these unemployment numbers were close to this high (excepting Bush Sr's next-closest nadir), you'd think this nonsense would be rejected

If you examine the Reagan Economic Record you'll see that Supply Side economics worked very well. During the Reagan years, real family incomes increased for all income quantiles, proving that a rising tide indeed does lift all boats.

Re:surplus value

[HiThere]

If you believe the Cato institute studies on Republican economics, then you should also believe MS studies on TCO.

I don't claim to know the truth here, but I do know that some people have close associations with some other people. These aren't disinterested parties doing the studies.

Re:surplus value

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the Cato Institute is not republican or democrat, they are libertarian.

"The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. Toward that goal, the Institute strives to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in questions of policy and the proper role of government. "

Re:surplus value

[Anonymous Coward]

Right-winged Libertarian. Hence Republican.

Re:surplus value

[toiletmonster]

phew. its a relief to hear a liberal say that being rich isn't a bad thing. i liked your post.

my one question, is which government services did bush and reagan provide to rich people? rich people don't get wellfare or food stamps or unemployment (cuz they are employed) or anything like that. and they pay more in taxes. so aren't we taking money out of the pockets of the rich (taxes) and giving to the poor (government services). i guess i think we do that too much, but whatever.

Re:surplus value

[smallpaul]

The point is that if on one day the poor are getting $100.00 in welfare and the next they are getting $90.00 then they've lost $10.00. On the other hand, if you give the rich a tax break that reduces their taxes from $1000.00 to $90.00 then they've got an extra $100.00 in their pockets. Now a hard-core conservative would say that that is their money that they earned and deserve. A hard-core liberal woudl say that they only earned it on the back of their workers and don't deserve it. I think that the question of "deserve" is neither helpful nor resolvable. What we can say is that the poor are poorer and the rich are richer which to me is a bad thing.

Now I believe "Reagonmics" to the extent that there is a point that transferring wealth from the rich to the poor ceases to be in anyone's benefit. (because neither party has incentive to work) That seems like common sense. But the US is miles and miles away from that point. It isn't like most people in countries like Sweden just sit on their asses all day.

Interesting factoid: I wanted to find some country names to use for the paragraph above so I did a Google search for "country most taxes". It is interesting the extent to which searches like that are most dominated by American polemics (occasionally) for and (usually) against taxes. It is like some kind of national obsessions. In most countries tax rates must be much, much higher before they get controversial. And taxes on the rich are not even usually controversial at all. But things are different in America.

Re:surplus value

[Politicus]

This is a pretty rediculous use of statistics [referring to your "real family income" graph]. First, the graph includes 89-93 which were Bush years as post Reagan years. Second, it fails to include 96-99 which were Clinton years. Third, the period of 81-89 saw the creation of a massive public debt which has been slowing the economy ever since. Fourth, income gap between the lowest to highest quintile was largest during 81-89, meaning that most of this debt went to finance the rich getting richer. Fifth, the period of 73-81 started with the OPEC oil embargo which sent a shockwave of adaptation through the US economy. Finally, this graph is directly at odds with data from the BLS and OEA which shows median wages corrected for inflation actually being stagnant throughout 81-89. Real wage growth didn't wake up until the late 90's. Please obey dogma leash laws in the future.

Re:surplus value

[workindev]

No, Libertarian is neither right or left winged. Its the opposite of Authoritarian, and includes both right wing and left wing economic philosophies.

Re:surplus value

[Doc Ruby]

I'm starting to think these clueless Anonymous Coward posts result from people who can't even figure out how to register a user ID, let alone understand politics or economics. When Bush taxes some people, but not the rich, who instead get subsidies to their corporations or lifestyles, while bankrupting the Treasury, that's "looting the Treasury for subsidies to these rich people". In Venezuela, where the people getting cut a share of their country's oil resources are on Bush's CIA chopping block, they're allowed to keep more of their own money, when Bush bungles his backing of their oil biz coup. But why make the distinction, when you, Anonymous dupe Coward, would be so at home in a third world socialist piss-hole that you're barking while Bush turns America into exactly that?

Re:surplus value

[Doc Ruby]

Your fallacious logic of the excluded middle misses the point in its obfuscation. *I* am a rich person, by any definition. I made my money as an entrepreneur, and I am very well aware of all the opulent advantages offered me. I even accept some of them - I'm not a martyr - but none that require me to lie, cheat or steal. My problem is with the process of wealth hoarding, which concentrates it not merely in the hands of a few people, but perpetuates the power which keeps that wealth growing, at the expense of others' earnings, regardless of merit or productivity. No one in this thread has proposed doing away with riches, merely unrigging the game that keeps the opportunities passed around by a tiny club.

The main structural problem that perpetuates this problem is corporate power over people. The monarchs you cite from 500 years ago were in the same position as these corporations, until a sufficiently organized group of educated people, conveniently distant from the monarch's power of coercion and propaganda, kicked him out of our backyard, and pumped the democratic wave. Once we've had a similarly effective revolution limiting corporate power as government power was limited, we'll be freer again. Until then, we'll watch as our labor products heap riches on the corporate owners, at our expense.

They're crap jobs

[rsilvergun]

Yeah, another 22 million McJobs at $5.80/hr, meanwhile $30,000/yr+ entry level tech jobs head for India where they become $5000/yr tops. This is a load of crap, just like the H1 visa program from the 90's. But people are greedy and investors don't give a damn as long as thier rich, so this is how it's going to be. Maybe we can use Linux and open source to make local tech and IT jobs and tell the big globals to go fsck themselves.

Plumber = $$$

[Atario]

Hey, don't knock toilet unclogging. Plumbers make serious dollars.

Re:Plumber = $$$

[Endive4Ever]

Not in an economy where nobody can afford to hire a plumber.

Re:Plumber = $$$

[Tablizer]

Hey, don't knock toilet unclogging. Plumbers make serious dollars.

Yes, but it is not as interesting as programming, for the most part. Although, they both have bugs, crap, bottlenecks, and broken pipes.

What offshoring is doing is limiting the KINDS of jobs available in the US. We probably have more managers and marketers in the US, but less of everything else. Not everybody is cut out to be a manager.

Re:Plumber = $$$

[HiThere]

Not to mention the fact that the managers in the US are seriously short-sighted and self-centered. This will be a problem everywhere, but in most places these aren't considered virtues.

Re:Plumber = $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree I should of gone ino the business of unclogging shitters instead of IT I would be better off

Indians not creative?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen this sort of argument a few times now - how offshoring delegates lowly code-cutting to India, thus freeing up Americans to "create" and "invent".

I find this more than a little patronising and elitist. Who says Indians aren't creative and inventive?

Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

and they dont count underemployment. I know alot of engineers who are flipping burgers and selling stereos burdened by student loans (which survive bankrupcy!).

Bingo!

The central planners talk of "jobs" as if they were all equal.

Even assuming the numbers claimed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' talking head are true, what good does it do to replace one lost 6-figure engineering position with eleven minimum-wage, no health plan, burger-flipper slots?

Especially if, say, eight of them will be filled by illegal immigrants, two by engin-school grads who never got to engineer, and the eleventh by a former member of the (NON-minimum-wage, WITH health plan) burger-flipper's union, leaving the engineer still unemployed?

Now multiply by two million.

Great for the ruling class. Hell for the workers.

I am not sure I buy it, but I have

[PotatoHead]

been thinking about this lately. (I am still employed, but my company is having a pretty rough time right now.)

We are going to see more jobs. If Bush gets his way, most of them are going to be in competition with 'undocumented' (Ahem..), I mean ILLEGAL workers. So, we all know those are not going to pay well. Lots of people are going to be devalued for sure.

Jobs that involve people skills are going to become more important. Somebody needs to manage the teams, make deals, and other things. I have been seeing another trend along these lines as well.

Working professionals are forming groups to cut overall costs. So far I see this happening with law, accounting, taxes and other similar traditional services, but maybe technically oriented groups have a chance doing this as well.

Having your own in-house technical people may be too expensive, but buying some quality time locally, sans language and distance issues might be worth a small price premium. Personally, I hope this is an area that Open Source can begin to play a little harder.

I can't help but wonder what effect the growing license fees companies, like Microsoft, ask each year have on the job market. There are a lot of dollars going to one place that used to go elsewhere.

With Open Source working as it should and some greater degree of acceptance, perhaps some of this money will be distributed more evenly. Companies could choose to keep minimal staff and pay high license fees for one size fits all software, or...

They can choose to employ some more staff and combine that with services from a number of competing firms to solve their problems. The greater number of potential solutions might yield competetive advantages as well depending on who is involved.

If this sort of thing begins to really happen, polishing up those people skills might be the way to go. Your technical background will be valuable for advising execs on critical decisions and evaluating potential partners.

I have been getting some experience doing this on the side for a little while now. Once the execs learn there is a cheaper way, they need people to facillitate getting it done for them. Being able to work hands on, in a pinch, helps as well. I sort of ended up doing this for a couple of people I met when I began networking a couple years ago. (fear drives a geek to do strange things, I know!)

Thinking along these lines seems better than a long job search in any case. So, here it is, for what it is worth.

Anyone doing anything similar? Have any luck? Suggestions? I just might need them soon!

Re:I am not sure I buy it, but I have

[ThomK]

This post touches on a question that I have been pondering for quite some time now, "How do I leverage this mass exodus of jobs to India"?

This is basic economics people!

[be-fan]

Jesus breakdancing Christ. If I see one more hand-waving post devoid of either fact or theory, I will scream.

Free-trade is a basic tool of a capitalist economy. It has a proven track-record of working (eg: France under Napoleon, the modern EU, the US of fucking A!). There are also lots of statistics that show that protectionist laws save a few jobs at the cost of much greater costs to the rest of the economy. A certain law that protects US textile workers saved 75,000 jobs at a cost of $15 billion a year. That $200,000 that each of those textile jobs is costing is being taken right out of *your* pocket. That's money you could have, but do not.

Free-trade is also the only thing that makes sense in a democracy. People have rights, and it takes a very strong argument to limit those rights. Strong moral arguments give us reason to limit the right of people to commit murder. Strong economic arguments give us reason to limit the right of companies to form cartels. There are no such arguments in favor of protectionism. Morality says that people should hire whom they damn-well please, and economics says that this freedom is best for the economy in the long run. The only arguments we get in favor of protectionism is crap about patriotism, and hand-waving about "the destruction of the US middle class." Two points: One, as a Virginian, I care about as much about a guy in Texas as I do about a guy in Afghanistan. Two, the middle class did just fine when farm work, which was a middle class job, disappeared. They did just fine when factory work, another middle class job, disappeared. They'll do just fine when the programming jobs disappear!

The predictions in this article are precisely those predicted by economic theory. A certain class of jobs will be destroyed, but many more jobs will be created. Such predictions have been borne out numerous times before (NAFTA really didn't cause all American jobs to be sucked to Mexico, did it???) and will be borne out again.

Of course, this is assuming you believe in capitalism. If you'd prefer the stability of a socialist system, then by all means, move to a communist country! I take particular pleasure in saying this --- as a liberal I rarely get the chance to call *other* people communists, but that doesn't change the fact that calls for protectionism are nothing less than attempt to subvert the capitalistic ideals of this country!

Re:This is basic economics people!

[shaldannon]

At the risk of sounding like a troll...

Perhaps you'd care more if you were the one whose job got outsourced to India?

The fact of the matter is that many, many jobs have been lost. Those jobs translate to real, living people, some of whom you might actually know. It's a lot easier to be detatched about job loss when it doesn't affect you.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[PhyreFox]

A certain class of jobs will be destroyed, but many more jobs will be created.

This would be all fine and dandy if said "many more jobs" paid better. I fail to see what jobs are being "created" as a result of the loss of the IT profession in this country. I fail to see what good programming experience will do when there are no more programming jobs in the 'States. See, unlike farm work, which was primarily manual labor, and factory labor, which is primarily manual labor, what good will programming experience do us when all the programming jobs are lost? Hmm? Can you possibly come up with something as exercising on the mind, as beneficial, and pays equal to or better than what was previously attained with a programming job in this country before this outsourcing craze took the jobs away?

I didn't think so.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[o'reor]

OK, I'll bite:

(eg: France under Napoleon
Free trade ? Man, France was at war with pretty much all the countries they had not invaded back then! There was certainly no trade at all with the UK, for instance! If France did prosper during those years, it was by plundering the economy of invaded countries! Plus, a war economy, with huge government contracts, certainly stimulates growth.

the modern EU,
Er, with heavily subsidized farms ? You call this 'free trade'? Subsidizing agriculture was (and still is, at large) the the basics of the EU!!! And don't forget what the EU initially is: a collection of states that heavily interact with their own economies, through government contracts and public infrastructures. 'Free Trade' as defined by the WTO means 'no government-subsidized business'.

the US of fucking A!
Guess what boosted their economy in the 20s, and after the '29 krach ? Yes: a war economy! With government investments in heavy industries (steel & energy), and the Cold War competition with the Eastern block required the US to foster government funded research in aerospace and electronics... Was it 'free trade' that came up with that Internet idea and the 'new economy' that followed on ? No, it was a government-funded project: DARPA.

Sure, the government wouldn't have done everything on its own. Industries cannot be efficient with a civil-servant type of mentality. But as another poster added in one of the replies, what we need is more cooperation between the government and the industries. The corporate world must accept to pay taxes and therefore reduce their immediate profits, so that long-term government-funded research may yield results that industries will use in their products later on. A sort of planned economy would lead to an optimum balance between private profits, global economy and citizen's interests (jobs, environment and so on). 'Free trade' as defined by the WTO is the opposite of a planned economy: it will only reach a sub-optimal balance where everything benefits the corporate world, at the expense of jobs, the well-being of citizens and the environment.

In the end, it's also a matter of democracy and choosing who really decides of economic policies: we can leave this up to a handful of technocrats at the WTO and the Federal Reserve, or we can decide to handle this as citizens, with our own votes.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[dnnrly]

There is a school of thought that takes into account the development status of a nation when applying protectionist policies. In general, the less developed an economy is, the more protectionism required.
For example, a 3rd world African nation generally spends a lot of money on arming itself and less on basic infrastucture. This has 2 effects, 1. money is going out of that country to buy arms because these nations rarely have a local industry capable of supplying these needs. 2. lack of spending on infrastructure (including roads, hospitals and schools) means that there is no investment that will give that nation the ability to supply its own needs. All this occurs before considerations for monetary issues. Internal investment also distributes internally, which is required to list people out of poverty.

As a nation becomes more developed less protectionism is required but it shouldn't be removed altogether. It should be treated as a sliding scale. Protectionism isn't just stopping moeny going out of a nation, it's about persuading people in that nation to invest it in other people in that nation. It's about human factors too.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[Anonymous Coward]

>If you'd prefer the stability of a socialist system, then by all means, move to a communist country!

Dude, if I could afford to, I'd go in a heartbeat. If the economy ever does 'pick up' again, I am going to get some travelling money and bail, find a country that is more sane.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone in India can do your job - in its entirity - better or cheaper than you can, and your employer insists on paying for you instead, what do you think that does to the business you work in?

There's a name for this: it's called "waste". The protectionist arguments all boil down to "Companies should be forced to waste money to keep us in jobs!".

It's the same argument the steel industry used a couple years back to get Shrub to impose steel tariffs - and steel users throughout the country are now feeling the pain of paying for more expensive products. It's a recipe for industrial obsolescence.

Protectionism is a tactic of third-world politics, for people who are more concerned about their popularity with their own tribe than with the prosperity of their children. If you want to live in a third-world country, there's no need to emigrate - just apply this sort of politics to the USA for a generation or so, and you'll be there.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus breakdancing Christ. If I see one more hand-waving post devoid of either fact or theory, I will scream.

Welcome to Slashdot! Hope you like screaming soprano.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[gnuLNX]

Finally a post on slashdot which an educated view of the way the world works.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[Anonymous Coward]

good luck with that cowboy! i'm sure you'll actually do it.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[Anonymous Coward]

One, as a Virginian, I care about as much about a guy in Texas as I do about a guy in Afghanistan.

That is sad.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[An Onerous Coward]

Read your post, and start screaming.

Now, how in the hell could a law that keeps 75000 jobs in the US be costing $15 billion? It's certainly not because corporations are forced to pay local workers $200,000 each when they could move the jobs offshore and pay... nothing? Show me a US clothing manufacturer who pays their factory workers 1/10 that much, and I'll be surprised. Even factoring in those pesky worker safety laws and environmental regulations that drive up the cost of US manufacturing, and you still can't come close to $200K.

Nor can I imagine that the feds are spending $15B to administer this law. Cite a source, because I'm convinced this statistic of yours is bogus. It can't cost $15B to hire 75,000 low-skilled workers, therefore you cannot save $15B by moving 75,000 jobs offshore.

You talk about morality, but how is it moral to save a buck by moving labor to countries where worker protections don't exist, or where greedy governments force people to work fourteen hour days? If free trade means I might lose a job opportunity to someone in India, I have no problem with that. If free trade means my neighbor loses a factory job to a Chinese sweatshop which pays just enough to keep the hut thatched, that's an outrage.

I'm not in favor of protectionism because some "nasty furriner" is going to get my job. I'm in favor of protectionism because current open trade practices mean we don't have to live with the consequences of our actions.

Have a dangerous, highly polluting industry? We have four choices: Spend the money to clean it up. Rely on the industry less. Live in our own filth. Outsource the industry to the brown people, and let them live in our pollution. Guess which one we consistently choose?

Have a labor-intensive, low-yield industry like clothing manufacturing? Again, we have several options: We can dive in and do the grunt work ourselves (and deal with labor unrest if we don't compensate workers for their effort). We can work to automate the manufacturing, effectively driving down the costs of production while freeing up the time and energy of hundreds of thousands of people. We can live with less clothing, or clothing that is simpler to manufacture. Finally, we can shove the grunt work off to someone who is just happy having a crowded little apartment and enough kerosene to boil the dysentery out of the water.

In the end, we would have higher prices and crappier consumer goods, but we would also have more effective pollution control technology, less pollution, and more automation in manufacturing (read: More economic bang for each hour of labor, and more free time). But there is no need to make these investments, so long as we have the third world as cheap, commodity labor.

I caught a small glimpse of this phenomenon while volunteering for a short time at a non-profit food canning shop. Most of their labor came from unpaid volunteers, many of whom were receiving handouts from the organization that ran it. I wasn't there long, but I could see dozens of ways to improve the efficiency of their canning process. But most of them involved some level of investment in mechanization, so why install a conveyor belt between point A and point B when you can just have your free labor roll stuff around? Had they been paying their labor even minimum wage, the place would be losing money hand over fist. That's what we get with the current economic empirialism: labor so cheap that it makes no sense not to squander it on low-value activities.

Again, I don't mind losing opportunities to overseas workers. They've got to eat too. I'm not even that distraught about their ability to use their lower cost of living as a bargaining chip.

But I do get concerned when I see a bunch of executives sitting around a table, voting to move a thousand highly skilled technical jobs, and splitting the millions amongst themselves. I get concerned because their actions are so blatantly self-serving. I

Re:This is basic economics people!

[ph1ll]

Devoid of fact? Well, better than getting the facts wrong.

Free-trade is a basic tool of a capitalist economy. It has a proven track-record of working (eg: France under Napoleon

Napoleon controlled bread prices for the welfare of the people. Check this link for more information.

Stop swallowing dogma wholesale. A recall of facts goes some way to showing intelligence. But if you regurgitate the misinformation of self-interested people, that goes all the way to showing stupidity.

Go check the web for other places where accepting American-style free trade has damaged the economy (eg, New Zealand in the 80s and 90s) and abandoning free trade has protected it (eg, Malaysia since the Asian crisis).

There is no "one size fits all" solution in economics.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[Anonymous Coward]

Free-trade is also the only thing that makes sense in a democracy.

All right, who started the global democratic government and forgot to tell me about it?

Re:This is basic economics people!

[fishbowl]

> It has a proven track-record of working (eg:
>France under Napoleon, the modern EU, the US of
>fucking A!).

There are compelling arguments that each of your examples is/was an unmitigated disaster.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[HiThere]

Free Trade makes several basic assumptions that aren't true. E.g., it assumes that the government isn't intervening on behalf of the wealthy and powerful. When you have that, what you end up with isn't free trade. It assumes that workers have equal mobility with jobs. Another fallacy. (Or perhaps simplifying assumptions. When the theory was built this was nearly true.)

Sorry, we don't have a free trade system, we have a system where the wealthy and powerful have all the advantages of both free trade and socialism, and the remainder of the people have all the disadvantages of both free trade and socialism. The appropriate description for that certainly isn't free trade. Autocracy is closer, but also not on the mark. And Oligarcy only describes the center of power, not the method of control. There may not be an accurate descriptive term, but I'm certain you get the general idea.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[ggwood]

be-fan wrote: "NAFTA really didn't cause all American jobs to be sucked to Mexico, did it???" no, no you have to look to China to find where those jobs went. They moved to Mexico, but US$400/month was not low enough. They moved to China but US$100/month is not low enough. They are currently moving to Vietnam where US$30/month is sounding better. This from marketplace.org, not exactly a basiton of liberal bias. Check out the Dec 9th episode.

All I ask is that the consumer know what pay the people making the shoes make. Then you can decide if you want to buy shoes make by people making $30/month or $400/month or whatever - information is also essential to capitalism.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[be-fan]

(eg: France under Napoleon
Free trade ? Man, France was at war with pretty much all the countries they had not invaded back then! There was certainly no trade at all with the UK, for instance!
--------
Before Napoleon, there are numerous internal barriers inside France. There was no free trade *within* the country. Napoleon tore down those barriers, which caused a huge improvement in the French economy.

Er, with heavily subsidized farms ? You call this 'free trade'?
------
Farm subsidies don't have a whole lot to do with free trade. They're bad, but they are not an indication that the EU does not support free trade.

Subsidizing agriculture was (and still is, at large) the the basics of the EU!!!
------
Your logic is flawed. Just because the EU has certain bad economic policies doesn't mean that all their economic policies are bad. The EU has tried very hard to tear down trade barriers between EU member nations, and for the most part, it has worked.

Was it 'free trade' that came up with that Internet idea and the 'new economy' that followed on ?
--------
Free trade has nothing to do with "the new economy." Its an idea that goes back hundreds of years to British economic theory.

No, it was a government-funded project: DARPA.
----------
And your point is? Economic theory actually accepts that the government is necessary for certain things which the free market does not produce efficiently. National defense (DARPA is part of the DoD) is one of them.

In any case, when I was talking about the USA, I was more referring to the US's trade in the wester hemisphere, particularly with Canada. Free trade has been extremely good for both economies in this case.

In the end, it's also a matter of democracy and choosing who really decides of economic policies: we can leave this up to a handful of technocrats at the WTO and the Federal Reserve, or we can decide to handle this as citizens, with our own votes.
------------
We are not a country where the will of the mob rules. The people don't know jack-shit about the economy, and there is a reason we put technocrats in charge of it. Don't be fuzzy about this: protectionist laws limit individual freedom. Its as simple as that. Whenever society passes laws to limit individual freedom, they better have a damn good reason. And for protectionist laws, there are no good economic arguments, and no good moral ones --- just gut feelings.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[be-fan]

Now, how in the hell could a law that keeps 75000 jobs in the US be costing $15 billion?
--------
This money is lost in other industries because of the protectionist laws. Consider the recent attempt to put a tarrif on steel. The Europeans threatened to put their own tarrifs on US goods. If this had happened, the steel industry would have made more money, but those other industries would have lost money.

You talk about morality, but how is it moral to save a buck by moving labor to countries where worker protections don't exist, or where greedy governments force people to work fourteen hour days?
----------
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? First, many of the countries in question do have worker protections and governments do not force people to work fourteen hour days. India is a democracy, for god's sake! Beyond that, look at the alternative: these countries have no new jobs at all. Working fourteen hour days is a hell of a lot better than not eating, and more importantly, will help the economy in the long run so you won't have to work fourteen hour days in the future.

Have a dangerous, highly polluting industry? We have four choices: Spend the money to clean it up. Rely on the industry less. Live in our own filth. Outsource the industry to the brown people, and let them live in our pollution. Guess which one we consistently choose?
----------
Guess which one will result in those countries getting enough money to institute proper environmental controls?

Finally, we can shove the grunt work off to someone who is just happy having a crowded little apartment and enough kerosene to boil the dysentery out of the water.
-----------
The correct choice of action depends on which of these actions maximizes our cost/benefit ratio. Certainly, there is nothing bad about giving them the grunt work. We went through that phase in the development of our economy, and the sooner they get through that phase in the development of their economy, the better their economy will be in the long run. There is no quick buck. Industrialization is painful, and you have to go through with it. You can either do it now, or postpone it and suffer in the meantime.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[be-fan]

Why?

Re:This is basic economics people!

[be-fan]

You don't need a global democratic governent. Consider: I'm a CEO. I want to hire offshore workers. Its my money, my company, and my ass on the line. I should be able to hire whomever I want to hire. If the government prevents me from doing so, they better have a damn good reason for it.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[be-fan]

I am dissapointed that programmers are losing their jobs. Cyclical unemployment is the nature of our economy, but that doesn't make it any easier. At the same time, I'm happy that people in India are getting some good jobs. Why should I care more about the former than the later?

Detachment does not necessarily mean a lack of emotion. It means not letting that emotion affect your judgement.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[be-fan]

Just because Napoleon controlled bread prices does not mean that he did not encourage free trade. He tore down trade barriers within France, to the benefit of the economy. We now know that price controls are inherently self-defeating (*cough* New York rents *cough*) but Napoleon did not. That doesn't change the fact that he understood free trade and applied it to his country.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[be-fan]

This is perhaps the only good argument in this direction I've heard. I agree that our government does intervene on the behalf of the wealthy and powerful, but I don't think it happens enough to mitigate the advantages of free trade. If this Enron thing has some decent results, than we might close the CEO loopwhole --- where the CEO doesn't necessarily do what is in the long-term best interest of the company.

I disagree with the equal-mobility argument entirely. If anything, American workers are in a far better position to move to where the jobs are than foreign workers. An American passport does wonders elsewhere in the world.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[An Onerous Coward]

Well, my first attempt at responding sounded just as leftist-pinko-ranty as my original post. Let's just say that I never specifically cited India as a cheap labor hellhole, and I'm still a little fuzzy on the math.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[patternjuggler]

Free-trade is also the only thing that makes sense in a democracy.

Right, but we don't have a world wide democracy do we? Free trade works great for the interstate trade within the U.S., and the EU, but I'm not convinced we can have free trade globally prior to a world wide representative governing system...

Re:This is basic economics people!

[Paul123]

The debates capitalism vs socialism, regulation vs deregulation, free trade vs protectionism, etc are just smokescreens. Everything exists within a context. The real debate should be the nature of this context that best upholds our sacred values. Corporations want to be US corporations because of the respect for property rights, political stability, due process, etc of the US. These aspects of our society exist because of a stable middle class, the same middle class these corporations are selling out. Thus this situation is not sustainable and should not be allowed. The economy should not be a tool for the enrichment of the elite or a pawn of foreign policy. Why are there no unsubsidized, private sector jobs in India that produce goods for Indians? Because there are too many parasites (aka government officials) sucking the blood out of anything truly productive. Let them straighten out their own problems rather than off loading them on us. Let's have free trade with no deficit as Warren Buffet recently proposed. See his Import Certificates proposal: http://www.usafairtrade.com/icplan.htm

Re:This is basic economics people!

[Anonymous Coward]

The capitalist economy only "works" if there the wants (demand) are greater then supply. IE, if we cannot produce enough goods and services to meet demand. Then, and only then is capitalism an efficient mechanism to distribute those goods and services around. In fact, when supply is greater then demand, capitalism generally works to manufacture "demand".

Well, sorry to inform you, but the premise that demand is greater then supply no longer holds for many economic sectors. Food production: we could feed the world, but we burn and destroy excess. Clothes. Energy. Transportation, particularly in the air transportation. Hell, even medicine, drugs, and the like. In all these fields, the production capacity or actual production is higher then demand. And in most manufacturing fields, capacity is greater then demand, as well.

If the premise no longer holds for a large part of the world's economy, then capitalism is no longer the best or even a good solution to the problem of how to divide world production of goods and services around the economy. Capitalism has many flaws, such as inherent social inequality, a tendency to subvert political systems, and great difficulty in dealing with monopolies and hidden costs. These problems have today become global and very important. In the light of these facts, why do we keep insisting that capitalism is the best economic system for the current situation?

In fact, at this point, advocating capitalism means essentially advocating our self-destruction as a species. Yes, it might make a privileged class of the very rich feel very nice and powerful for a while, but eventually we will all pay the price of the destroyed environment, rampant poverty, social instability, wars, and other unpleasantness.

Not to mention that historically capitalism ultimately led to imperialism as its most advanced expression. And imperialism led us to two world wars. The problem lies in the fact that the third world war might just mean we will wipe ourselves off the face of the planet.

So yeah, I am all for shipping all advocates of capitalism to say, Mars. So they can enjoy the fresh air and tranquile, sterile, natural environment there. Or to the Moon, where they can be free to nuke each other to their heart's delight. Or the outer asteroid belt, where they can mine the asteroids for precious metals and have a few rich capitalist miners drown themselves in gold, silver and platinum. By all means, let us kick them off this planet. For they plan to murder it.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[Anonymous Coward]

We are not a country where the will of the mob rules. The people don't know jack-shit about the economy, and there is a reason we put technocrats in charge of it. Don't be fuzzy about this: protectionist laws limit individual freedom. Its as simple as that. Whenever society passes laws to limit individual freedom, they better have a damn good reason. And for protectionist laws, there are no good economic arguments, and no good moral ones --- just gut feelings.

---------------

Wrong - there is an excellent reason. It's in our nation's best interests to limit the offshoring. We know the behavior of companies is such that they will do what they can to maximize their own situations, even if it involves shafting their own countrymen. We saw it in the early 1930s and had to pass the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) to stop the abuses. Looks like we'll be needing to do those same thing again since our corporations, who exist at the whim of the population, have again turned traitorous.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, he encouraged free trade except when he was doing things like controlling bread prices...?

Glad we cleared that up.

Re:This is basic economics people!

[be-fan]

Free trade has nothing to do with price controls, dipshit. Free trade and lack of price controls are both part of the free market, but you can do one without doing the other.

Its getting too much

[tanveer1979]

Cant you stop whining for once. I mean I hardly see any posts saying that ford/GM etc should not sell cars in other countries.

sure, lets stop outsourcing completely. But before that lets make ford and GM shut down all their plants. US should stop dumping its products(Coke pepsi and other trash) in third world countries. And also should keep its troops within its own borders

C'mon guys, you cant have it both ways. Either go the complete close economy, as the anti-globalization fanatics preach. No hollywood movies, no pepsi, co coke no McDonalds blah blah, or you have to have it completely open. In a global economy you lose some you gain some its simple. Engineers may lose jobs and stockholders may gain value. But thats a different story altogether

Outsourcing is here to stay. find out how to live with it. Its no use to complain. But if you dont want it well close down your borders. Take away your pepsi coke Ford GM Mcdonalds KFC Levis etc., etc.,

Re:Its getting too much

[CAIMLAS]

What logic, if any, are you using in determining that the US "can't have it both ways": keeping high-paying jobs and having a global presence?

Global economy is not the same as globalism. Every powerful empire since the beginning of time has had a global economy where they are the largest benifactors. You don't read about Rome sending all of their traders and merchants to other countries, do you? No, of course not.

Re:Its getting too much

[Anonymous Coward]

. You don't read about Rome sending all of their traders and merchants to other countries, do you? No, of course not


But you do hear Rome importing raw material from "barbarians" and selling them good stuff back. Unfortunately, labor is just a commodity in the market. Coke and Pepsi are your finished products, like it or not. If you want to receive the benifits of corporations doing well, invest in the market or work towards making your government plug tax loopholes for the corporations. If you dictate what business can be done with a friendly trading partner, you are a communist.

Re:Its getting too much

[cquark]

C'mon guys, you cant have it both ways. Either go the complete close economy, as the anti-globalization fanatics preach. No hollywood movies, no pepsi, co coke no McDonalds blah blah, or you have to have it completely open.

Why do you think such extremism is necessary or even a good idea? No economy today is completely closed or completely open. While we can debate where on the scale we should stand, it's clear that both extreme positions are too harmful for any nation to adopt for long.

Countries would be foolish to allow industries like defence where security matters or essential ones like agriculture to be completely exported. While the modern U.S. provides too many protections for its farmers, I would suggest that people remember the history of the U.K. and Germany struggling to feed their populations during two world wars and that rationing continued in the U.K well into the 1950's before they decide to let everything be completely open.

Re:Its getting too much

[Strych9]

Fine, if outsourcing is so good, why can't we buy goods directly from other countries. AKA that 100$ pair of NIKE shoes should now be sold at the prices over there, say 2-10$?? How about getting my graduate textbook for 5$ instead of 100$. If I could live on 5$ a day while eating good meals etc, then fine.

But I don't think the big corps that are benefiting from the outsourcing are going to be very receptive to lowering prices to indian levels. So it isn't free trade, not even fair trade, hell barely actual captialism.

WTF?!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Damit I should've been a psychology major instead of CS, no job prospects for both but at lest I get to look at pretty girls during class."

There are cute girls in CS at least at my college. Psych girls are cute but not geeky. Psych degree holder here.

OK. Manufacturing jobs went to Mexico. Now, computer jobs ar going to India. Economist (I hate them) say that it will bring us more jobs. Mmmmm, like what? For my degree, I can get a $10/hour job dealing with drug addicts and depressed people. What if I want to work at a lab as I was trained to do? Too bad, clinical psych dominates and all other forms of psych are reduced to near non-existance. Thus, it's hard to do what I went to school for even with a PhD since there aren't many jobs for that.

Let's expand it. Engineering degree holders can't find jobs since corps can save money by sending those jobs to, say, Spain for an example. Nuclear and chemical stay here while other fields are being sent to Spain. Thus, those engineers are left with almost nothing.

My point is that a group of people can make bad judgements and it can effect us all. Will the outsourcing stop at IT? Will it include some social services (imagine a suicidal kid calling India for help) or even low level business jobs? At what point will they stop? If they send off high paying jobs and leave the low paying ones, would the requirements increase due to lots of degree holders? Would I have to compete against an engineer for a burger flipping job? I lived in MI and I did see this kind of thing a few years ago.
(2 am and tired but can't sleep. Gin might help the above make sense.)

I do believe that part of the problem is the geeks themselves. Demanding $80k salaries during the booming 90's made sense. Then, over time, geeks got cocky and demanded more benefits. Companies can pay a CEO through stock options. Geeks wanted that too. Look at current commercial software. Most of what I used has bugs (all software does) and won't work right. ZoneAlarm sent my browser to a warning page and wouldn't let me reset my home page. With low quality software and demanding geeks, companies must outsource to get good programmers that want a good income without driving up costs and willing to produce good code. I dealt with geeks left and right (I'm almost one) and the attitude of deserving a great income just for having a CS degree is a joke. It's about skills and using them to earn a higher income, not demanding one just for having a degree and being a geek. Used to, only geeks could build thier own PCs. Now normal people can do it as well. Hell, I build my own PC and it runs Linux! Geeks need to rethink thier demands and be realistic. The great .com boom is over and it will never return.

Sorry to offend but it had to be said by an outsider.

Some more statistics on the subject-I'm not dead.

[Anonymous Coward]

" I know alot of engineers who are flipping burgers and selling stereos burdened by student loans (which survive bankrupcy!)."

But not death. ;)

maybe I'm missing something

[Wansu]

"Apart from huge savings, it allows US companies to concentrate on their core competencies and the people (in the US) can move on to higher paying, more creative, more value generating jobs."

What higher paying, more creative, more value generating jobs?

Re:maybe I'm missing something

[Killswitch1968]

That's the problem with trying to promote free trade. It's obvious what jobs will be saved by putting up barriers. But the jobs that will be lost' (read: not be created) because of protection is impossible to determine. Of course any economist knows that such a result can and does happen.

JOIN TOGETHER

[SisyphusShrugged]

Face it, we IT guys are going to have to band together if we want to put some sort of political pressure on the government in order to stop the wholesale destruction of our livelihoods!

The truth of the matter is, the rich CEOs couldnt give a f**k about us, and if things continue the way they have been going there isnt going to be a middle class in this country anymore, just the very poor and the very rich (the gap between the top and bottom quartiles has been increasing non-stop!)

Some good websites are:

http://www.rescueamericanjobs.org/

http://www.washtech.org/wt/

http://www.techsunite.org/

http://www.cwa-union.org/

Bull - a little hisory lesson

[Raul654]

First of all, as much as I love America, it was not the first to emancipate its slaves. A bunch of countries in South America did it in 1821; Mexico - 1829; Britian - 1833; France and Denmark - 1848; and Holland - 1863.

Anyway, America *was* a purely capitalist society until about, oh, 1929. The Great depression hit, and everyone realized the system lacked any kind of checks and balances - these are the 'socialist' elements you are referring to. Social security, welfare, the SEC, the FDIC, the glass-stegal act, the new deal, the CCC, etc etc. These helped insure equity amoung the different players. Unfortunately, a lot of the changes have been rolled back in the last 10 years (both nominally and practically.

Re:Bull - a little hisory lesson

[IAmMaxHarris]

Whoops, my bad. You're right about emancipation not being an American first. I was unintentionally mangling the (true) fact that western civilization was first in the history of cultures in abolishing slavery.

But you're parroting what some very poorly written textbooks have to say about the great depression...

America *ceased* being a true capitalist society with the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.

The great depression was the final, catastrophic result of increasing government intervention in the economy (by which I mean the establishment of the Federal reserve, the income tax, and non-objective laws like the Antitrust Act).

Exportable Jobs

[Esion Modnar]

within companies.

The only jobs that won't eventually export are those which require a physical presence, such as police, fire fighters, doctors, auto mechanics, retail sales clerks, burger flippers, etc. (But I'm sure we can impo

That's not what the BLS says...Iceberg Tipping.

[Anonymous Coward]

" I think a lot of people lost a lot of retirement money in the dot com bust." ... and the Enron and Worldcom scandal, and the thousands of smaller scale versions. Not to mention the Mutual Fund scandals. Corporations aren't through raping the American people.

Re:Exportable Jobs (2nd try)

[Esion Modnar]

(My goddam browser fucked up, let's try again)

Manufacturing jobs (but we already knew that).

And now thanks to the Internet, intellectual jobs, which would include (but is certainly not limited to) programmers, tech support, accountants, scientific research, financial research, and eventually, executive positions within companies.

The only jobs that won't eventually export are those which require a physical presence, such as police, fire fighters, doctors, auto mechanics, retail sales clerks, burger flippers, etc. (But I'm sure we can import some people for those jobs, or replace them with robotic telepresence... eventually.)

Actually, the only job in this country which is guaranteed not to be outsourced, is President of the United States. But I hear the pay is lousy and the hours are long.

economics and history

[sir_cello]

The reality is that outsourcing is good for the economy over the long run - low paid, low skilled jobs are moved elsewhere, and the economy focuses on new jobs. We've all heard these arguments in terms of blue collar work ("car manufacturing, etc"), yet the demand for information technology workers filled the gap.

The same goes for what's happening now: in the long run it will be good. The danger is in the short run: sudden loss of jobs without the ability to restructure could be damaging.

Re:economics and history

[dafoomie]

low paid, low skilled jobs are moved elsewhere

We're not moving burger-flippers. We're moving upper middle class technical jobs. Good paying jobs that you need a degree for.

and the economy focuses on new jobs

What new jobs? Not one person has demonstrated what these new jobs will be. They make references to new, "knowledge" based jobs. What the hell are those? The only jobs we're creating are low level burger flipping jobs, that we will soon have to compete with Mexican immigrants for if Bush has his way.

Re:economics and history

[sir_cello]

Programming is a relatively low skilled job. Requirements engineering, design and high level project management are not. Expect the latter to stay here, but the former to go away.

I know people will argue against that definition, but remember that history shows it to be true: manufacturing was once considered a skilled job (e.g. part/machine production, assembly, etc) - yet it gradually became automated or low skilled.

However, within this there is an element of globalisation happening where some high level job will move overseas, simply a result of other countries moving up in the world (e.g. India is becoming [gradually] a somewhat first world country).

I don't have the answers entirely, but in the context of blue collar work and manufacturing, pretty much the same retort was given as you give: "what new jobs", yet they do come along, and also it requires the governments, institutions, professions and universities to play a role in supporting new training and everything else.

Re:economics and history

[Anonymous Coward]

Programming is a relatively low skilled job

Then why does it require a 5 year $30,000 degree?

Re:economics and history

[smallpaul]

What new jobs?

We can't know today, but we can guess:

• Nanotechnology
• High-end materials
• Entertainment industry
• Governance of these new international entities
• Local support and management of the new technical infastructure being built in India (someone has to select, install and integrate software...being a CIO is not a low-end job)
• Fuel cells

Anyhow, it is a fallacy to think that the jobs need to move from one sector to some particular other sector. America will always have programmers, just as it still has factories and farms. There will be fewer programmers, as there are fewer factories and farms. But given that America's economy is still largely non-tech, the programmer jobs can move to non-tech positions. What does your father do? What does your mother do? What do your siblings do? What does your spouse do? What do your inlaws do? Those other job categories still exist and will always exist.

Re:economics and history

[toiletmonster]

jobs in my last company are being shipped off shore and i'm not surprised. it was a low skill job. everyone there was doing java and sql and C, but they all had degrees in psychology and biology and other useless majors (they had been hired during the boom in the 90s when there were was a shortage of programmers). if psychology majors and english majors can be productive programmers in a few short months, then so can can people in asia. granted but these people were writing buggy awful code. but i guess its working enough that the company is hiring again and is somehow the leader in its market. i think there are lots of low skill programming jobs out there. there are some very high skill programming jobs too. but i just don't think programming is necessarily that high skilled. it can be, but often its not.

Re:economics and history

[Grishnakh]

Programming is a relatively low skilled job. Requirements engineering, design and high level project management are not. Expect the latter to stay here, but the former to go away.

This is bullshit. No one goes to school to become a project manager or a requirements engineer. These are jobs you work your way up to. This means you need the lower-level jobs for people to start in before they're competent enough to move into the management positions. If you send all those jobs offshore, you no longer have anyone to draw the managers from, and you also have no one left to manage. What do you think, there's going to be whole offices of managers here in the US whose only job is to manage workers in India?

And how the hell is programming "low skilled" when it takes a CS or EE degree to be qualified for it?

Re:economics and history

[Grishnakh]

My relatives all have crappy jobs and are broke, or are retired from crappy low-paying jobs. That's why I went to school and got a degree in Electrical Engineering. So much for the idea of earning a good future with lots of education...

Re:economics and history

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there are stupids who pay for it. 10 grade boys can program better.

Re:economics and history

[sir_cello]

You're just repeating FUD and not learning from history. All of your arguments were once applicable to some previous generation of workers and technology. Maybe my terminology is not correct, but the principle standards.

I love the math they are using

[Anonymous Coward]

So, a loss of 2 million jobs will equal +22 million jobs for the US??

Great! Then let's outsource those 20 million jobs and then get 200 million jobs in return! That will mean that everyone who wants a job in the US can finally have a job! Hurray!!!

sigh

[shagar_z]

It's soo suprising to see a research firm that pushes off-shoring is also a company that helps to reorganize companies... ooh i think thats a connection man these economists need to take a standard college research class again. Take the opinion of a non directly intrested organization then one that makes its money expecially now though the activity. (note: yes i know there really are non intrested orgaizations but seesh at least some try ;-P )

Second is the basic thing that i was reading higher in the posts also thinking the other day there are really 2 types of jobs that cant go over seas. Super high position jobs (the CEO's etc that make the outsorcing happen) and ones that require a physical presence such as plumbers automachanics store workers etc. While there are some high paying jobs that require this physical presence there are many more that pay ~minimum wage.

These just help pull to wage stratification. Is capitalizim bad no if it's done in moderation. Some is good all is bad it's nice to help your backyard and then help others.

Just remeber you should clean your own house before you clean others ;). You can help but why help when its of a visible detriment to the majority of who your affecting ;).

And in other news...

[Corpus_Callosum]

A spokesman for the consortium of Japanese car manufacturers along with his special-interest counterpart in Washington issued a report on 78million new U.S. jobs that will be created by outsourcing the manufacturing of automobile parts from the major U.S. auto manufacturers to the ultra-efficient manufacturing centers of Japan.

My prediction:

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot will stop to suck completely by 2078.

let china do the work-labour diet.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I think we'll be able to outsource housing to places like China. How so? Simple, anyone here heard of manufactured housing (and no that's not just trailer homes.)? Build the modules cheaply elsewere. Ship to the US, and offload onto a flatbed truck. Drive to site and put together with a much smaller crew than would normally be used for build-from-scratch housing. Oh, and profit!!!

BTW anyone seen that PBS story on "litton" (?) post-war porcelain and metal frame houses? build a house in a day.

Where's the beef?

[labradore]

Without even speaking to the fact that these numbers seem quite dubious, there is almost no logical analysis in this article. The author, has failed to logically connect outsourcing jobs offshore to creating jobs in America. She has failed to characterize the 22M new jobs as a real benefit to the American popluation. Forgive me, but this article seems to like kind of work that one might expect from a contractor who bids a project at 1/5th the price of his competitors. It's reminicent of, say, the work done by some foreign outsourced service companies. The article is bareboned, uninspired and almost totally without merit as news. Only the editors who published and linked to this story could feel more ashamed of it than it's author.

That would appear to be the good news. I think that the bad news is that outsourcing isn't going to last long as a real solution for cutting certian labor costs. Instead, companies are going to realize that it really is dangerous and conterproductive to export too much proprietary data and work to outside firms. Instead of purely outsourcing a job to India or elsewhere, companies are going to put more effort to set up real offices in those countries bringing the foreign workers in-house. It has been going on for a while, but recent progress in telecommunication has led companies to choose quick-and-dirty outsourcing to bridge cultural and political gaps and reap cost savings. As executives become more adept at dealing with the foreign cultures and labor marketplaces (esp. by acquiring foreign executives who understand the foreign places) they will be able to achieve both better cost savings and better overall security by untying their internal organization from traditional geographic divisions. Companies will further embrace doing whatever part of their business "needs" to be done in whatever part of the world they can do it cheapest. It's still globalization, but it's more pervasive than just redistributing production centers and opening new markets to sales. It's re-distributing the locus of control within each company.

Here's some predicitons: The biggest U.S. export for a while is going to be culture. Foreigners who want to work for U.S. globalized companies in their own countries are going to have to work in many ways within western cultural frameworks and they will bring that culture home to their families and neighbors. The U.S. dollar will continue a long, slow decline in (relative) value, as will the Euro, eventually. This is a natural result of the strengthening of competing currencies of the foreign nations which will be supplying the new, eager middle-class labor forces. As more countries follow India's example of embracing western culture and education, they will gain a share in the job market.

Hopefully, as western culture (particularly the English language and the values of capitalism) become more pervasive, people will also break down political barriers. It all does seem a long way off, but almost certainly the 100 years of the 21st century will witness more and faster changes in the human landscape of the world than the 20th, due to the interconnectedness of the world (think about, for instance, that probably for all of the next 100 years, people will be able to make a phone call or send email anywhere in the world instantly. In 1900 this was hardly even a dream.) and the continuously-increasing pace of technological advance. Probably third world nations will not disappear, but wealth and poverty are likely to be distributed more evenly (geographically, anyway) throughout the globe. That is, after all, what we're ultimately worried about in out own small way. We (all) want the opportunity to make ourselves useful and prosperous. It's just going to take some suffering and upheaval before things equalize. Buckle up.

Re:Where's the beef?

[klahnako]

http://www.bls.gov/emp/emptab3.htm

Shows you that U.S. Department of Labor is pulling numbers out of thier asses. Look at their growth projections by occupation. Not only are they "predicting" 22m more jobs in 2010, but it looks like most of those jobs will be in the tech sector! Yay!

My assesment of the DOL is that they are a right-wing think tank with an objective to blind the public with false information.

Re:Where's the beef?

[Anonymous Coward]

India is Western culture since India is
a Aryan country.

Hinduism is by definition the religion of
Aryans and the swastika is the hindi word
for the holiest symbol in India, used in
all weddings, funerals and ceremonies.

Re:Where's the beef?

[Anonymous Coward]

"India is Western culture since India is a Aryan country." No! India is not. India has people of many races. "Hinduism is by definition the religion of Aryans" No. First of all there is no word as "Hinduism". It is creation of some Western intellectuals who were seeing world through their religious prism. Vasudeva Katumbkam is the underlying philosophy which sayd All world's family. There is no East or West. Also, Hinduism is by definition society based on religion called Sanatan Dharma! "and the swastika is the hindi word for the holiest symbol in India, used in all weddings, funerals and ceremonies." I will not use word Holy but Auspicious. The Holiest of all is Om!

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Ami Ganguli]

Not all jobs are equal, but all jobs are valuable, whether filled by illegal immigrants or not.

Immigrants and other low-wage earners tend to live from paycheck-to-paycheck, so they don't save much money and don't really take much out of the economy. The money they spend creates jobs for somebody else - it's called the 'multiplier effect'. Higher paid jobs are good, but those individuals tend to save a greater proportion of their salary, resulting in 'leakage' and a smaller multiplier.

So three low-skill, low-wage jobs are actually better than one high-skill, high-wage job (assuming the salaries add up to the same). But of course, three high-skill, high wage jobs beat that.

Tired of this offshoring whine on /.-backhanded.

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of blatent ignorance. What makes you think Indians will become impoverished if we impliment protectionist policies? Indians can get work from EU or any other place on the globe. They don't NEED the US, to have all the good qualities they have.

Re:Unemployment numbers may not tell the whole sto

[Anonymous Coward]

The unemployment rate is based off of the monthly Current Population Survey, a survey of households. It does not come from unemployment benefit records.

Can't Outsource me-HB-1 Sperm

[Anonymous Coward]

"So much for my grand dreams of being a low level code monkey. I guess I'll have to settle for being a high level code monkey."

Unfortunately your sperm production is being outsourced to a bunch of mice.

Re:Niggers (black people)

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to mention black pussy.

I just love it. There's nothing better after a hard day's work at the cubicle than having your pimpin' home-negro to bring black booty to your place for free.

HP's Outsourced Support Quality

[PizzaFace]

A data point on the quality of outsourced tech support:

My neighbor's HP Pavilion kept putting a window on her screen last week, saying her Windows license had expired, and that she needed to enter her credit card number and expiration to validate her copy of Windows, but not to worry because her credit card would not be charged.

My neighbor is in her 80s, but her memory is good and she didn't remember anything about an expiration date for Windows. So she called HP support and got a man with an Indian accent. She told him the problem, and he asked, "How old is your computer?" She told him it was a couple years old, and he said, "If it's that old, Windows could be expired. Try entering the information as requested and see what happens."

Fortunately, my neighbor is much smarter than HP's outsourced call center, and didn't take their advice. She called me and we cleaned mimail.s off her computer. She promises she won't buy from HP again.

Re:HP's Outsourced Support Quality

[radish]

What you have demostrated is that HPs support is crappy. There is no evidence in your story that the fact that the tech was in India had any bearing on that. What makes you think a US based tech would be any better? The vast majority of these call-centre techs are useless, and they're all the product of the training and support given by their employer. So blame HP.

Re:HP's Outsourced Support Quality

[Anonymous Coward]

I am Advanced sollution group specialist for Bellsouth a southern DSL ISP. You dont realize how many people dont wanna deal with India support people. One person had there Indian support specialist tell them to copy a version of win xp we are not supporting win 98 anymore. Luckily they remembered the techs name and number and I gave the number to the Business Software Alliance and hopefully they will get there call center and themself fined.

NAFTA tens years later

[gad_zuki!]

>NAFTA really didn't cause all American jobs to be sucked to Mexico, did it???

Why, yes it did.

Good piece here

>If you'd prefer the stability of a socialist system, then by all means, move to a communist country!

Logical fallacy here. You are ignoring other solutions like better economic planning and fixing the problems our policies have done.

Good piece at the nation here:

The business-backed politicians who pushed the agreement through the three legislatures promised that NAFTA would generate prosperity that would more than compensate "ordinary" people for its lack of social protections. Foreign investors would make Mexico an economic tiger, turning its poor workers into middle-class consumers who would then buy US and Canadian goods, creating more jobs in the high-wage countries.

But as soon as the ink was dry on NAFTA, US factories began to shift production to maquiladora factories along the border, where the Mexican government assures a docile labor force and virtually no environmental restrictions. The US trade surplus with Mexico quickly turned into a deficit, and since then at least a half-million jobs have been lost, many of them in small towns and rural areas where there are no job alternatives.

Meanwhile, Mexico's overall growth rate has been half of what it needs to be just to generate enough jobs for its growing labor force. The NAFTA-inspired strategy of export-led growth undermined Mexican industries that sold to the domestic market as well as the sixty-year-old social bargain in which workers and peasant farmers shared the benefits of growth in exchange for their support for a privileged oligarchy. NAFTA provided the oligarchs with new partners--the multinational corporations--allowing them to abandon their obligations to their fellow Mexicans. Average real wages in Mexican manufacturing are actually lower than they were ten years ago. Two and a half million farmers and their families have been driven out of their local markets and off their land by heavily subsidized US and Canadian agribusiness. For most Mexicans, half of whom live in poverty, basic food has gotten even more expensive: Today the Mexican minimum wage buys less than half the tortillas it bought in 1994. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Mexicans continue to risk their lives crossing the border to get low-wage jobs in the United States.

Lets not forget that free trade is largely an illusion when farmers keep getting subsidized and when social safety nets, wages, and the environment take a beating in the name of 'free trade.'

Re:NAFTA tens years later

[MadHungarian1917]

In theory "Free Trade" is a good thing however in practice it has led to a global race to the bottom for wages in all countries.

What modern megacorporations have forgotten is the social contract which allowed them to exist in the first place. Simply stated the corporation would be allowed to accumulate capital and generate profits for its shareholders in exchange for creating jobs for workers in its marketplace.
In the past the management of the corporation lived in the community they could see the effect of their policies on the community. Hence in times past when times got tough salaries would be reduced but people would retain their jobs because the management actually saw these people every day. Now since employees are nothing but an abstraction on an excel spreadsheet the management does not see them as people but as chattel and acts accordingly.

In the Reagan years the watchword became "Maximization of shareholder value" and the implied contract dropped off the map we are now reaping the whirlwind from the seeds sown in the Reagan era. We are now seeing the rebirth of lasse faire" capitalism which caused the economic disaster known as the 1890's.

History has shown us repeatedly that "pure" socialism does not work and "pure" capitalism does not work. Both systems benefit a small minority of the population in the first system the commissar's or the nomenklatura benefit in the second the Investor's and the top echelon of management benefit. In both cases the middle class is destroyed and the economy tanks.

In closing the only way to fix this is to vote the miscreants out of office. It is convenient to blame the Bushies but each senator and representative needs to be examined on a case by case basis and YOU need to find out WHO is funding their campaign's.

In Florida for instance the congresscritters from both parties were on a junket to Mumbai funded by a outsourcer. In this case I would say that they ALL need to be voted out of office posthaste regardless of party affiliation since by their actions they seem to acting against the interests of the people they supposedly represent.

Re:NAFTA tens years later

[Killswitch1968]

Yours links are propaganda from left-wing sites, especially citizen.org. If you can find a report with any journalistic integrity you will have a better argument. But interest groups are never credible.

Re:NAFTA tens years later

[bluGill]

Where was NAFTA promised as an instant solution? NAFTA is working very well, but those who have even a little understanding know that it is a long term thing. 10 years ago factories move to Mexico, but it takes years for Mexico to move up. Wait 30 years, and then look at the difference. Quit thinking so short term, we have to survive hard times to get to better times.

Re:NAFTA tens years later

[Anonymous Coward]

and in the meantime we get to see mass poverty (go to Harlem sometime, there are streets that could be used in a save the children ad), mass unemployment and destruction of economy.

Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal-save

[Anonymous Coward]

". Higher paid jobs are good, but those individuals tend to save a greater proportion of their salary, resulting in 'leakage' and a smaller multiplier."

Not in the US they don't. Look at the debt load, and bankruptcy figures, plus the savings figures. Other countries citizens do better when it comes to savings.

Wow, Wall-Mart must really be hiring-RFID

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with the job market isn't JUST outsourcing. It's also efficiency gains from both technology, and working present labour harder.

Grocery stores are already using those shop n' scam checkout lines that require one cashier for four checkouts. Walmart could impliment such a thing coupled with it's RFID inititive (inventory will lose some jobs too). A LOT of these low-paying "service" jobs will simply disappear.

Throw in everything else and these times are going to be the worst times for workers.

Stop your pathetic whining!

[munter]

I fucking laugh out loud watching the architects of the american dream squeal when the game gets played on your own terms. The reason why outsourcing is attractive is because your economy is inflated. It's as simple as that. Welcome to the rest of the world americanos. Sorry, but I have no sympathy. At the very least, you could continue the american ideal and do what this guy did: here For god's sake, get over it. While you guys have been blowing dotcom dollars, the rest of us have just watched in disbelief. Hello! Surprise!

Of course!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because US citizens won't be able to afford internet access by then anyway. I predict that most Americans will be living in houses made of mud and use bottle caps as currency.

Re:Exportable Jobs (2nd try)

[vxvxvxvx]

We can't outsource everything for a simple reason. Once we produce no exportable goods, we'll have no way of paying the would be workers in other countries. Someone still has to produce exportable goods. If they can convince some country like india to do all the work so we can sell it back to them at a higher price, that will work. I don't think it'll happen though, because once that country gets enough experience they're going to realize they don't need us and we're ripping them off. So, we'll have to produce something exportable using Americans eventually, either that or stop importing and eliminate outsourced jobs and we can all be homeless bums.

"Middle Class" a small fraction of country...

[Goonie]

According to this article, about 68 million Indian households have TV sets, scooters, and maybe refrigerators, and that's growing rapidly. Simultaneously, though, over half of India's children don't get enough to eat.

So, yes, India is becoming richer, but it's going to take a long time for that wealth to make it all the way around the community.

Re:"Middle Class" a small fraction of country...

[willtsmith]

And exactly what does the US have to do with children starving in India.

It has about as much to do with the US as EVERYONE starving in North Korea.

There are some rich mother-fuckers in India who sit on their wealth and could give a SHIT less about all those starving kids. So I don't want to hear some sob stories about why Americans have to give their jobs up.

Why???? Because Americans giving up their jobs WON'T HELP starving kids in India when the fundamental problem was NEVER wealth!!!!!

Wrong.

[rcs1000]

-1, completely no understanding of government finance or economics

Your figures are absolutely and completely wrong.

Firstly, corporate profits as a % of US GDP have been falling for the last 8-10 years, and represent c. 8% of GDP from 12% at their peak. In the last 100 years profits as a % of GDP has ranged from 6-12%. (Source: Datastream.)

Secondly, taxes are paid of out of income. Either through consumption taxes (out of income) or straight income taxes. Corporate taxes (see this weeks Economist at www.economist.com) account for only a few percent of GDP.

Thirdly, I tend to agree with you re supply-side. *BUT* that doesn't mean you know diddly-squat about economics.

Regards,

Robret

Re:Wrong.

[Mod Me God]

Excellent! The first time I have seen Datastream cited on /.! Pity though, economics and finance is typed about so much here, but so much is cr4p.

Don't worry about Doc Ruby, it is an opinionated self-rightous troll who comments on almost everything with little knowledge and less insight. (OTOH, I am seriously considering the possibility that Doc Ruby is a sophisticated BOT).

So, where is all this outsourcing?

[cruachan]

As a European independent consultant/developer contracting to a range of clients in the SME and similar sectors I've seen absolutly no impact from outsourcing over the past few years and I'm still scratching my head trying to figure how it could.

The problem is that for my clients the idea that they could develop any system specification sufficently precise to give to an outsourcing company is frankly ludicrous. For example I've been writing a medium sized clothing hire program for a client for the past 6 months. This sounds like an ideal 'specify and hand out to india' project, except that the client really didn't have much idea what they wanted when we started beyond 'we want a hire program', 'here's an old DOS based-system that does something like' and 'we have these bits of paper'. The amount of iteration, exploration, respecification and general systems analysis that has gone on from then is frightening, but hardly unusual. In the process I've crawled though virtually every aspect of the business and even sat in with them on visits to their suppliers, associates and clients. You can't do that from india.

Now, of course I've considered splitting the work by doing the systems analysis myself and subcontracting the rest to india. However because of the iterative nature of the process that's not really feasible, plus the relatively small size of the project would mean setting up overheads etc would negate the cost saving. Some might say that the development process shouldn't be iterative but I should insist on completing and signing off a full spec up front, but while that could be done it wouldn't lead to satisified clients, and my clients do have the wit to realize that.

The same goes for all my clients. I simply don't see how they could replace me by outsourcing to india because they simply don't have the analysis skills to do so. The only way I can see it happening is with a larger 'software' house who can scale by having multiple projects which they outsource for, but do the analysis work here. Trouble is it's difficult to see how the additional overheads of such a company could compete with my almost complete lack of them.

Now, having worked in big business IT a few years ago (financial & manufactoring sectors) I can see how outsourcing would work there because the analysts developed tight specs which were then handled by the programmers - obvious candidates for shipping offshore. Even their though I distinctly remember when I reached analyst (and even analyst/programmer) level that I spent large amounts of time walking around manufacturing plant and talking with people to understand jobs I was adding IT functionality too worked. In fact doing what I do now to some extent, but on an intra-company level.

So, I'm not disputing that development jobs can be outsourced, but surely because of the human interaction needed for much analysis and development work there is a natural limit as to how far it can go and result in satisfied clients. Also, because the use of IT increases all the time in breadth of penetration into the business environment I'd postulate that the general trend for work will be upwards - although there will be a natural impact while the pecentage of work that can be done by outsourcing reaches it's natural effective level, and this impact will be sever in some areas of developer employment but non-existent in others.

Re:So, where is all this outsourcing?

[Aceticon]

Requirements and analysis are definitly non-outsourceable.

On the other hand, software design and development can be outsourced.

This most definitly scares all those out there that are gifted coders and designers (capable of hacking the linux kernel or designing a complex data model) and yet have just about zero ability to understand or make themselfs understood by a customer (the type of people that expects the Head of Marketing to understand a Linux vs Windows joke).
Not to mention those that are not even gifted coders or designers.

As the IT market is going, any ability that only requires direct contact with a machine (such as a computer) is something can be gotten cheaper from India while abilities that require direct person to person contact cannot be moved there - techie skills are out, business and people skills are what's left.

China/India are losing more jobs than we are.

[ron_ivi]

Contrary to what the parent poster suggested, the efficiency of high-tech _is_ bringing jobs back -- it costs just as little to run a robot clothing manufacturer here as it does in other parts of the world. Note that China is losing more manufacturing jobs than the US

"China lost 16 million manufacturing jobs, a decline of 15 percent, between 1995 and 2002, according to a recent study of manufacturing jobs in the 20 largest economies by Joe Carson, director of economic research at Alliance Capital Management. In that same time, U.S. factory employment shrank by 2 million, or 11 percent"

And yes, some industries (software, in particular) are maturing and are no longer high-tech. However as these jobs become commodities, other high-skilled and high-paying jobs in what I like to think of as the new high tech are quickly replacing them. If you don't believe there are good paying jobs around here, explain the still expensive housing prices.

Re:China/India are losing more jobs than we are.

[GMontag]

Effeciency is the name of the game. So many people confuse hourly wages with output-per-hour it is frightning.

If an organization can *get something done cheaper AND better*, THAT is what is important.

Capitialism != Morality

[ChaosMt]

Look, you have some good points and examples, but when you tread onto the moral issues, you're missing some thing. Much of what you're saying is predicated on the basis of an even playing field. In other words, the difference in making a product in western world and (let's say) china is that in the western world, we have rights, limits, and values. In China, they don't take to favorably of you questioning your employee contract. In fact, strikes are very simple to solve: kill'em all. Morals should not be driven by the lowest bidder, if you get my drift. At one time (a long time ago), the US based it's foriegn policy on promoting such freedoms and liberty in the world to expand its markets while bringing good to the world. That's too expensive now, as evidenced by who gets most favored nation trading status. At the current status quo, we could never compete commercially with driven, near-slave labor. Liberty is expensive, and that explains why it keeps being removed by the powers that be.

Secondly, I love how you just waive off the current issues with "a certian class of jobs will be destroyed" and your above example of the disapperence of farm and factory work. Farm work: basic hard labor, not much specialization and it has on the job training and it's not hard to switch to. Factory work: about the same thing, but more training, and often better conditions. Programming: all mental, VERY specialized, large experience and education requirements, not easy to get into. What you're saying to the experinced programmer is all of that time and engergy that was expended in their vocation (and a part of their life's meaning) was pointless. All of their work was for nothing, and now they need to start all over again.

I've noticed the popular economics doesn't care at all for people or humanity, just money. It reminds me of a quote from Stalin: "When 5 people die, it's a tragedy. When 50,000 die, it's a statistic."

Re:Capitialism != Morality

[Anonymous Coward]

Programming does not have large experience and education requirements, for the most part. I know several programmers who were first employed in middle school, and were trained on the job. Programming is not a tough thing to do.

Economics does care for people. Costing every person in the US thousands of dollars just so a few thousand keep their jobs hurts people.

Re:Capitialism != Morality

[be-fan]

Much of what you're saying is predicated on the basis of an even playing field.
----------
None of it is predicated on the basis of an even playing field.

In other words, the difference in making a product in western world and (let's say) china is that in the western world, we have rights, limits, and values.
--------
Well, they have rights, limits, and values in India too. That doesn't stop the logic-train anti-free-trade people. In any case, free trade is doing wonders for human rights in China!

In fact, strikes are very simple to solve: kill'em all.
---------
I cannot remember the last time that happened. Modern China is *not* as barbarian as people think. Link?

At the current status quo, we could never compete commercially with driven, near-slave labor.
--------
Since free-trade benefits both-sides, the other side will not be able to keep up near-slave labor for long. As their economic situation improves, they will demand more leisure time. Such is the nature of economies. Beyond that, our people do not work in jobs where slave-labor is necessary or even useful. Much of our manual labor has been replaced by white-collar work. This is just the nature of our developed economy. The thing you have to understand is that in free trade, countries do not necessarily compete in the same industry. Countries concentrate on the areas in which they have comparative advantage. Much more developed economies like the US should not compete in markets where slave labor is useful.

Programming: all mental, VERY specialized, large experience and education requirements, not easy to get into.
--------
A certain class of programming jobs are like this, but not all. Many programming jobs these days are relatively unskilled, and a guy with a Masters in Computer Science is overkill for them.

What you're saying to the experinced programmer is all of that time and engergy that was expended in their vocation (and a part of their life's meaning) was pointless. All of their work was for nothing, and now they need to start all over again.
-----------
Well that's really just too bad. If the nature of programming has changed such that we no longer need so many skilled programmers, than that's too bad. I don't remember Slashdot crying for all the unemployed liberal-arts PhDs in the 1990s.

I've noticed the popular economics doesn't care at all for people or humanity, just money.
-----------
Modern economics is all warm and fuzzy. It is actually concerned not so much with money, but what people value. For example, a clean environment and leisure time are considered to be goods to which people attach value. Economics is about maximizing those things that people value most highly. In practice, that means maximizing money, because that's what people these days value. That's not the nature of economics, but rather the nature of people.

Re:Capitialism != Morality

[jp10558]

Well that's really just too bad. If the nature of programming has changed such that we no longer need so many skilled programmers, than that's too bad.

My main concern is for those "in the pipeline"(as put in an earlier post on this topic) like myself. We are at a good point to retrain as we are still in college. The problem I have is no one today has a suggested carreer to get into with any long term survivalibility. i.e. 30 years so I can retire afterwords.

This has been stated again and again - in the past creative disruptions or whatever they are called there was a path to retrain too. Farmers saw that they could work in factories or service carreers. Factory Workers saw they could work in Service carreers or Tech or Research. Today I see most carreer jobs being in government. The tech jobs are gone - maintenence jobs are going away - just buy a cheap replacement. Service by phone from somewhere else than the USA.

This leaves us with working for the government which cannot really be sustainable in the long term or working at Fast food restarunts which also is not sustainable. Where I live the biggest employer for entry level people was NCI a call center. This was after IBM moved out, etc... Guess what? People don't plan on making that a carreer for 2 reasons. One $8 an hour(which is high paying in the area). The other - how long will that really stay in the USA? It could be done from anywhere.

The big problem is where do we go? The people trying entry level work. Coming out of college in the next year or two. There aren't jobs for us. We can't wait for years for a new industry to emerge. I don't know what would happen if we all tried to go on welfare. I don't know about you all, but I've changed my goal from working at someplace like CISCO or a consultant to trying to get a job with the US government.

Re:Capitialism != Morality

[be-fan]

The future is *always* uncertain. Those farmers did not see factory work as anything more than fledgling, uncertain industries, which they were. There was a huge amount of skepticism and uncertainty about the tech industry as well. Life just works that way, unfortunately.

But there are other fields out there. Academics is always a safe one --- who is going to teach all those outsourced programmers? Classical engineering is a mature, low-growth field, but its also stable and has only moderate competition. Biotech and nanotech are emerging, uncertain, and possibly very high-growth fields. The situation is no different from how it has always been. We're in one of our periodic recessions now, but it is also a nature of our economy that our booms keep getting longer and our recessions less severe. Our current one is the smallest we've ever had! Like all our recessions, it'll pass, and lucky for you, things will be back to normal just as you get out of college.

right

[Doc Ruby]

Reported corporate profits have been falling, partly as a way to avoid taxes; cf. Enron etc. There's also plenty of actually dropping corporate profits, as businesses die in the oxygen-depleted fear economy. The dearth of corporate taxes, which I mentioned in my original post, is a big problem, but their meager amount still must be deducted from the 60% of the US GDP that is not paid to workers. The math is simple. The problem is complex: corporations are getting subsidized by workers in every way, while fuzzy math covers their trail in a cloak of denial.

Your score: F (reading incomprehension).

Re:right

[rcs1000]

See my other post.

The bulk of GDP is paid to workers, either through dividends or wages.

Now - here is the interesting bit; we're actually becoming a more equal society.

The % of people who own their own property, or shares (through their 401K) has never been higher.

Forty years ago, only rich people owned shares in businesses. Now, through mutual funds and 401Ks, millions of people do.

Institutional (rather than rich people) holdings of shares account for 65%+ of stock market capitalisation.

We don't feel richer, because we all need to save for our ever longer and more expensive retirements (rather than relying on extended families, dying young, having cheap health care or the government). But nevertheless, me, an average joe, owns shares in a bunch of enterprises!

I have a (very small!) stake in the future of America. (And Britain, and France, and India...)

Also - I don't get your argument about taxes falling as a % of corporate profits. If you notice, most of the scandals we see these days (Enron, WorldCom, etc.) is about people OVERSTATING profitability ;-)

Re:right

[Doc Ruby]

Again, the numbers are cooked, reverse engineered terms to justify keeping more profits. More people have 401(k)s, but their value is much less - as they have moved their retirement savings into speculation, which lined the pockets of investment bankers and the crooks running these sham corporate shell games. Institutional shareholders are corporate holding companies for rich people, with the exception of big civil service pension funds. The overstated profitability was used to generate giant capital gains, which are taxed less, and more portable than even cash in the global capital markets. The actual accounting, though badly broken, worked well in shielding these corporations from tax liabilities. Cf Microsoft's lack of tax payments, in spite of their vast profit and even more impressive % profitability.

Look, I made a fortune myself in the 1990s bubble, building infosystems for these banks in NYC and Toronto. I understood the systems well enough that I never trusted them with my own money, and sold out to my partners for cash at the end of 1999. I had plenty of chances to be Enron, to invest in Enron, to sell Enron. But there's always a bigger fish, and those waters are full of sharks. So I kept away from their snapping jaws, and got to keep practically all of it. As a corporate profit success, I was appalled at the array of giveaways and soft landings on offer to my ilk. I'm proud of both phases of my corporate career: building real products for real money, with real jobs integrated in the NYC economy, and steering clear of the lies when taking my profit. It's been hard as hell to invest my own money in the Bush economy, with the fear, uncertainty and unaccountable lies riddling the corporate scene. I'm glad I made the money the way I did, or I would have lost it all to the insiders I rejected once I was in the clear.

that, or

[Anonymous Coward]

spend money on food for their kids rather than tvs.

Re:that, or

[javiercero]

...or space programs, or nuclear programs.

But hey, as long as other countries feel sorry for your own kids and send money and food to feed them why would they need to have their priorities straight.

Re:that, or

[tarunthegreat]

You're wrong about the Handouts. India does not ask for handouts at all anymore, in fact, we've REPAID 95% of the foreign debt we had... As for the statistics on TVs there are 1 Billion people in India, and 60% are defined as poor (600 Million). But that leaves another 400 Million people who are Middle Class, Upper Middle Class, Rich, Filthy Rich. Last count I think the US Population was some ballpark 270 Million people....That means there are enough people there who can AFFORD to BUY TVs and the LIKE and feed there children...it's just that there are a lot more poor people too, and naturally, poor people hanging around street corners are going to be a lot more visible than rich people sitting at home watching TVs..SO just coz lots of Indians own TVs doesn't fucking mean they aren't fucking feeding their kids.

Re:that, or

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey it's so great your country is doing so well now!

Can we have our jobs back now?

Thanks!

Re:that, or

[Anonymous Coward]

Guys grow up. Stop whining and be productive.

The actual numbers...

[rcs1000]

OK, from the beureau of economic affairs (http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2003/gdp303 f.htm):

'02 GDP - $10.5trn

of which personal consumption (i.e. purchases by individuals) was $7.4trn

and...

gross private domestic investment was $1.6trn

and...

other was the rest

So - 75% of GDP is accounted for by consumer spending. Unless you estimate that people spend TWICE as mich as they earn (well, I do ;-)) then your figures are absurd.

Also, your estimate of 15K US households is trivially true, but not relevent. Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, etc. account for an absurd proportion of US and world "wealth". But are they really worth that?

If Bill G tried to sell all his MSFT shares (a) he'd pay a fortune in capital gain taxes, and (b) the stock price would sink under the weight of 10s of billions of dollars of stock hitting the market. In fact, when Billy dies, his wife and kids get $10m each, and his charitable foundation gets the rest. Larry and co. (plus Warren B) typically have similar systems in place.

So, your arguments are a little specious, in that Bill G is not screwing the little people through his wealth, only through producing crap software.

Re:22 million jobs

[arc.light]

not $22 million in jobs.

Just to stay even with the number of new workers entering the workforce, the US needs to add 300,000 jobs per month. Multiply 300,000 by 12 months by 6 years (the difference between now and 2010) and you get 21.6 million, a number suspiciously close to the 22 million cited in the article. I'm guessing that the job creation number is based on horseshit.

Re:India

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we should bomb India. I mean, come on, we've bombed the shit out of countries for far less than taking our jobs away!

Economic Sense? Optimize This

[cmholm]

You may teach an optimization class, but your argument sounds like the same doctrinaire crap the economics profs preach as if it were handed down from the Almighty. All human endevors are by their nature inefficient in some way, such that it's always possible to squeeze more productivity out of them.

However, last time I checked, "to maximize efficiency" was not an article of the US constitution. Therefore, if the greater number of voting citizens wish to enjoy some breathing room at the expense of maximized productivity and profits, they have several options. One such is to bring pressure that legislators pass and executive branches enforce laws and regulations acting - how ever imperfectly - as a counter balance to the latest phase in hollowing out the US economic infrastructure.

I forsee a day when you, sir or madam, find that too few of the potential consumers of a post-secondary education are able to afford your product. At that time, I look forward to your report on the benefits of market rigor.

However

[Anonymous Coward]

The working class have no nation.

By definition this isn't free trade.

[Anonymous Coward]

To be labeled free trade requires flow of jobs in both directions.

/. == bunch of selfish assholes

[kaisa_sosey]

Yes, its disgusting. People all over the world have to face the results of a global capitalism. Somewhere people are dying because of it. If you want to whine about something than start with them.

Outsource McKinsey

[Anonymous Coward]

How many of those 22 million jobs created will *themselves* be outsourced? The barriers that existed in the world before no longer exist. Information flows freely. That means Indians and other people can acquire skills that previously only Americans had. Why wouldn't the "higher value" jobs be outsourced? Is there some indication that Indians are not creative or will not be able to develop "higher value" skills? Sure the Indian economy will develop and Indians will buy more. Will it be the US selling them more? Probably not. China would be the first in line.

Fine, but look at core competencies

[fastdecade]

Fine, personally I'm not arguing against free market - companies can send jobs to India if it's more economic, more jobs in western countries etc etc etc

But this is interesting.

it allows US companies to concentrate on their core competencies and the people (in the US) can move on to higher paying, more creative, more value generating jobs.

That's a typical motivation - the problem is, do companies actually have a good handle on their core competencies. Is customer service just a commodity? In this information era, is software development just a commodity?

Of course not. In the case of software development, smart companies have vast opportunities to differentiate themselves, leapfrog competitors, eliminate wasteful processes, receive up-to-date reporting, etc.

You could say that the requirements are the core competency, and the implementation is just a commodity. But if you did, I'd have to accuse you of lacking any practical experience in software development.

Re:Fine, but look at core competencies

[be-fan]

Lots of kinds of software development are now commodity. And for years, companies have been working very hard to make them that way. Witness Java --- whose main design goal is to make things so highly structured and inflexible, that there is only one way to do anything. That makes not only code pluggable, but developers too.

Now of course, this idea doesn't scale to many types of software development, but it certainly holds true for certain types.

Protectionism

[Einer2]

Trust me, I'm normally one of the most vocal opponents of protectionism. However, beyond a point, you simply have to drop ideology and adopt a more pragmatic position. The loss of so many jobs overseas without a new industry to replace them (and right now there really isn't one) will seriously weaken our country.

And regarding the analogy - a better one would be to consider import of raw materials. The government has a long history of imposing tariffs on foreign sources of raw materials when they threaten the health of our domestic industries. Well, right now companies are "importing" the tech support services of foreign employees and are undercutting the domestic supply, and I'm willing to suspend my anti-protectionism leanings and support some manpower tariffs in the name of stabilizing our economy until there's another industry to transition all the extra workers into.

*shrug* As I said, I don't like it when the government interferes in the economy. I just don't see a better option in the near future.

Re:Protectionism

[starm_]

Except that the raw materials are going to be bought anyways because there is a finite amount of them on the planet and if the us wants some, it has to buy it. The tarifs is just a way that the government is going to make a profit on them. And keep the price of us materials high so that companies can make profit.

If you start taxing outsourcing, US companies will just have to move completely to other country or face serious competition from spawning companies that operate at half the price in other countries. India has shown it has the technological knowledge. So in order to keep at least part of the industry here the goverment needs to let it operate efficiently thus letting them do outsourcing.

I guess one way of protecting the US economy would be to tax any products that are made outside the US. You could highly tax foreigh software. That would increase the operating costs of foreign software companies and discourage outsourcing. Although I think it would disadvantage the economy has a whole because companies buying the software would have to pay extra.

But I guess you have the same disadvantage with the raw materials.

Re:Protectionism

[Anonymous Coward]

The loss of so many jobs overseas without a new industry to replace them (and right now there really isn't one) will seriously weaken our country.

Has it occurred to you that maybe you have the cause and effect here reversed?

Re:Protectionism

[EdmundSS]

The government has a long history of imposing tariffs on foreign sources of raw materials when they threaten the health of our domestic industries.

The government has a long history of imposing tariffs on foreign sources of raw materials when they threaten the interests of contributors to our campaign.

fear, uncertainty and debt

[Doc Ruby]

That $7.4T represents consumption, which does indeed include tremendous debt. Or have you forgotten the vast debt incurred by Americans in the 0% car financing (for a while) and tiny mortgage rates, not to mention the other debt during the Bush "economic miracle" of basement Prime Rates? Like the unprecedented credit card and other loan debt? Much of the other consumption is indeed financed by unaccounted income, mostly filtered through untaxed corporate profits, of the 1/3 of American revenue earners who are no longer on the tax rolls at all, even ignoring those people who actually evade taxes, also largely through corporate dodges, like the vast Enron, WorldCom, (the list is too long to indulge) etc scams.

The bottom line, literally, is that the $10.5T product is produced by 100M people paid $4T. That tells the whole story, from the surplus value extracted by some people, who are disproportionately benefitting from the American worker's productivity, to the value of their property which perpetuates their power to make and keep more of their money, to the subsidies paid them by the rest, and every other cruel reality behind the illusions of Bush's looking glass economy.

Re:fear, uncertainty and debt

[rcs1000]

OK - I don't believe your numbers.

There is an easy solution to this argument; please give me your source for 40% of GDP from personal salaries.

I don't believe people are spending twice their incomes. I don't believe, given corporate profits are only 8% of GDP, that there is some astonishing "unfiltered" profits somewhere in the system.

Please tell me where you get your figure of $4trn in wages.

Re:fear, uncertainty and debt

[rcs1000]

OK, the Beaureau of Economic Affairs for '02 has "Personal Income" at $8.9trn, of which

- wages were $5trn,
- non-wage compensation (i.e. health care) was $1trm
- propreiter's income (i.e. farmers, small business owners) was $1trn
and
- interest income was $1trn

So - we're both right ;-)

Re:fear, uncertainty and debt

[Doc Ruby]

I'm not really sure what *you're* trying to prove, but even in 2002, when Bush's economy was only a year old, the situation was already worse than my estimates, according to a quick scan of the simple data:

[from http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2002/04 /22/daily16.html ]:
"April 23, 2002 ... The average income in the United States is $30,271."

[from http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2002.htm ]:
"...Current Population Survery estimates for 2002, some 72.7 million American workers ... representing 59.6 percent of all wage and salary workers."

When 72.7M workers are 59.6 of the wage/salary earners, that's 72.7M/.596 = 121.979865772M (122M) workers, earning an average $30,271 each is $3,692,452,516,778.523 ($3.7T). As you say, the 2002 GDP was $10.5T, so $3.7T/$10.5T is 35.24% of the value of the US work paid in revenue.

Re:fear, uncertainty and debt

[rcs1000]

Come, come, come,

Mean, median and mode.

And I don't think the Beareau of Economic Affairs is some biased organisation.

Do your figures include part-time workers? Etc.

I think the $5trn wages, $1trn non-wage benefits, $1trn propreiter earnings, are about right. Seriously, check out the Beureau of Economic Affairs.

I never voted for Bush, and ner would (unless it was a choice between Bush and Hitler, and then it'd be a close call), but I do not believe he has subverted the goverment statstical service.

Re:fear, uncertainty and debt

[Doc Ruby]

Where's the confusion? I multiplied the arithmetic average by the total population of "all wage and salary workers". Are you saying the Bureau of Labor Statistics is underreporting Bush's income numbers?

Things are pretty bad with Bush running the show. The Hitler comparisons have alarmed many who are in denial of the reality of the German nightmare, and who have demonized the prewar German people too much to relate to them as humans. But the Reichstag fire and WTC/DC planebombings, the rigged elections, the depression, the antisemitism (which includes Arab semites), the calculated mystical propaganda - damn it, the invocation of the "Homeland", the party loyalty uber alles, the history of drug abuse, the Prescott Bush Nazi war bonds and their financing of chemical warfare, the parallels don't end.

Bush is no antichrist, neither was Hitler. But both are symptoms of humanity at our worst, easily led by our worst fears and greeds. In this gruesome parallel, we're only in 1935, as Bush reclaims his own Saar in Iraq. Hell doesn't break loose until about 1935 for Ethiopia, 1936 for Spain, and 1938 for the Jews, but by 1939 the hell on Earth is in full swing. If Bush pulls Osama's head from a gunny sack around the Republican Convention, we'll have 4 more years of Bush, then probably 8 years of Giuliani, and those left alive and out of jail will be brainwashed slaves of the global corporate state. You say it can't happen here, ask the survivors whose families were tortured to death over there in the 1940s. Then ask Bush whose Zyklon-B gas profits put him through college.

The Return Of The Giant Sucking Sound

[what the dumple is]

Last time i linked to an article from the left and now I'll link to an article from the right.

OK, maybe those heartless American multinationals don't care about the American worker, but at least our patriotic state and federal governments should. You might think at least they'd be hiring Americans and not outsourcing overseas, yet many of them do just that. The state of Washington gets much of its programming done by programmers in -- you guessed it -- India. The U.S. military is now getting its cruise-missile parts from our comrades in China. It's all one big, happy global party. Unfortunately American workers are both catering the festivities and picking up the tab.

We are bleeding both manufacturing and skilled-knowledge service jobs. What will the few remaining employed Americans be doing 10 years from now? Over the past decade, textile employment nationally has fallen from about 850,000 jobs in 1994 to about 300,000 recently. What electronic product is still made in the United States? Forget that. What product of any kind is still made here? Give up? So do I.

Re:The Return Of The Giant Sucking Sound

[Zarf]

The Americans of the future will write articles about the American economy and sell books about the evils of Outsourcing. Americans of the future will be writers, artists, architects, and thespians. They will be free from having to produce anything, having to create wealth, or having to work. It will be a jobless utopia.

...a utopia for anyone with more than 2.2 million dollars in the bank right now. Everyone else will be shipped to Elbonia. Then, the US will institute a national lottery to execute via painless injection a certain percentage of the population each year. This will force the population to implode at a rate that will keep the shrinkage of the nation's wealth and the shrinkage of the population in step. Eventually there will only be five American families left and they will take turns running the government...

And now, cue Rod Sterling!

Re:The Return Of The Giant Sucking Sound

[vidarh]

The mention of textile and electronics is funny. WHY do you think textiles and electronics are becoming so cheap? For a large part because the relative labor costs have dropped dramatically seen from the POV of a US worker. For that to have happened with the jobs staying in the US, those hundreds of thousands of people would have to take pay cuts or stay in lower paid jobs.

Jobs move based on changes in supply and demand at the right price just as any other commodity. Ultimately, the only way inflation adjusted salaries averaged across a population can keep rising is if the market keeps expanding. Jobs will move to where people can be employed cheapest. Salaries for any jobs which is location idependent will approach eachother worldwide barring artificial barriers, possibly resulting in some types of jobs simply not being available in high cost countries because nobody are willing to take the jobs at the salaries offered.

That is a key component of capitalism: Whoever is most "efficient" will dominate the market.

It is also the single largest problem of capitalism: The pressure on salaries drives demand to a certain extent, when it allows an increase in overall consumption by redistributing money to people less likely to "sit on it", however at some point reduced salaries means reduced demand. Capitalism need to compensate for that by growing the market. This was one of the key foundations of Marxism, for instance.

Unless one believes that the market (consumption) will grow forever, meaning that people will need to keep consuming vastly more resources or the population must keep growing at a dramatic pace, at some point growth can only be accomplished by competing more agressively with your competitors by cutting cost.

Ultimately, people are what drives cost up, directly through salaries, and indirectly through the cost of all products and services where a significant part of the price is directly or indirectly a result of paying people. Thus moving jobs to wherever is cheaper, shopping around for suppliers that offer lower prices because they are paying people less or again using suppliers that do so, will in a perfect market without external growth start pushing salaries down.

Some people see it as a potential death spiral that capitalism can't escape if further external growth becomes impossible: Lower salaries means lower consumption, means higher pressure on cost etc.

Smoke screens...

[bakreule]

Daniel Grisworld, associate director, Centre for Trade Policy Studies:

"People don't understand what a great opportunity offshoring is for US companies."

We all know how beneficial it will be for COMPANIES, that's the problem!

I'm not going to rant on about outsourcing, it's going to happen whether you like it or not, but this article is nothing but smoke and mirrors to try and distract the US public from the fact that lots and lots of jobs have been moved, and will be moved, to India.

It's a good tactic. You say a lot of feel-good words and phrases and people will accept them, even if the feel-good phrases aren't very feel-good for you....

Good example

[nuggz]

Excellent example, In the US it is quite interesting.

Car manufacturing, components are going offshore.
Some 'overhead' operations are going offshore.

Much design work stays onshore, the Japanese companies are building design studios.
Japanese companies are building and expanding North American production.

Sure making cheap parts is moving, and they are trying to move more complex technical parts.
But as the industry grows, so do some of the other jobs. And for what it's worth, an Automotive assembly plant is one hell of a cool machine. (thousands of cars/workers/robots all acting and moving together)

Re:Good example

[dafoomie]

That doesn't demonstrate new jobs. You are assuming that moving jobs overseas will save them money, which will cause the industry to grow, which will create more jobs at the higher end, like design jobs.

First of all, assuming that sequence of events will happen is a bit of a stretch. But for now I'll go with it. Lets say that somehow this causes greater demand for software and it creates 'design' or high end jobs here. Is that going to replace all the good paying jobs that were lost? You only need so many of those people. We can't just say that everyone will do that.

Moving these jobs overseas reduces some of their costs. It won't necessarily cause growth, and growth won't necessarily create new jobs. The possibility of growth only exists if there is greater demand. Reducing one of your costs doesn't mean you're selling more. It's just costing you a little less.

And who is to say that these higher end jobs won't go overseas themselves? The only things safe are jobs that require a physical presence. And those are going to be minimalized and marginalized as much as possible.

Protectionist

[nuggz]

I wish someone would show concern for the Americans who will become impoverished again if protectionist policies are instituted, all out of blantant ignorance.

Look at the amount of stuff the US imports, clothes, cars, oil. If the US starts putting up trade barriers the US consumer will get screwed. That would be terribly detrimental to the US economy as a whole.

When someone has to buy a $50 shirt from a US source instead of a $10 shirt from an offshore source, that is a huge drop in purchasing power.

Re:Protectionist

[Killswitch1968]

Absolutely. Standard f living isn't measured by how much you make, but how much stuff you can buy with your work hours. The lower prices are, the better your standard of living.

The rich, backwards

[sybert]

You have this completely backwards. The rich spend a far smaller percentage of their income on land than the middle class. The middle and lower class have to mortgage heavily to buy property, the rich usually do not. The poor are the biggest bargain shoppers, and are most likely to buy cheap imported goods. The rich don't shop at Walmart very often, and can afford to pay higher prices to buy American. Luxury goods create the most jobs, since most luxury items are actively in the design-phase. Design jobs pay very well and are the jobs least likely to leave the USA. The poor mostly purchase more mundane items that have been in the competitive marketplace for a long time. Margins for these products are slim and productivity for these products has been maximized, so few new jobs are needed to produce more.

A flat income distribution is an indication of economic stagnation. We just found a group trying to escape socialist flat-income Cuba paddling a '50s Buick because they have not produced any new products there since the revolution. The more important a product is to the middle and lower class, the higher the productivity is to produce these products, and the fewer jobs needed to produce them. The more rich people there are, the more new products are created and more people are required to design these new products. Almost all products available to the middle class were once products that were affordable only by the rich.

The wealthy don't need to spend all of their income. The excess is called capital. It is by investing this capital and labor (read: new jobs) that new products are created and our economy grows. This capital is the most important capital because it is the least risk-averse (no board of directors or bureaucracy controlling it) and is more likely to fund the most risky, innovative new products. Cutting tax rates increases the amount of this high-risk capital. Higher risk on average creates the highest expected rate of return. The lower tax rates on the higher expected profit and labor costs increases total tax revenue collected in the long run.

PS: How many programming jobs would there be in the USA if not for all the cheap imported memory needed to run our massively bloated code.

Re:The rich, backwards

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Yeah, that unfair income distibution in Venezuela really makes their economy soar. What you're saying makes no sense--who the fuck is going to buy an American luxury car? If you're poor, you buy from China, if you're rich, you buy from Japan and Germany. Even if it did make sense, the reason we need there to be more jobs is to make the world a better place for the poor and middle class--if you're suggesting we restructure our economy so that the vast majority of people are working to make products for the rich, which appears to be Bush's plan, you and your sick plutocrat plans can go fuck yourselves.

And then you have the nerve to repeat this supply-side bullshit--look how much the stock market soared when Clinton raised taxes on capital gains! The taxes on capital gains have to be incredibly huge before they start to matter--people will invest if an investment makes money, they won't invest if it doesn't make money--taxes on the profit made will have little effect on this.

On the other hand, taxes on labor have a very direct and simple effect on jobs. Corporations have to pay more wage taxes for every additional employee they hire IF they choose to hire that worker in the United States. Wage taxes and the lack of a nationalized health care systems (an exponentially increasing cost our employers are also expected to pay for, unless workers do without) are incentives for factories to move to either completely undervalued countries (India) or more progressive countries like Canada, which currently has a fantastically booming economy.

Bottom line: there has been no economy in the history of the world that has been able to withstand long-term trade deficits. It's great to save money on Indian labor, but unless we can find something else for American workers to do, unless we can find something else to export, then it doesn't do either the world or America any long term good. If you save 58 cents by outsourcing to India, hey, great, that's 58 cents more for the American economy. If you just spend the whole dollar on American labor, that's a whole dollar spent in the American economy.

Re:The rich, backwards

[gnuLNX]

"And then you have the nerve to repeat this supply-side bullshit--look how much the stock market soared when Clinton raised taxes on capital gains! The taxes on capital gains have to be incredibly huge before they start to matter--people will invest if an investment makes money, they won't invest if it doesn't make money--taxes on the profit made will have little effect on this."

Ah....can I just point out BULLSHIT. What are you talking about. Taxes are hugely important to investors. You see taxes directly affect gains. DUH?

Re:The rich, backwards

[Azghoul]

Capital gains tax DOES mean something, you nitwit. Someday when you make enough money to invest you'll understand that. A 5% change in the tax rate makes a huge difference in whether or not a particular investment is considered successful or not.

Your arguments make so little sense I don't know where to begin. The world will be hurt if jobs are created in India or the "fantastically booming" Canada?

Re:The rich, backwards

[MBraynard]

Clinton never raised capital gains taxes - in fact he cut them by about a third (28% to 20%). Sorry stupid. I guess that this got moded up to 5 demonstrates the idiocy of the /. moderators, and that you are as likely to get a decent post at -1 (where this will be moderated to with a quickness) as you are at 5 - at least on anything other than how to get Linux to run on your 1980 promotional Star Wars Seiko watch that came with your happy meal.

Re:The rich, backwards

[tommck]

who the fuck is going to buy an American luxury car

Hell... even back in the EIGHTIES (read: HORRIBLE American cars), people in Eastern Europe bought them because it was a status symbol (like German cars are here...). To have a 20 foot long Cadillac in countries where the cars are 10 feet long is the perfect demonstration of ludicrous excess... Turns a lot of heads when you drive a Cadillac by a bunch of Minis...

Re:The rich, backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

If you save 58 cents by outsourcing to India, hey, great, that's 58 cents more for the American economy. If you just spend the whole dollar on American labor, that's a whole dollar spent in the American economy.

What about this? If you save 58 cents by sending 60 cents to India, you've just saved yourself 58 cents and sucked two cents out of the American economy. Companies may be saving money, but what's the net cost to the economy?

Re:The rich, backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Status symbol means two things.

First, the symbol is a trend. Trends come and go, they can easily change. You can't bet your country on the idea that american products will be trendy. In 80s it was american cars for Eastern Europe in 90s the German cars proved that they deserve their right to be a status symbol.

Second, the status symbol is a luxury and the market for luxury products is 10-100 times smaller and competition is quite fierce.

Re:The rich, backwards

[robertjw]

Also, as you may remember, there were a lot of capital gains being made during the Clinton administration. I don't care what the cap gains rate is in a bear market. People have to make capital gains for capital gains tax to work.

I believe a much more intelligent fiscal policy would be for the government to STOP SPENDING MONEY. Why do we need this huge tax base? Just so the government can regulate us to death? I'm convinced that the biggest reason there is no small business any more is because of government regulation. Only a huge corporation can afford the staff (lawyers, accountants) to keep a business running (file patents, protect copyrights, collect taxes, apply for licenses, etc...). If we could get the government off our backs, maybe people in this country could get jobs and do some actual work.

Re:The rich, backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

but unless we can find something else for American workers to do

28 million unemployed people are A LOT of pissed off people!! And that number is growing daily.

Re:The rich, backwards

[MBraynard]

Small business is alive and well, and all huge corporations were once small business. But you are right - the smaller businesses are the ones that feel the brunt of government largesse.

Re:The rich, backwards

[starm_]

The whole question here is where do you want the gov to cut?? that is a big debate.

Re:The rich, backwards

[Mr. Piddle]

if you're rich, you buy from Japan and Germany

Make the world wealthier, and the USA could be in that list, too.

Re:The rich, backwards

[RalphSlate]

If you save 58 cents by outsourcing to India, hey, great, that's 58 cents more for the American economy. If you just spend the whole dollar on American labor, that's a whole dollar spent in the American economy.

The interesting thing is that when someone saves that 58 cents, but it puts people out of work in the US, the government steps in and provides services to those out-of-work people and then charges you taxes in far excess of the 58 cents. And they raise taxes on you to get it.

Of course, the person pocketing the other 42 cents is incorporated elsewhere, so he escapes the tax bite.

The government is solidifying its monopoly here. Take away the jobs, then support the jobless.

Re:The rich, backwards

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Duh yourself, fuckhead. Bush cut capital gains, the economy tanked. Bush later gives out personal tax credits, stock market starts to rise. (Job market still sucks, but hey...) Once again, Keynes wins, supply-side loses--even with their poster child in charge.

Re:The rich, backwards

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Um, one of the other replies to me regarding Eastern Europe in the 80s would seem to contradict your post, maybe you should have it out with him.

Re:The rich, backwards

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Okay, you win the battle (although I now ask you, in all honesty--where can I get information about past tax rates? Google doesn't seem up to the task, because any tax rate change is preceded with a huge amount of debate.) but have you won the war? Do you deny that wage taxes make American workers less competitive? That subsidies, like health care for workers, would make them more competitive (just for the sake of argument--imagining that the money to pay for it magically fell from the sky).

Okay I was in school in the Clinton era, and lord knows I'll probably never participate in the pyramid scheme known as the stock market to actually know what the rate is, but now I remember where my false tax raising memories came from. Bob Novak.

So I'm watching capital gang or something, and this is like, 1999 or 2000, right in the middle of the stock market bubble. Bob is complaining that capital gains taxes need to be cut to drive the stock market. Someone not insane tries to explain to him "Bob, the market is skyrocketing!" "Well, maybe if we cut it things would be even better!" Right, that would have been awesome, Bob, an even larger Internet Bubble.

So perhaps the problem we are having now is that Clinton SHOULD have raised capital gains taxes, but failed to do so. I mean, hell, either way we would have made out--either more government revenue if I'm right and the bubble still would have happened, or the bubble would never have happened if you're right, and the economy would have followed a more gentle slope upwards to where we are now rather than a boom/bust cycle.

I'll bet your post would have been modded up if you'd provided a link to his precise tax plans. Or if all of your post but the first sentence wasn't dedicated to slamming the moderation system, or if you had mentioned the rest of my post rather than one narrow mistake (though at this point I'm just taking your word for it.)

Re:The rich, backwards

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

No, the world is helped by jobs in India. But the fact is, a lot of highly educated people in America, as well as a lot of other people, are sitting idle right now when they could be using their skills to make the world a better place. See? And pick up a newspaper--yeah, the Canadian economy is growing, America is shrinking. Sorry, that's what's happening--I'm not saying Canada is doing anything wrong, on the contrary I was suggesting that we should look to them as a model to follow.

Take this MacJob and shove it.

[Alien54]

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander

Well in this case, the suaces are mostly to be found in MacDonald's Happy Meals.

It takes at least 3 to 5 MacJobs to replace a high paying high knowledge high quality job. It's not a straight swap. It's a sucker's deal.

what makes things worse...

[ShadowRage]

is the fact that if new businesses try to start up here and offer new jobs, they quickly get bought out, the US workers get laid off and the job opputurnity goes to india or some random country.

I thought there were laws to stop monopolistic actions like these.

not to mention, this will also crush the big industries as well since their income relies on the US economy as well, dont poke a hole in the bottom of the feed bag that keeps your food. or else you'll just plain out starve
because what's gonna keep these companies' monetary values up? the indian economy?

yeah right. if the US economny drops out, it hurts everyone. but of course, these guys only see what will benefit them at the moment, most of them do see what will happen and will take the company's money and jump ship.

As much as I'd love to see these bastards get what they deserve for ripping off customers and jerking around employees, the effect of their stupidity will result in everyone hurting, large corporations when they get monopolistic and start abusing their positions turn into life force draining leeches and destroy all competitors and grab money from all markets, and use foriegn resources to do the job..

it's gonna be a mess.

Free Trade Economics is basic CRAP, people!

[Cryofan]

Talk about handwaving!

Look, you moronic piece of crap: the studies you so proudly hail (but do not bother actually citing) are BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. There is a lot of free trade looting going on, and so there is a lot of incentive to buy rigged studies.

Re:Free Trade Economics is basic CRAP, people!

[Killswitch1968]

Oh really? I didn't know Adam Smith and Milton Friedman were "bought and paid for". And if they were, where can I get one of these time machines for myself?

Re:Free Trade Economics is basic CRAP, people!

[be-fan]

What kind of crack are you on, and where can I get some? Unless the US government managed to buy out the majority of economists, both in the US and in Europe, and went back in the past and bought out historical economists, then your claim is full of shit.

Re:Free Trade Economics is basic CRAP, people!

[be-fan]

I'm inclined to trust studies that show the same results predicted by economic theory. I would say the burden of proof is on you.

What jobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear over and over how this will benefit the economy, and how it will create more jobs. My question, that is never answered by these inane articles supporting offshoring is:

What jobs are going to be created? Because I surely don't see them, and quite frankly I believe that the liars that continually cry out "but, more jobs will be created in the US"... I don't think they even know the answer, because there is none. How do you replace the 2 mil or probably more jobs that will be lost? Lower paying jobs and worker exploitation at organizations like Wal-Mart?

You know what? I busted my *ss to make these US companies more profitable, now I am left with deep anger and resentment towards these companies, and the US government for their betrayal of the US workers. As long as my home economy continues to suffer as deeply as it has been, I can not feel any sympathy for the US corporations. Thus, the breaking of what had been in the past a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship that built these companies in the first place.

In the mean time, how do I pay my rent? how do I keep essential utilities on? How do I put food on the table? Forget the car payments, I haven't been able to pay those for months... the worse this gets the more angry and desperate I get...

Re:Niggers (black people)

[Anonymous Coward]

omg!!! 4 frEE???

Everybody is an entrepreneur

[mst76]

What people don't realize is that jobs are not products that are offered by companies to people, jobs are what people offer to companies. Everyone on the labor market is a salesman, offering his time and skills in return for money. Restricting companies to shop for labor in the US makes as much sense as restricting consumers to buy goods in the US. If nobody buys your labor and skills, it means that there is insufficient demand at the current price. Either sell it for less or sell something else. That's what companies do.

Re:Everybody is an entrepreneur

[Zarf]

The following statement is sarcasm:

When I shop for a doctor I always look for the cheapest one.

How many people would go to a cut rate doctor? A cut rate lawyer? A cut rate home builder? A cut rate mechanic?

There's a floor to market pricing. If you charge too little for your market area... why are you? Is there something wrong with your service?

Now consider a house for $100k in rural Texas versus a house for $100k in the thick of San Jose. One is reasonably priced and one is a shack without any windows. The difference is their markets. An India based programmer for $11k per year versus a US based programmer for $11k per year... what's wrong with this picture?

So what will the market expect? What will the market bear? How can you compete? The only viable option is to sell something else since selling for less looks bad.

Hey Fred, I just had open-heart surgery at the resturant around the corner! It cost me only $300 bucks and I got free garlic bread! Wow, who needs HMO's?

Re:Everybody is an entrepreneur

[mst76]

> Is there something wrong with your service?

This is the essential question. Is there something wrong with the cheaper service? If there isn't, why would you go to the expensive doctor or mechanic? Or the American worker? The theory about this can get rather complicated (look for example at the Nobel prize winning work on asymmetric information and signaling games).

But more on topic, is there something wrong with the service provided by cheaper Indian programmers? Most companies will only find out after trying. Some will find the quality lacking, some won't. If a-posteriori the provided labor turned out to be of comparable quality, they obviously made a good decision. If the quality turned out to be substandard, they can either turn to higher prices American labor (who may or may not provide higher quality) or they can try a different low-cost supplier. The situation is not different from you shopping for cheaper Korean cars or Chinese DVD players.

Due to the costs of living, American programmers can never compete on costs. The only options left are 1) to convince the buyers (i.e. hiring companies) that the quality of your work is higher, or 2) offer some different kind of labor in a different sector. To restrict the choice of the buyer is not the way to go.

Re:Everybody is an entrepreneur

[Zarf]

Due to the costs of living, American programmers can never compete on costs. The only options left are 1) to convince the buyers (i.e. hiring companies) that the quality of your work is higher, or 2) offer some different kind of labor in a different sector.

Well, you can say that your quality is comperable and that you're one-stop-shopping convenient. That's why people shop at super-stores in theory they get one-stop-shopping. So if a programmer in the US can provide "Value Added Retail" services like a VAR does perhaps he can get employment on that.

Re:Everybody is an entrepreneur

[mst76]

Sure, but the essential thing is, you have something to sell (your labor) to get the company's money. You have to make your product attractive to the buyer, just as the buyer has to make their latest gadgets attractive to you if they want your money. The problem is that too many people are stuck in the mindset of a consumer even when they act as a producer.

Re:Everybody is an entrepreneur

[Yartrebo]

Companies that can't sell their products in a free market go lobby the government for some welfare checks or some government granted monopolies.

Now, if companies can get their welfare and monopolies, why can't I get my welfare and lifetime employment?

Re:Everybody is an entrepreneur

[Anonymous Coward]

Another essential question is why we allow US corporations to continue to exist within our borders, enjoying our country's infrastructure and lifestyle, when they increasingly employ less and less of its population. How few Americans employed by an American corporation is too few? 75% 50%? 0%? At what point do they cease being US corporations? Corporations in the US already receive the equivalent of 60,000,000 individual taxpayers per year in welfare. Why would be want to spend US taxpayer monies on a corporation who is not only not paying its fair share of taxes, but is now not even contributing to the tax base by way of the employment tax on their workers pay?

Blah blah

[zeno_2]

The article mentioned is really the same retoric that companies who outsource like to spout out. Im not sure if anyone is saying that outsourcing doesn't benefit buisnesses, obviously it does. They can take a whole call center of 300+ people, pay them 1/10th the amount they were paid in the U.S., and still have a part of thier buisness they call "tech support". The problem is, the 300+ people that worked there, worked there for 4+ years, and actually cared about the job they worked for. They invested time to become better workers, while thier corporation waved flags of good times in front of them. I worked for a company like this, my job got replaced by a worker in India, and this happend about 4 or 5 months before the "state of the company meeting" we had. Sure, during the meeting, it seemed like a "good" thing that Level 3 communications were buying the part of the company I worked at. Sure, things would be good. Every question we could throw at them they came back saying, yes, this is a good thing.

I'm just glad I sucked up all the unemployment I could get... and im drunk =)

Er .... no ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

After the debacle of Reagan's supply side, the last time these unemployment numbers were close to this high (excepting Bush Sr's next-closest nadir), you'd think this nonsense would be rejected. But I guess greed blinds even the survival instinct, when so much loot is flying through the air, without any merit to where it lands.

I guess you're too young to actually know what you're talking about ... the double digit inflation and unemployment were Carter's. "Supply-side" got us out of that.

BTW, Socialism != Communism

[toganet]

Look it up.

Re:BTW, Socialism != Communism

[be-fan]

Actually, according to classical definitions, socialism is equivilent to communism. Remember, Marx and Engles considered themselves socialists. It is *modern* socialism that is different from communism. Both definitions are valid, and I chose to use the former.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Anonymous Coward]

A problem with your assessment; you only speak of their value to the economy as an entity, not their impact on members of that sector of the work force. I should get three jobs to fill the void left by the loss of my $60k job, and just suck up the difference? goatse.cx is too good for proponents of that kind of thinking.

A Questioning Of CEO Logic

[beforewisdom]

The people who control the US high tech companies are billionaires or at least millionaires several times over.

Its not about the cash for them anymore. Its about points, being the top player in the game for the thrill of it, and staying in the game.

Given that it is about staying in the game, outsourcing jobs to India is irrational because it will ultimately put them out of the

Indian tech workers are smart, politically aware, and socially aware.

They will not be content with the American business colonialism of outsourcing.

They will use outsourced American jobs to build up funds and to learn how to run tech companies( or given our greedy, short sighted, overpaid American CEOs.....how NOT to run a tech company)

Once they do, they will form their own Indian owned tech companies.

Unlike the American tech companies paying Indian wages and selling their products at American prices these early Indian owned tech firms will sell their products at Indian prices.

They will either drive American Tech companies out of business or their competition will severly limit their profits.

In short, American CEO jobs will be outsourced to India in the end. They will be out of the game

Steve

Re:A Questioning Of CEO Logic

[vidarh]

There's a fatal flaw to this: The top management of these companies get the majority of their compensation in stock options. They are paid for results. There is no reason to assume that any Indian management teams that reach the same levels won't claim the same compensations. CEO jobs aren't threatened for that very same reason - if more top management of the quality needed are available, companies will flock to them.

But yes, of course Indian tech workers will try to push build their own businesses, in order to make more money. But as they do, they will also start closing the price gap as a result of two things: Each job they "take" from some other country means one more person that might be prepared to cut his or her salary to get another job, temporarily lowering the floor in the countries these jobs are coming from, and each job position they fill in India will mean one less person available and competing for jobs, raising the floor there and at the same time increasing the experience and competitive potential of the person hired.

At some point the two will meet, or get close enough that there is no more net loss of jobs to India, and the cycle might start all over again with other countries with increasing number of potential engineers.

No level of protectionism will stop this. If American companies don't take advantage, others will and will be able to compete more efficiently with American companies, and taking jobs that way.

Now, on the other hand, whoever exploits the opportunities of offshore hiring the most efficiently will be able to compete more efficiently for business and grow their company, most likely growing their domestic staff as well, as they presumably will need teams that are customer facing and close too.

Seeing offshoring as a threat is short sighted. It's an inevitable evolution in any business where the geographic location of a team is of little relevance to the quality of the delivered product and where the knowledge needed can be found off shore. It's the nature of capitalism that production will need to continuosly be made more efficient or your company will lose out to those who do.

Oh, yeah

[Doc Ruby]

Well, my high school graduation gift was the Iran Contra hearings. And college graduation brought the inevitable Bush Sr. recession, as the first "downwardly mobile" generation in American history. But I guess if you read "unemployment numbers" in my post, and think "inflation", you're probably thinking that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" right now, and that is somehow your "due". Supply side got Reagan's cronies into the money, and the rest of us into debt. Don't forget the $1.5T S&L heist, in a $5T economy. Don't even get me started on Nixon and Ford, who I wish I could forget. Drop the party line doubletalk - you're not fooling with someone who wasn't paying attention while your boys were lying and stealing through the 20th Century.

Re:Oh, yeah

[cascadingstylesheet]

Apparently you didn't read the word "unemployment". Double-digit unemployment was Carter, the cure was Reagan.

Re:Oh, yeah

[Doc Ruby]

OK, if you want to change the subject (back) to US unemployment, we can talk about Reagan McJobs. Until Reagan's Southern California "handlers" got their spin docs on the case, everyone knew the malaise in 1970s US was at least a stable environment in which to do business. Not bad in the wake of Nixon's Soviet "price and wage controls", his switch from the currency "gold standard" to the "oil standard", which OPEC used to crush us in conspiracy with the oil multinationals (sound familiar?), the dragged out loss of the Vietnam quagmire (sound familiar?), the terrible scandals of the Pentagon Papers revealing the corporate agenda behind the manufactured Vietnam War (sound familiar?) Watergate RNC spying on Democrat rivals (sound familiar?), forced resignation of VP Agnew due to embezzlement and extortion crimes (sound familiar?), Arab terrorist hijacking planes (sound familiar?), South American CIA coups, the recovery and rise of our rivals in Europe and Asia - it's like there's an echo in here. It's a testament to the faith of Americans in democracy, and Jimmy Carter's even-handed management, that America's people recovered at all. Then we got Reagan's looting of the Treasury and S&Ls, spreading the supply side grease around, and creating the biggest law ever, the 1986 tax loophole thank you note to his campaign contributors. The 1982-4 recession and unemployment were the worst since the Depression, exceeded only by the debt chickens coming home to roost in 1990's Bush Sr. recession. And now, once again with Bush Jr, happy days are here again!

We'll never know how well the US economy, with our agressively productive people and natural commercial advantages, would have performed without the regular Republican bloodsucking. But we have a chance to try it again, without the Bush leeches, come January 2005. I'm looking forward to the regime change, and the turnaround from better management.

But

[beforewisdom]

# US unemployment right now is 5.6% [itfacts.biz], the lowest it had been in 2 years. # Silicon Valley will ad 17,000 jobs this year [itfacts.biz] and 33,000 next year.

Its not just about number of jobs, but the quality of jobs.

Who cares if there are more minimum wage McJobs or low paying low end prosaic jobs in the silicon valley ( running the coffe shop in the IBM headquarters? )?

Its about fulfilling, and well paying jobs. Jobs that interest you, where you get treated with respect, where you can support yourself, support your family, educate your children, and provide for your retirement.

I almost feel glutonious writing that, what a sad statement about what America is coming too!

more stats

[beforewisdom]

In the 3 years bush has been president the US has lost 3 million jobs.

I never heard him mention the "j word" for more then half a sentence in any of his speeches. I have never read about his administration being concerned about the economy beyond it being necessary for bush to reach his goal of a second term.

He dosen't care.

Steve

Consider the Source

[catherder_finleyd]

Farrell and McKinsey are in the business of "consulting" on overseas outsourcing. Masscom is the chief association of Indian outsourcers. It's not surprising they will provide this sort of rubbish data in order to support their own agendas.

India recently pre-paid its debts

[PaneerParantha]

to Canada.

http://www.siliconindia.com/shownewsdata.asp?new sn o=22785

The amount was 13.5 billion dollars.

US used to grant an aid of $25 million to India annually. That too was stopped when Congress got worked up over some issue. But India is now attracting investment, not aid. See the various projects underway here:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/ubb/ultimateb b.php?u bb=forum;f=2

Re:India recently pre-paid its debts

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, good thing the Canadians weren't naive enough to cancel India's debts, huh.

Not likely!

[Anonymous Coward]

> But speakers from the US, including analysts, CEOs and researchers, all said they believed outsourcing was here to stay and that going offshore was the only way companies stay competitive.

Assumption: They assume that people who got laid off because of outsourcing will not boycott corporations who use outsourcing.

more bantha fodder for ya

[tarunthegreat]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3472491.stm

Try outsourcing the higly-payed, non-performing...

[kd4evr]

"Every time they say we need to cut the fat,
it's the fat doing the cutting..." - seen once on quoteland.com.

Sure, outsourcing and off-shoring would be good ideas. But you always need to know your bussiness, your advantages and have a strategy.
Not always the case these days.

What is happening in the US (and Europe as well) is that skilled, qualified and honest working people are losing jobs to cheaper, hastily-trained and un-proven people because of mediocre, greedy and incompetent board members, CEOs etc.

The cost-cutting-at-all-costs fad is a short-sighted reaction in businesses that went bad because they simply weren't good (read: competitive) enough.

Until the reasons why an operation was or went sour are dealt with, nothing can improve. No business consultant, management advisor, HR specialist, public relations expert or therapist, (usually hired at quite a cost wich a massive layoff has to cover for) can help if the symtoms are cured instead of the disease.

The first IT business were off-shored or out-sourced because the quality needed improvement - and that's the propper way to bost quality/cost ratio; decreasing cost really does nothing - except prolongs the agony and spreads confusion.

On top of all, no "economist" is going to persuade me that the things will be well once everything levels up again. Lives will be ruined, opportunities lost, innovative spirits crushed in the process if everything is to continue "business as usual". If the US politics is not going to make a serires of moves that would signal the greedy, incompetent and most of all, criminal white-collar types that the show is over, the entire world economy is going to go downhill; regardless if outsourcing will be stimulated or banned.

Poverty

[Morosoph]

India have a very large population. The real question has to be what impact these new jobs make the their economy; it would make sense if we reduce the help we give India (so as to give it to those who need it more), in the ratio 1:2 (say) as their tax revenue increases. In this way, the Indian government still has an incentive to promote IT, but we're also able to do more good with our aid budgets.

Having said that, our aid budgets are increadably low, and there are a lot of very poor people in the world in India and elsewhere. It's unlikely that India will be earning enough to make a serious difference for a while, so maybe we shouldn't be looking to reduce aid just yet.

Software patents are cause of outsourcing

[Anonymous Coward]

The US software patent system is the biggest cause for outsourcing.

No customer can ever trust a US employee and/or companies to not patent critical software algorithms that belongs to the customer. Which customer wants to see his product go to the wall with software patents? Easier to outsource it where the patenting system doesn't easily result in software patents. Jobs are being shipped out of USA lock stock and barrel by customers and investors to never ever come back until the software patent system is destroyed. Idiotic politicians don't want to do anything because they are in the pay packets of megacorporations. Listen to Richard Stallman's speeches if you want to know how bad a large project can get smashed by numerous software patents, and how he pines the US will have its software patent system that doesn't benefit the majority (except a handful of megacorporations) destroyed.

Re:Software patents are cause of outsourcing

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot and you're on the wrong thread.

We hated patents on the Patriot patent 2 days ago.

Get with it! This is the We Hate Outsourcing thread!

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks Keynes. Problem is that the Keynesian goal of having no savings and deficit funded spending results in an economy that's nothing more than a giant credit bubble.

An economy that doesn't save has no captial to invest and so is doomed to have their capital intensive industries lose ground internationally (as has happended in both the US and the UK). They end up with 'service' economy that doesn't actually produce anything and what little capital that is generated flees the country.

A country of educated, productive savers will always be better off in the middle to long term than a country of burger-flippers and convenience store clerks.

Re:Exportable Jobs (2nd try)

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the only job in this country which is guaranteed not to be outsourced, is President of the United States. But I hear the pay is lousy and the hours are long.

Not just the POTUS, you forgot CEO's.

Yeah, right.

[Presence1]

Aside from the fact that this is an Indian journal with an obvious bias, we don't even need to go outside the article to find problems with their argument.

Assume that they are right about the $0.58 saved for every dollar spent. This will actually allow US companies to have greater cash flow and capital. Fine.

Of course, now the question is whether that will actually result in new US jobs or not, and what kinds of jobs.

There will probably be some new opportunities for software design and architecture level jobs, and for managers with skills honed to manage offshore-based projects, and these will pay well. But, how many will there be?

More importantly, where will the bulk of this extra cash go? Will it be used to create more jobs here, or just to finance further offshoring, perhaps in some new sector? Of course some of it will go back into the economy in general as corporate spending and investment capital, but those sould go anywhere.

I liked somebody's line that said "if they have access to our jobs, we want access to their cost of living". We do get some of that access with the cheaper products that we can buy, but it obviously goes only so far...

So, anybody have ideas on a SOLUTION to this problem? There are many reasons to be against excess regulation, but do we need regs, tax structure changes, tarrifs, or what? Is there a free-market approach that will work?

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Anonymous Coward]

The money they spend creates jobs ... low-skill, low-wage jobs are actually better

Thats right folks, voodoo economics at their finest! Lets not give people money, so they can spend it on... err... well, housing, food, and thrift store clothing. Not many other ways to split up $11k, especially once the government has taken its share. And we haven't even gotten into thinking about families, children, college costs. But thats ok, most proponents of this kind of thinking believe everyone poorer than them should swear themselves to chastity. (though usually you don't find these proponents working to pay their own way through school)

I guess they'll be creating slumlord jobs as property values have never tracked the actual ability for people in a region to pay for it, because its in the best interest for the rich to keep them artificially high.

I'd say they'd be creating farming jobs too, but thanks to subsidies, the farmers could care less, and their money would probably go to supermegafarmcorp anyway.

And many thrift store places are tied to charities, and operate on volunteer labor.

McKinsey Global Institute is a FRONT

[dmobrien_2001]

This institute is a nothing but a front for a consulting company that makes its money by recommending outsourcing/offshoring. They rig their numbers. Where are these higher level, better paying jobs? What, suddenly there are so many more PROJECT MANAGER jobs when all the work is offshored? You think we need more people? It's not a job chain of higher level work, but a freaking job PYRAMID. The higher you go the less jobs at the top. Think about it. When they built the Egyptian pyramids, and used all that cheap labor, how many architects were needed? "Don't believe the HYPE!"

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[AKnightCowboy]

Even assuming the numbers claimed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' talking head are true, what good does it do to replace one lost 6-figure engineering position with eleven minimum-wage, no health plan, burger-flipper slots?

I think Slashdot is blowing the whole economy thing out of proportion because it has adversely affected the tech sector. If you'll all remember, we were riding high for 4 or 5 years on completely inflated stock prices, endless supplies of venture capital, and completely crazy business plans with no hope of producing profit. The market corrected for these problems and we're back where we should have been today if we continued the same level of growth as we had 5 years ago. The only reason it seems horrible is because 25 year olds fresh out of college can no longer expect to make $75k/year making web sites. Boo friggin hoo. Many people work their entire lives in their profession and never earn more than $45k/year. Quit crying about it and acting like it's some personal tragedy that your 4 year degree doesn't automatically entitle you to a 6 figure salary anymore.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Great for the ruling class. Hell for the workers.

nice class warfare - should have said: "great for the business owners, hell for the workers".

And, while we're at it, if you hate it so much, then start your own ruling cla, err, business.

mod- because I'm conservative...

One sentence ...

[blueberry(4*atan(1))]

and you manage to screw it up. Tsk. And ironically ranting about the uneducated Slashdot masses.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[EastCoastSurfer]

Well said. I would like to add, that the boom made a lot of people *think* they could do technical jobs when in fact they were underqualified.

In my last job, (yes, I found a better paying job in this down economy) I interviewed countless wannabe techies trying to find someone to do rather simple stuff. Most people who came through the door were underqualified and wanted too much money.

Riiiiiiight....

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, we can just go on to more creative jobs... with colorful uniforms... Would you like fries with that???

H1-B

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi King,
This is your new co-worker : Randeep Igotyurjob.
You'll show him the ropes or you'll not get
you severance.

-PHB

Re:H1-B

[Anonymous Coward]

This is your new co-worker : Randeep Igotyurjob.
You'll show him the ropes or you'll not get
you severance.

He's a Canuck.... Canada doesn't have suicidal work visa exploitation schemes like the US does. Not that there are less foreign workers here but the only ones we let in are the wealthy to run Qwikymarts and refugees to drive our taxis. At least on the East Coast... the West Coast also lets lots of Chinese to buy passports and houses so their spoiled kids can grow up in a democracy. Canada's working population would never let an H1-B visa-like device destroy an entire industry. Our country doesn't have the same .001% of our population actively trying to destroy the planet. Enjoy your American Dream and soon to be Hispanic majority! Try to ignore us up here with our weed, abundant resources, and women (and I'm not talking the loud and brown breed you seem to have so much of).

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Toddlerbob]

Even assuming the numbers claimed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' talking head are true

And there is plenty of reason to feel that they are not true. For example, take a look at what Brad DeLong, a Berkeley economics professor and well-known blogger, says about the recent government forecast of over 2 million new jobs to be created this year.

here

Voodoo economics at it's best

[SpacePunk]

"Based on the research that the McKinsey institute had carried out, Ms Farrell said conservatively, for every dollar invested in the offshore space, $0.58 was directly saved."

So, what's the real cost? 42 cents?

Case study

[May Kasahara]

I read this, and that Wired article, and now I don't know what to think, or feel.

I work in a professional industry that was affected by offshoring years ago (animation). The grunt work (animation, inbetweening, coloring, etc.) went to places like South Korea (and now India) and the more creative work (character design, background painting, layout) stayed in the U.S. It used to be that this was the case just for television animation, but some feature work has gone overseas as well.

When computer animation came along, it was a boon to studios in the U.S. and Canada-- many in-house jobs were created where one could animate. Studios could keep the work in the country; the only downside for workers is that there's less of them needed, so the competition's a bit fiercer. Until recently I held one of these jobs. Now, I didn't get laid off because my job was going elsewhere-- the project just ended. That's what the business is like. Now I'm looking for something else, but of course I can't limit myself to just animation. Still, I'm confident I'll find something, as some of my former coworkers already have, and considering that I have some experience in the preproduction (more creative) side of the business. Still, I love to animate... so what are you gonna do? Me, I'm working on an indie thing on the side.

The only downside of this lack of work is that there's a lot of animators-- many fresh out of school-- that can't find a job for months... or years. Considering the past few years, though, one can't really blame outsourcing; it was the bust after the animation boom of the mid-nineties. All these Disney and Fox people out of work are going elsewhere and starting their own studios. And, to be fair, in the late 90s there were lots of stories of people getting into animation strictly for the money. As any serious animation professional can tell you, LOVE and DEDICATION to the medium comes first.

It's all economics, I guess. What worries me about the tech thing is that my future husband is a computer science major, and he's graduating soon-- graduating to this volatile market. He's already gotten some good advice about the sorts of jobs he might want to take (and from what he's told me, they do sound like "higher paying, more creative, more value generating jobs"), and I know that he has the talent to get such work, just as I believe I have the talent to continue on in this demanding field (demanding both when working, and when not). I even suggested the other night that we should go into business together; he's been really helpful in assisting me with the backend code for a webspace I have, while I like to design the pages themselves. We could be the ultimate creative team...

This country is a demanding place; it only demands the best out of its people. I think that's the hard lesson of outsourcing.

Link to Mckinsey Report

[gargle]

The remarks in the article were based on research by the Mckinsey Global Institute.

The Report is here. Click on BPO Case Study.

http://www.mckinsey.com/knowledge/mgi/newhorizon s/ reports/Executive_Summary.asp

Learning to play the game

[amightywind]

Indian consultants are learning to play the game in the US. Find a single willing shill, preferably from a Washington think-tank, quote them widely.

Re:"8 long years of management"

[markhb]

Bill Clinton had the luxury of presiding over the internet bubble, which provided the aforementioned booms in VC spending, salaries, infrastructure growth (all those Cisco routers and miles of fiber as the modern Internet was built), capital gains on inflated stock prices, and government tax revenue for 6 of his 8 years of office (figuring roughly 1995-2000 as the bubble years), all of which dissipated roughly 10 months before his successor was sworn in. All Clinton had to do was stay out of the way.

Typical....

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical narrow-minded reaganomics. Idiot.

22M Jobs for mexicans

[Perl-Pusher]

That 22M new jobs will be the jobs taken by Mexican guest workers under Bush's plan.Unfortunately the displaced American worker won't be counted in the unemployment statistics after his unemployment benefits have run out and him and his family starved to death and or turned to crime.

We can't all be right!

[Hethcox]

The fun part about this discussion is that some of the posts are right and some are completely wrong. This is obvious, of course, but, as a Comp. Sci. student in the 80's I was told repeatedly that Japan Inc.'s technical jugernaut that was unstoppable. The airwaves were filled with doomsayers predicting that Japan would dominate America.

Well the doomsayers were wrong. America was patient with the markets and eschewed Japan's central planning (although their current problems stem from a variety of factors) and eventually American tech reasserted its primacy.

I'm not suggesting that we be glib about Indian outsourcing (I was out of work for 9 months last year), but I believe that the American capital market system will eventually re-energize innovation here and balance things out.

What isn't productive is to whine about "the rich" as if they're responsible for taking care of you. Like most Americans, I don't hate the rich. I want to be rich 8-).

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Kombat]

Many people work their entire lives in their profession and never earn more than $45k/year.

Uh, buddy? That's a problem. How can anyone expect to pay off education debt, raise a family, and retire comfortably without burdening an already-crippled social security infrastructure if we begin to accept the notion that a $45k salary after 35 years of service is "normal?"

I'm not saying they should be making 6-figures either, but I am saying that in our culture, it is impossible for a family to live comfortably on $45k/year perpetually, while trying to put 2.5 kids through college and save for retirement. It can't be done.

Now, if both parents want to work and bring in that kind of money, well then it becomes possible, but if both parents are working, who's raising the kids? A stranger. And THAT, my friends, is a huge part of what's wrong with society today. THAT is why your kids won't listen to your or respect you.

But I'm getting off-topic.

Comrades, Don't Unite

[wildnight]

Ok everybody just take a deep breath. It's not time to flush capitalism yet. Keep a few points in mind: 1) For at *least* 15 years we have all done *very* well in tech (last three years notwithstanding). 2) The tech employment sector was over served and overpaid. Come on now! I personally approved $50K and up for hires without college degrees and in their early 20's. Very early. 3) We are in the middle of a re-adjustment. It's painful but it is overdue. Those with solid skills (beyond the programming language of the moment)will do fine. And by skills I mean: business/technical writing, project/time management, etc. You know, job skills. 4) This outsourcing thing is a fad and will settle out with a relatively small percentage of the tech sector able to be outsourced. Capitalism will re-assert itself. The crappy Indian programmers will be cheap, and you'll get crap from them. The good ones will be more expensive. The additional overhead of working from across the miles and cultures will also take its toll. 5) Now is the time to be sharpening your *GENERAL* skills and reminding yourself that the latest coolest tech is not your job security. The ability to add value to the organization, be a productive part of a team, provide and meet deadlines, follow standards, etc., will see you through. For what it's worth, my lifestyle has taken a terrible hit lately. I've even considered going to ack! cough! law school. But I don't blame it on the Indians. Tech was very very good to me.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[kin_korn_karn]

you're questioning the party line. report to the ministry of truth for correction or be shot.

the economic times article is a fluff piece

[Uzik2]

They repeat claims with no explanation of
those claims. The claims are made
by people with no mention of the credentials
of the speaker(s). Why should I believe these
unsubstantiated claims by people who might
have no more informed opinion than the
dog catcher?

The only way

[LoveOO]

The only way to stop the tide of offshoring is to not buy offshored products. If offshored customer service is poor, stifle it's proliferation by not purchasing products of company's who engage in the practice. Likewise, if the software of offshored development is inferior, don't recommend it's purchase nor buy it yourself. The only way to hurt this practice is through "boycotting." We all know of companies who engage in the practice. What is needed is action and not debate. Reasoning for recommending against the purchase of offshored products is relatively easy. The quality of the product is lacking and therefore risk to the organization is increased. A business case must be made against the practice in order to justify resistance.

Got ya

[OptimoosePrime]

Bull@#$%! Now drink your shot!

Re:I smell bull - (investment WHERE?)

[steve_of_AR]

> And where will the rest of that money go?: to
> investment; to research; to newer jobs, etc.

It seems to me that this is where the argument fails - you assume that investment will go back into the *US* economy. But there is nothing to gaurantee that. In fact, as the offshore centers become the technology hot centers and they become more autonomous, I would imagine more and more of the investment itself will be offshore.

False Premise

[the eric conspiracy]

The poster of this article made a false assumption - the increase in US jobs by 22 million is due to offshoring.

No such thing

It is due to normal job creation which in the US averages about 3 million per year. If it weren't for offshoring, it would be 24 million new US jobs.

The main thing to take away fropm this is that while offshoring has hurt some specialties fairly hard, overall it isn't a huge detriment to the US employment picture.

Notice who the *article* quotes

[whitroth]

About how many jobs will be created in the US - US Republican gov't economic reports. The same reports that claimed we would create 1.7M new jobs *last* year, and is claiming 2.6M this year.

More importantly, back in the seventies, as manufacturing started offshoring, there was a *lot* of talk about the "information economy", and how it would be were the new jobs were.

There is NO, ZERO, ZIP talk of any new field or industry to provide the new jobs. There is nothing to point to.

When Newt and the Reptilians said they wanted to take us back to the days of the Robber Barons, they *meant* it. As the headline I read last year put it, they want to roll back the 20th century...and everything that our grandparents and parents fought for and won - from a social safety net to decent pay and benefits, they want to toss out the window (how many of you have paid any attention to the fight over overtime pay rules?).

There's no new industry up and coming here in the US, other than flipping burgers, telemarketing, and nurses' aides in nursing homes.

mark "why, yes, I *am* out of work"

-- .sig ...
Libertarian IT workers who watch their jobs go overseas should derive joy from geographic shifts in employment. Their "dog eat dog" creed requires them to be happy whenever the marketplace finds a way to pay workers less and increase business owners' profits. - Roblimo Miller, NewsForge.com

Clear and compelling logic

[dbc001]

This is true. By sending out jobs overseas, we actually gain jobs. We are giving jobs away to ourselves!!! By the same token, When we give breaks to large corporations and rich people, it is the average people who benefit!

Also, by killing people in Iraq, we are actually improving their lives.

Re: Clear and compelling logic

[rolofft]

Your comment brings many questions to mind on the issue of international trade:

When I buy wine from France, am I exporting American dollars for good? Do those dollars dissipate into the Gallic ether, or do the French vintners expect to be able to trade those dollars back for something of value from America?

Likewise, if I pay an Indian to write a program, where do those dollars ultimately get redeemed? He got small portraits of old US presidents; I got a program I can use to help my business. Seems like I've made out like a bandit. What am I missing?

Also, where do I spend the money I saved on hiring him versus a more expensive American? Do I hoard it under my pillow, burn it in the hibachi, or hire more employees and reinvest in my company?

Re: Clear and compelling logic

[Anonymous Coward]

They use the small portraits of american presidents to build nukes! Buy weapons, jets from Boeing, and other Arms supplier. Other things they do is buy coke, pepsi, watch holywood movies, buy heavy machinery, computers and many other products.
We need to give them $$ to buy our other products.

India's worldwide share of software market is less than 5%. Sending bunch of jobs to India is not going to hurt US economy.

Re:Clear and compelling logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Beautiful post! I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic, because I really do know people who believe each of the things you said.

I'm 90% sure you're joking because of the way things are worded. The only difference is that they would have worded your last point differently (they would have added the word "evil" before "people", and replaced the word "their" with "innocent people".

Even though it was just a quick comment, each of the points is very interesting if you take the time to try to understand why some people believe them.

People just don't understand what they're missing

[komby]

People don't understand what a great opportunity offshoring is for US companies.

As a recent college graduate with a degree in CS I was excited to find that entry level these days is College degree + 3-5 years experience! It would be nice to have some of the offshored jobs back to gain my 3-5 with. So I can get the "Better jobs" that are going to be produced by this model.

President said 1.7 million new jobs Jan 2003

[peter303]

And the result was 63,000 total job loss in all of 2003. Last five months of 2003 saw an increase.

Jan 2004 Presidents economic report predicts 2.7 million new jobs. So does that mean double the loss this year? :-)

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your forgetting that in high tech areas the cost of living is much higher than in most of the country. People are already committed to mortgages that were based on the boom times. They could move to a different area where there are no jobs they're qualified for which doesn't solve anything.

Also college grads are not the only ones suffering, but I guess you thought some kind of age warfare would help you make your point.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[MoneyT]

Except you missed the part where he said many people, not many families. Your average family has 2 parents and 2.5 kids right? If both parants make about $45k a year, that's $90k a year total, which believe it or not, is quite a livable income for a family of 4.

sauces, use thereof

[Anonymous Coward]

Standard of living is a relative term. I suggest the Indians should keep doing what they do best, and keep living the way they have been. They don't have to buy american, buy what India makes. In another 20 years, it's America's turn to become a third world country. Who says America deserves the best.This is Global Economy

big hit to social security and medicare

[peter303]

The high end jobs pay about $11,000 a year in social security and medicare taxes (counting the employer half of the contribution). 3.3 million of these will off-source to locations where no tax is paid, just as the boomers are retiring.

The rich pay the rich, silly

[lysium]

If they buy land, then they buy it from somebody. The person that has sold the land now has the money in his (or her) pocket.

Who do you think owns the land, a poor farming family?! Most likely it is a wealthy real-estate mogul, or a faceless "holding & mangement" corporation. So technically, yes, the money does change hands; however it changes hands at a level of society out of reach to most people, and thus the money is removed from the economy de facto.

Please, do explain how trickle-down economics will benefit us all....

==--------==

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your assuming that both parents work and they make about the same amount of money which is not the typical situation. In addition, if $45K a year is not enough for 1 person, why would you believe it's enough for 2?

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is somewhere in the category of: If your neighbor loses his job, that's a recession, if you lose your job it's a depression.
But realize, the people running the country now are capitalists. They believe that everyone is on their own. If you can't make it, too bad for you. I disagree with that philosophy, but there are many to subscribe to it dogmatically. (Most are wealthy, and many are in power right now).

Indian call center q: (was Re:Tired of this..)

[hymie3]

Perhaps you could help me with this question. Why are the Indians in call centers so adamant on handling the call themselves? *I* know that they can't handle my question, and some times it seems that *they* know that they can't handle the question, but *EVERY* single call I've placed to what appears to be an Indian call center, whether it be for customer support on a credit card or telephone or for a technical support call for a computer problem, results in the call person obstinately following the call script, even when the script doesn't apply to the situation (it's hard to insert a CD into a computer when the power supply doesn't work).
Only then do they say that a supervisor will call me back, which is what I wanted in the first place.

Truth

[HangingChad]

There is nothing of concern other than the next quarter stock valuation...

Corporate favoritism in government is nothing new, it's been going on as long as this country's been around. The previous generation lived by the motto: If it's good for GM, it's good for the country. But lately it seems like government and business have teamed up in a tag team citizen smack down.

Unless we can put aside bickering over wedge issues long enough to put real reform candidates in Congress and the White House what's left of we the people are going to keep getting the poopy end of the stick.

Until people who steal millions in stock manipulation start doing hard time and actually have to pay the money back nothing is going to change. Unless we can separate Wall Street from the quarterly mentality and provide incentive for being good corporate citizens here, jobs will keep flowing out of the country.

None of that will happen until representatives that put special interests ahead of our interests start losing elections. Though the good news is it will only take three or four getting the boot for the rest to take notice. A couple political heads on pikes, from both parties, really does make a compelling statement.

I'm just not confident we can put aside our differences long enough to get it done.

Re:"8 long years of management"

[Enry]

You forget the fact that his VP invented the Internet, well, allowed it to become commercial and thus fostering the environment where Cisco could sell all those routers.

Part of the crash was not the Internet bubble itself, but rather the decrease in confidence of public companies (Enron, Worldcom, etc.). While some may say the book-cooking happened under Clinton's watch (it did), Clinton did have bills before congress to limit the ability of companies to do the kinds of things that Enron/Worldcom did. But the bills were defeated by lobbyists led by Harvey Pitt, who later became Bush's SEC chair. Talk about fox guarding the henhouse!

I would venture to say that it was a combination of Clinton (era of big government is over), Greenspan (H4x0r Economist), and the tech industry in general.

We all knew that economy could not keep going by itself. Anyone who thought the good times would last forever was living in fantasy land. Just like how the so-so economy of today won't last forever. But Bush's policies isn't making the so-so economy end anytime soon.

Economics -101

[CashCarSTAR]

This is just political posturing for the election and so much bullshit it's not even funny.

There's a deeper problem however, it's the reliance on old-school economics that even critics of the current administration rely on. That follows too much theory while ignoring business reality.

Why do companies hire people? Is it because they have a soft spot in their heart? Because the forsee future growth? Nope.

Hiring occurs because a company's current workforce is unable to meet their needs. What's happened recently, is instead of hiring new workers, companies have pulled more productivity out of their current workers. That's the reason for the current jobless recovery.

Very few jobs are going to be created in such an enviroment, ever. In fact, eventually you'll start seeing more and more jobs being lost as disposible money becomes more and more of a scarcity.

Face it, those jobs are not coming back. In fact, the American middle class is going to cease to exist. Accept it and get used to it.

Unfortunately, there is another way

[Poligraf]

3. Since dollar is more than just an American currency, they can go to China and buy their goods for dollars.

Then Chinese will invest in the American stock market or bonds the way Japanese did in the eighties and nineties.

It will give some money to the shareholders, but not to workers.

>Case 2 (which never happens), would be wonderful... WE could just keep printing dollar bills and never have to work. Unfortunately, when we import goods or services, the other countries want something in return.

Define "we" for this argument.
If "WE are Borg", we don't need any money ;-).
If "WE are the rich", then yes, we can never have to work.

However, "we" as in "wage-earners" will have some problems because of the lack of jobs to earn a living. This will lead to a structural crisis, and the only solutions will be either trade barriers or enormous taxes and a welfare state.

As for your free trade stuff, this is one way to look at it. I won't disagree that it makes goods cheaper (even though your example with cars is not good since there are no automakers in Massachusets that will be killed by the low-cost Michigan imports).

However, you also need to remember about trade disbalances. Unless Massachusets in your examples can print unlimited amount of money, it won't be able to sustain paying for goods made outside of it.

P.S. The article in Indiatimes seems like a hogwash to me.

Re:Unfortunately, there is another way

[ZoneGray]

I should have noted earlier that I also agree that it's hogwash to suggest that trade creates jobs. It does, however, lead to lower-cost goods, which benefits the lowest earners.

Unfortunately, the person who lost his $20K job knows he lost his job, and the 2 million people who subsequently saved a dime on their shower flip-flops don't even notice the savings individually. But when we tried protectionisom with autos in the 70's, the point was made much more clearly. At the time, import quoatas meant that it cost $4K to buy a $3K Toyota. The alternative was to buy a $3500 Chevy, which at the time were a pieces of shit. And average-income folks got pissed. Yeah, workers were happy in Detroit. But only in Detroit.

Re:Unfortunately, there is another way

[Poligraf]

Again, 3K Toyota was competing with 3.5K Chevy mostly on the merit, especially build quality.

7K$ Indian programmers do not leave a chance to the 50K$ American ones.

As for the savings in the channel, it mostly affects cheaper goods. AFAIK, significant percentage of what we pay in the supermarket is marked up at the post-production stage.

Shipping and handling, retail spaces, credit card processiong - all of it diminishes the role of savings in the manufacturing.

Also, I think that certain things MUST be more expensive. Look at consumer electronics that is a field where many people throw away perfectly working equipment because of the trendy fads (the worst offenders here are cell phones). Most of the replacement equipment does not give much advantage in functional department or quality.

Making it more expensive will lead to less natural resources wasted, less stuff at the landfills, less pollution et al.

Re:Niggers (black people)

[Godson07]

Whaz-up Coward!

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[El Torico]

Great for the ruling class. Hell for the workers.

Then we should be asking ourselves how do we become a ruling class?

What means should we use to obtain and exercise political and economic power?

Bush On Outsourcing:

[beforewisdom]

From:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/ 2001854367_bushecon10.html

"The movement of American factory jobs and white-collar work to other countries is part of a positive transformation that will enrich the U.S. economy over time, even if it causes short-term pain and dislocation, the Bush administration said yesterday."

Translation ( Bush to American workers): Go Away.

I say we help Bush family share the "short-term pain and dislocation" by putting their sons out of work as well.

Steve

They also don't count ME

[Poligraf]

Being a 1099 subcontractor, I was not even eligible for any unemployments benefits.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Trifthen]

Man, this troll is so lazy, they're not even really trying...

25 year olds fresh out of college? Around here, people graduate when they're 22. Three years is a long freaking time.

Where are these $75k web-design jobs you seem to think everyone used to have? I made $35k out of college doing application design and database administration, and that was four years ago during the tail-end of the tech boom. A friend of mine was close to $100k, but that was in California doing high-end cryptography and consulting. I'd say the costs of living were comparable.

What about inflation? $1 in 1980 is now worth about $2.56, after figuring in a yearly inflation rate of 4%. The current minimum wage of $5.15 went into effect in 1997. 4% annual increases makes that $6.78. So if you know someone out there still making minimum wage, they have about 25% less buying power than they did in 1997. So what if someone is making $45k? That's about $17.5k in 1980 dollars. So yeah, I hope someone working in a company for 20+ years is making 45k right now.

Want more? In 1980, the average wage was $12.8k, after inflation, that's about $33k, or about $16 an hour. Remember that average includes minimum-wage jobs which have not been updated to reflect recent changes due to inflation.

However you want to cut it, there is nothing wrong with making $35k out of college. After four years of supplementary schooling, I'd fully expect candidates to want more, or at least more than the average - since the average person did not attend college if you believe the 2000 census.

I don't know what magical fairyland you live in, but in the US, things cost money. Education and experience should come at a premium, unless someone is arguing a recent High School graduate is worth as much as a certified engineer with 10 years of experience. The problem is that nobody wants to pay that premium, or they want to pay it in a country where $10,000 US is a king's ransom. Here, $10,000 US is considered below the poverty level.

But that's where inflation and devalued currency get you. We literally can't compete with $10k wages (or less) in Uzbekistan. At this rate, I might as well learn Hindi and move to India and make a king's ransom rather than scrape change together to pay my bills.

oh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

another for-Indians by-Indians gimme-all-your-work article. They can't seem to stop touting their superiority complex.

Whinging Americans

[Findus Krispy]

You lot are the biggest bunch of whingers I have ever seen. This is about the fifth article I have seen on this same thread and you are all still crying like babies 'cos you are no longer getting paid 100 times the world average.

What really annoys me is how you say stuff like, we need to ensure that America remains the wealthiest country for the good of the world! How the fuck do you come to that conclusion?

You've all been living in a bubble for a long time, and now the bubble is starting to burst. The fact is, when you consume a quarter of the worlds energy, natural resources, and workers, that must be maintained by force or trickery. Or do you really suppose that was just because America was inherently superior.

Local workers continue to become less important to the elite. The elite don't care about you, and they only ever paid your inflated wages begrudgingly. When the opportunity arose to replace you, they did.

THE BIGGER PICTURE:
What is really going on here? Well the majority of the worlds inhabitants live in poverty. And, if you are rich, it's advantageous to keep them that way. How much do you pay for a jar of coffee or a bag of sugar, and how much did the farmer receive for that? Would you pay more so that others can be paid fairly for there hard work, or would you continue to consume even more crap you don't need and have them so poor that they can only afford one simple meal of rice a day -- if they are lucky?

Think about it? Is it possible that you have been responsible for the premature deaths of many people through mal-nutrition so that you could consume that little bit more? If you answer no then you need to educate yourself to what is really going on in the world.

Now the elite are squeezing some of the local inhabitants out since they are no longer necesarry to their continued wealth. Can you despise them for that? Remember before you answer, having you unemployed means they get to consume that little bit more -- another car anyone? Can you really begrudge them that.

If you can you're a hippocrite. I suggest you take this pertinent advice "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." -- and ignorance will not cut it -- you have the Internet, so educate yourself.

Re:Whinging Americans

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

No, you're wrong. And you can't spell. The thing is, "America" is not just one, homogenous place of greed and evil. (Yes, I know this complicates your worldview, because now the country you love to hate isn't a monolithic evil empire, sorry). I am glad that globalisation is making the third world a better place. What makes me angry is that it is the POOREST Americans who to sacrifice to make this possible, and I'm asking for government policies to change this--it is the RICHEST Americans who should sacrifice to improve the rest of the world. Basically, I'm glad Indian programmers now have a chance to work their way out of poverty, I am angered that America's poor are forced to use emergency rooms as primary care providers.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[sparkane]

The only reason it seems horrible is because 25 year olds fresh out of college can no longer expect to make $75k/year making web sites. Boo friggin hoo. Many people work their entire lives in their profession and never earn more than $45k/year.

We should all shut up because we're asking for too much money. I hear this argument a lot. I think it's an ignorant one.

One, IT types fresh out of school are not turning down $45K jobs because they have been told they can expect $75K ones. Usually fresh-out-of-school types are not too assertive about how much money they expect to get, which is why companies commonly like to throw over older, more experienced workers for kids; they accept less for the same amount of work.

Two, IT types NOT fresh out of school also are not turning down $45K jobs, if it's the best thing they can get. Of course more experienced workers are more demanding, and rightfully so. But if they have a choice between $45K and not $0K (or $burger-flippingK), they'll choose $45K, obviously.

Third and most ignorant, arguments like this make it sound like companies are giving workers the option to accept $45K level jobs, OR they will outsource; in other words, that a $45K job wouldn't be outsourced. Wrongo. $45K jobs are going to India too.

This is where you are wrong

[Poligraf]

Your "Market corrected for these problems" can be well said about situation when a rare profession becomes a mainstream, and specialists who demanded six figures need to get real.

Whatever happens here is pretty much a disappearance of a profession. Besides just getting reduced incomes, there is not enough jobs in this field to feed a significant percentage of formerly employed there.

And unlike the situation with manufacturing, these are the knowledge jobs requiring extensive and often expensive training lasting for several years. Thus, a lot of "supply lines" turn to be cut, and a lot of people in a pipeline get burned.

That brings an analogy of a invalid branch prediction in a processor when a lot of parsed instructions need to be disregarded, and the processor itself waits for data to be retrieved from main memory et al.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[SirChive]

"Most people who came through the door were underqualified and wanted too much money"

Yep, the poor misguided fools probably wanted a wage they could actually live on.

Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics

[autophile]

... and Damn Statistics.

From the article: She pointed out that the Bureau of Labour Statistics was predicting a job gain of 22m in the US by '10, against a job loss of 2m due to offshoring.

And then there's this article, which points out that because of globalization, technology and stagnant prices, none of the old statistical models of employment work, and apparently no economist has come up with a new model, since their predictions over the past year have been completely wrong.

So I doubt I'd trust what any economist, or group of economists, or the BLS, has to say about future employment numbers.

--Rob

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[MoneyT]

I would believe it's enough because it's been enough for my family. It's called not living beyond your means. It means you don't buy a new car every 3 years. It means your computer doesn't get updated every 6 months. It means you coook your own food instead of eating out every night. It means sandwiches for lunch, and not drinking $6 cups of starbucks 5 times a day. $45k is quite a livable wage, but you need to prioritize.

Currency issues will straighten this out

[pyite69]

The main cause of this problem is that the dollar
is artificially strong. Over the next several
years the dollar is likely to devalue
significantly.

The companies who are outsourcing to India will
feel stupid when the exchange rates cause their
"cheap" Indian labor to cost $100/hr - after
spending millions on their outsourcing projects
to begin with!

This process is inevitable as long as we continue
to have global trade; and bringing the rest of
the world up to a better standard of living helps
us almost as much as it helps them.

Economic change

[merciless]

I think most people misses a crucial question when they are arguing about free trade, outsourcing and globalization. Almost all economist uses the standard "extrapolation of the curve" arguments. For example, manufacturing jobs moved offshore, and service/knowledge worker jobs took over and actually created "more" jobs and more wealth creation.

What economists missed are the context in which the change happend - mainly the reconstruction of western europe and Japan, and the cultural revolution (women's movement, race matters, etc) that is happening w/in the United States. The gut wrenching change that happened hit America very, very hard. People our age do not remember double digit inflation, 10% unemployment in the late 70s, and the COMPLETE stagnation of the the income of the middle class for 20 years. As a matter of fact you can argue that the speculative bubble of the late 90s is an abberation from the continued trend of decline within the general welfare of the average american citizen.

There are a ton of "stealth inflation" that is going on that is biting at the wealth of the average american. Health care, education and real estate has all been growing at rate above inflation. Fees are being charged for EVERY LITTLE thing that were not the case before that does not get reflected in the numbers.

What does this have to do w/jobs? The simple fact is that offshoring/outsourcing has a measurable impact on average wage (check out the statistics for family of 4 living at poverty level for the past 25 years) for a LONG time now. It is not a new phenomenon. We, as americans, have adapted to this new way of life. The majority of families are dual income families when 30 years ago (at the cusp of the women's movement) that was not the case. Our savings rate is the lowest in recorded history, our consumer debt is the highest. The government is borrowing at a rate of 500 billion dollars a year for the forseeable future. There are pressure to raise interest rates, especially if the treasury bond market underperforms(a real danger) due to slack demand as people and foreign countries, especially in times of trouble, shifts to precious metals or other investment vehicles.

There is, however, a generally new shock that has not been recorded before - something I call Kurzweil's Law of unintended consequence of accelerating returns. Productivity is up, but not employment. Why? The short answer is employment is mitigated by increasing automation in productivity. This is happening only with the crudest of software and only limited intelligent hardware (computer operated drills, robotic assembly lines, automated check processing, mail sorting, etc). Imagin what will happen once we have super high definition actuators with 6 degrees of freedom, actual specialized but adaptable AI, and network everything. I read somewhere that in United States the replacement cost of an average manufacturing job by a robot is 17 dollars an hour. That includes operating, amortization and procurement costs. It seems to me that many service jobs are already at that threshhold. Much like one of the comments talking about training his own replacements that are in India, there will come, within a decade or two, a time when even third world countries will start replacing human labor costs with automation. Another economist predicts that the overall job pool in United States will actually stagnate, and then shrink within 30 years. I don't know if that will happen, but I can tell you that the factors that cause long term, systemic shift like this one is unprecidented.

So the question goes like this - if the jobs shifts, and historically jobs shifting has been "good" (in terms of statistical employment numbers) for America as we climb the ladder of better jobs, is there a terminus point for the job ladder? To state simply, history have show in USA human "jobs" shifted from agriculture to manufacture to services. With in the "services" sector what are considered to be the upper echelon such a

Re:Explain it to me....

[cayenne8]

I can't get anyone to explain it to me. How will this global outsourcing economy help me? My job is thrown offshore. No jobs left that pay a decent salary in the US....if people can't get work that pay good salaries, who will be there to buy those 'cheaper' goods? You HAVE to have a decent paying job, enough for some disposable income to be able to buy all these things being produced.

This explanation in the article...to me looks like to make it in the global economy, you have to make your living off the stock market, and I'd dare say, that is a LOW percentage of US citzens.

Re:Tolkien sucks!

[Anonymous Coward]

>Have I mentioned that JK Rowling is much better? Well I do now!

Finally someone had the courage to speak out the truth. Keep it up man !! And don't worry about the negative scores for being "Offtopic".

But do the numbers actually make sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's been a lot of discussion over various related issues, but seriously, let's look at just the numbers in this article. A net gain of 20 million jobs by 2010 is impressive. First of all, let's be generous and assume that's by the end of 2010. That's 82 months. 20 million over 82 months is an average of 243,000 per month. That's well over the rate needed to soak up new people entering the workforce. I think that number is estmated to be around 150K/month. Does anyone here have numbers for the average and maximums during the boom in the 90's?

Re:"8 long years of management"

[SirChive]

"...Cisco could sell all those routers"

We just upgraded all our Cisco switches and routers last month.

Replaced 15 units made in America with 15 units made in China.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Kombat]

Your average family has 2 parents and 2.5 kids right? If both parants make about $45k a year, that's $90k a year total, which believe it or not, is quite a livable income for a family of 4.

Yes, I know. Re-read my post. I already said that if both parents work, then the income is sufficient. But if both parents work, who's taking care of the kids? Daycare. I believe that this is a problem. I believe it is wrong for parents to ship their kids off to strangers to be raised while they struggle to make enough money to retire. The kids resent their parents for not being there enough while they grow up. They rebel in their teen years, and never form that strong parental bond that is essential to a stable, well-balanced development. The parents, in turn, feel guilty about not spending enough time with their kids. So they try to "buy" their affection with material goods. This teaches kids that family relationships aren't important, and that material goods can buy or substitute for affection. They hook up with other kids who were raised with the same values, who also both work, and spawn more kids, who are neglected, and the cycle continues.

This is SAD. This is BAD. This is NOT how things are supposed to be. This is why kids turn to gangs and crime for respect and attention.

Re:Explain it to me....

[Killswitch1968]

Half of all Americans have stock, either in mutual funds or in directly. Just because you lost your job, doesn't mean everyone else did. In fact, quite the opposite. Free trade has a history of maximizing welfare and unemployment. The costs of lowering barriers is concetrated, but the benefits are greater and very widespread.

The headline was wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The writer of the headline for the original article didn't read the story: "...a job gain of 22m in the US by '10, against a job loss of 2m due to offshoring." Note that that's a total gain of jobs in the US of 22 million; that number has little to do with offshoring. The original BLS numbers are here.

-- Fred B.

Re:Explain it to me....

[cayenne8]

"Half of all Americans have stock, either in mutual funds or in directly. "

Most of those Americans with 'stock' are just the ones who have 401K's set up by their companies (or former companies), you can't really touch this money before retirement without EXTREME penalties....

I would venture to guess, the % of Americans with non-retirement, soluble $$'s in the stock market, that they can manage and access freely, is a very limited number. So, no, the majority of US citzens do not benefit from the stock market. And...if you're not working to so that you and your employer are contributing to your 401K...it doesn't grow as fast..and again...not much benefit to you.

"Free trade has a history of maximizing welfare and unemployment"

And how is increasing welfare and unemployment a good thing exactly?? We're wanting to get people in the US off welfare...and get them to work. But, kinda hard when you now are going to have competition for that burger flipping job with people with BS's, MS's, and PhD's....

HIGH TREASON

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm. I'm not a US citizen. But something strikes me as very weird and I would be very alarmed to see it in my country.

What kind of a democracy (i.e. rule of the people -- assuming its own people), would allow foreign corporations (e.g. Indian) to have more influence over the decision making process and legislation than its own people.

In other words:

If you were told that Chinise secret service is financing or otherwise influencing a member of Congress, both the spies and the congresmen would end up in jail or dead accused of a HIGH TREASON!!!

How is a foreign corporation lobbying different than foreign secret agency influence over your representatives.

Re:HIGH TREASON

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. It is also worth noting that many secret services around the world now work partially as a function of its economy, not only political goals!

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've just counted yourself among the lunatics and the criminally stupid.

This is why kids turn to gangs and crime for respect and attention.

That's right, genius, ALL KIDS from dual-income families turn to gangs and crime. None go on to productive healthy lives.

Ok, let's even be generous. Even if you say, what, 50% of kids go on to this? Then you're still looking at criminally stupid. If this was the case, then all of North America would be in anarchy. How many dual-income families do you think they are?

You are, without a question, simply wrong. You are, without a doubt, stupid to make such ridiculous statements.

I cannot count how many people I know that disprove everything you say completely and utterly false.

Job Holding You Back?

[amplt1337]

Apart from huge savings, it allows US companies to concentrate on their core competencies and the people (in the US) can move on to higher paying, more creative, more value generating jobs...

Gee, I'm sure glad that the only thing keeping me from moving on to a higher paying and more creative job was that I had to do all that troublesome IT work. Sure was generous of me to take the hit for the team like that, though, having a job and all. Maybe now that they're outsourcing everything, I can sit on my rump and be creative while I'm paid thousands of dollars an hour by mystical corporate faeries!

The revenge of the suits

[Poligraf]

Here is a philosophical take on the problem.

In the eternal battle between the Chaos and the Order I'd say that creativity mostly belongs to chaos camp and rules belong to the order.

For a very long time the bulk of good money were mostly made in the "ordered" fields where conformance to the rules/interface was the most important thing.

Management, military, practicing medicine and law, sales and religion (I don't even mention most of blue collar occupations) are highly organized professions where you mostly do routine work. You mostly just have a set of methods and need to classify the problem and chose the appropriate method from your usually limited set.

Very rarely you get a genius who is able to do something new in here. Thus, creativity is limited to either human interactions (for salespeople) or just-in-time solutions (doctors, lawyers).

At the same time, you need to dress in somewhat standard way and behave accordingly.

As an opposite, computers (as in programming or web/interface design) is a creative venue, rules of conduct to be damned. There are non-creative folks here too, but their percenage is much lower because these jobs REQUIRE creativity (VB increased the amount of monkeys in the field whether real programming skills need to be judged on the ability to make complicated and efficient algorithms). One certainly needs some order to write code not like a cowboy, but the creativity is still the king.

Other creative professions include science, technology development, architecture, and, surprisingly, marketing.

It is not an accident that this field is filled by "intermediately creative" outcasts of the society who are not persistent/talented/charismatic enough to become highly successful writers/artists/actors/inventors, but nevertheless can manifest their creativity in these fields.

That brings us to the rise of the web. This was a moment when this creativity was able to provide people with a very good living, and the need in such people has sharply increased. The balance has somewhat shifted when these people were able to jump into a middle class pretty much after graduation.

BTW, this is why so many English majors ended up in the web/computer industry. Even though English is a pretty restrictive language (I don't want to start a flame war here, but it is very logical and thus less flexible comparing to some others), these folks have been taught how to write creatively.

So, current crackdown and fall of the industry seems to be putting power and money back where it always belonged, in the hands of "suits".

We again are often judged not by what you can do, but by certain formal criterias such as having required crap on your resume. We are again at the mercy of not so human resources and clueless managers. You're again judged not by what you achieve but by how much time you spend on the Net. It is again the employers' market and restrictive rules.

Still, some hope and freedom remains in places that have learned its value.

Re:The revenge of the suits

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, how do I agree with you...
but on the ther hand it does create the balnce...
and we may not change the rules of this world...
once again the fittest will survive.

Financial Aid *cough*

[Findus Krispy]

Financial Aid ... what a joke. The rich countries all do it, like they really want to help or something. For every $10 we steal we'll give one back. Yes, were such good Samaritans!

This is how to enslave a country, so that you may begin to give them financial aid and feel good about yourself:

1. Give their corrupt Government huge loans that the country will never see
2. Require that they all a grow a cash crop to bay pack their foreign debt
3. Ensure that their is an over production of said resource
4. Pay a price that will not cover interest payments
5. Penalise any countries that try to stand together by ignoring them completely
6. Profit!

What Can We Learn From This?

[LifesABeach]

in the short term; i for one have continued my education in operating systems, and languages. in the long term; i know that we are crossing the threshold of the diamond age, not all will come willingly. i believe others will find a way to adapt to our changing times, but they may find it to be not very comfortable. there will be those that select glory over change, this to is a form of adaptation. i truly believe michael crichton's statement, "life finds a way", tobe more true, than not.

Re:What Can We Learn From This?

[iron_weasel]

Been reading a lot of N. Stephenson have we?

I must tell you that it is really FICTION!
'
His latest titled 'Quicksilver?
We now know that mercury is a fast introduction to death. Drinking it or playing with it was NOT A GOOD IDEA!!!

MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only are his numbers completely bogus, he has a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works. He is not insightful...he is full of shit.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Doc Ruby]

You respond to my facts an logic, Anonymous flamer Coward, with mere contradiction and whines for moderation. Crawl back under your mousepad where it's safe, or add something to the discussion.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[germinatoras]

I'd wadger that the original poster is from an area where real-estate prices are high. Think like in New York or Washington D.C. where people have to pay $250,000 for a crappy little rowhouse and 2+ hour commute to work. I'm guessing that's why he's saying $45 is not enough, which is entirely true in that case. Just my $0.02.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Kombat]

That's right, genius, ALL KIDS from dual-income families turn to gangs and crime.

*Sigh* Yeah, that's right, that's what I said. Thanks for paraphrasing for me.

Quit putting words in my mouth. If you look at the various demographic cross-sections of convicted criminals, you notice several suprising and disturbing things. For instance, the single biggest thing most criminals have in common is a disadvantaged economic class. Whether that's due to race, geographic influences, or family history varies, but the end result is the same. The poor are more likely to commit crime.

Likewise, when you look at the factors of juvenile criminals, you find that while there are still similar economic influences, (i.e., a disproportionate number of them come from broken or single-parent families [read: "low income"]), but you also get a surprising number who come from what could only be described as "upscale" families. Double-income families who by all accounts are quite well-off. These are the kids who have too much free time away from their parents, and turn to crime for attention, or gangs for respect.

What I'm trying to say is that if the general population of "good kids" is made up of 50% kids who have a family unit where one parent works and the other stays home to raise the kids, and 50% kids where both parents work, then the kids in juvenile detention are made up of 20% kids from the former families, and 80% from the latter.

Of course I made those numbers up, but they are in fact representative of what is happening out there.

US hypocracy.

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the hypocracy of the posts and moderation here. Americans decrying free market? WHAT THE FUCK? Didnt you think about the same things when your government was using hook-or-crook tactics with other nations? WHY on earth did u rejoice the fall of the Berlin wall? Why are you starving Cuba off even essential supplies? This is all just a sham! Shame on you people!

Am I reading this right?

[Caffeine Pill]

Wait, let me get this straight.

First she says that companies save $.58 on the dollar in outsourcing - then states that this goes to the investors. How does that benefit workers?

Then she states that India consumes goods as a result of their increased wealth. Ok, so I lose my job as a developer but I can always go to work in a factory to produce goods that will be shipped to India for consumption?
Oh wait, that won't work because all of the factory jobs are now in Mexico.

Good thing that that investor has his extra pocket change. Maybe he'll drop it in my cup on the way by.

Re:Am I reading this right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pray tell what manufactured good does US export to India??

Re:Am I reading this right?

[patternjuggler]

Then she states that India consumes goods as a result of their increased wealth.

Until just recently, India had huge tariffs on computers... Why were we shipping all these jobs there if they hadn't done that already?

The BIG LIE

[Anonymous Coward]

"So, for 2 billion dollars Indian programmers are delivering the exact same amount of business value as the 8 billion dollar American programmers."

I'm a bit surprised no one else has pointed this out.

Exact same business value? No. You obviously haven't seen Indian code, worked an overseas project, or seen $50m get flushed down the drain in lost cash on completely useless output from an overseas project.

The hidden costs of bad programming, bugs, and poor design will come back to bite these companies many fold over later.

There's also a long term problem for the US economy in that there's no place for an inexperienced person to get started in the field so when the current senior level techies from pre-Indian outsourcing days retire, get permanently laid off, or keel over there won't be enough Americans to replace them.

Who will do all that creative smart work then?
Indians?

It's cute that you posted some nifty math but it doesn't work out here in the real world. This isn't Econ-1. It's more complicated than you depict.

Re:The BIG LIE

[HiThere]

Do remember that most large software projects have always failed. What we are left with are the relative successes.

It's not surprising that most cut-rate projects fail. Especially when the management can't see what's happening. So you need to move management on-site (at a cut rate, due to lower living expenses). Now you've moved most of your corporation to where it's cheaper to operate. Most of your projects still fail, but they always did, so that's no different. But the trys aren't as expensive.

The place you moved from may have become a disaster area, but the place you moved into is working well, so you are far-sighted, clear thinking, and efficient. That you destroyed the town that had given birth to your company, and nurtured it to size is an unfortunate by-product. And you were probably able to recover the money you had invested in the pension fund, by selling the shell to a scavenger company.

I can see why an Indian economist would be happy with this deal. And the CEO has good reason to be happy. Perhaps even the stockholders have good reason, though that's less certain as they may have gotten stripped at the same time as the pension fund. But nobody who used to work for the company has any reason to cheer. And nobody they used to buy from has any reason to cheer. Still, the CEO can issue a few rosy press-releases on his way out. And nobody may know why everything has gone to pot, if he's been both careful and sneaky. (Still, he doesn't need to, as they don't extradite for merely ripping off the workers, the stockholders, and the community.)

But I would recommend that people in his new location not expect him to be any more trustworthy around them than he was previously.

Re: Investment Where?

[Anonymous Coward]

well, first of all your assuming that infact the corporations invest it anywhere.

Look at MS, record profits, and 40BN in the bank. the bank is not investment, the money is doing nothing but sitting there.

Look at increasing corporate salaries, yeah they invest it, into their own pockets.

Look at investors, who get the dividends, they invest it back in the stock market mostly, which then gives the average CEO more money to pour back into his pockets.

Seeing a pattern here? It's called concentration of wealth. And it never ever leads to good things.

How Dilbertian

[ab762]

There's a Dilbert where the PHB outsources a bunch of jobs, then uses the freed-up people to take on an outsourced contract ... which turns out to be the same jobs he outsourced in the first place, through two intermediaries. Or, the old joke about the three arbitrageurs stranded on a desert island - when they were rescued, they were all immensely wealthy from trading coconuts with each other.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[MrScience]

My wife tells me all the time that this goes back to Women's Lib... All the women wanted to work, to be equal, etc. etc. Well, now the economy is geared for a two-income family-- it's expected.

We've been able to get by on just my income so she can raise our three kids... but it can be tough.

Not meant as a troll, just passing on one female's perspective.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Anonymous Coward]

This reply only convinces me that we are on the verge of a class war in this country. Im rooting for the little guy (since they outnumber the big guy by about 1000 to 1).

Re:Exportable Jobs (2nd try)

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, even Doctors aren't secure. Sure, you have the requirements for emergency medical care. But one of the latest twists that I've seen is outsourcing the non-emergency operations to India. There are apparently packages that will fly you there, fix you up, and let you recover in a vacation setting. And it's apparently cheaper than what a U.S. operation will charge.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit putting words in my mouth.

Well, you *did* say that. When you say "The kids resent ..." you are including all kids. You should say "Some kids resent ..." and so on.

Beyond that, your conclusions are not necessarily accurate.

These are the kids who have too much free time away from their parents, and turn to crime for attention, or gangs for respect.

This is just a guess. You've established a statistic, but causality is not proven. Far from it. For all we know, perhaps the parents from dual-income families beat their kids more often. Perhaps they have less respect for the law and pass that on. And so on. There's an enormous amount of possibilities that are not "kids turn to crime for attention and respect **because their parents don't pay attention to them**".

The problem is that your statement is phrased such that you conclude that it is dual-income families that are the problem -- when in fact, it could be the opinions and attitudes of individuals who are more likely to end up in dual-income families.

That's like saying capitalism is the cause of all executives being unethical. It is also possible that unethical individuals are just attracted to positions of power that they can abuse.

Do you have any proof for causality?

Re:Some more statistics.. NOT!!

[FirstOne]

It seams quite a few people haven't clued into the fact the Fed's have been lying for a very long time.

Start with Dol official UI#/workforce == (non-seasonally adjusted UE rate. U3)
9144K/146,068K == 6.3% unemployment rate.

( B.T.W. Seasonal adjustment shifts this number to 5.6%, In the last month we really lost 2.8 Million jobs, but seasonal adjustments make it look like a net gain of 112K.)

--

Add IN.....

Disability rolls rise, skew labor data

"Recent research finds a 60% jump in number of disability recipients keeping unemployment low."

"The "labor force," 142.5 million strong, does not include people who draw disability benefits from the Social Security Administration(SSA). As of December 2002, there were about 5.5 million adults getting disability benefits, totaling about $4.6 billion a month. "

OK.. so tack in 3,000K partially disabled, get federal checks, want work, but not counted.
(9,144K+3,000K) / (146,068K + 3,000K) == ~8.1% unemployment rate..

---

Factor in that there are the 10.3 Million self employed workers who are paying estimated (self employment) taxes(14.1%) for LESS THAN a 2.4 million FULL TIME MINIMUM WAGE workers. (Shift another 8 million from the employed to the unemployment category). If they're not filling form 1040-ES's, then they're not making any money. (Equivalent to unemployed)..

raw tax collection data. Table IV.. (individual estimated tax payments)
3,371 Million(2003 1040ES data)/.141(SE tax rate)/10.3Million == average SE income $2,321/yr..
[Notes: Uses 2003 tax collection data as a baseline, and ignores federal income tax liability and the contributions by people paying in for capital gains.] [Full time job at Federal Min wage pays $10,300/yr.]

(9,144K+3,000K+8,000K) / (146,068K+3000K) == ~13.5% unemployment rate.

----

Add in the FACT, that there have been workforce adjustments which lop off a couple of million (unemployed) workers each year, despite the Census numbers that workforce should be growing by 2 Million per year. [B.T.W. We've added ~9 Million to the 16 and over Civilian NI population since the tech bust started, at least 65% would have taken a job if it was available.]

Undo the recent changes to workforce participation percentages. (revert back to 2000 average 67.1% verses current 65.7%) It's obvious they want to work. Just no work to be had.. That adds back in 1.4% percent of overall work population.. 3.0 Million workers..

(9,144K+3,000K+8,000K+3,000K) / (146,068K+3000K+3,000K) == ~15.2% unemployment rate.

-----

Add in the FACT that the DOL changed(1994) the household survey data collection method and resulting in the almost doubling of the non-parcipation rate, from 4.3 to 7.5 Percent. The DOL accomplished this feat by substituting a scientifically sound MAIL IN form, with scientifically discredited IN PERSON interviews.

Well, I don't know about you, but being unemployed is not a badge of honor. Most people do not like to admit that they are unemployed, and would be even less likely to do so while being interviewed in person. I.E. It demeans their social status and self esteem.

If they managed to convince/intimidate those households, with at least one unemployed worker not to participate. That would add another
3.4 Million to the unemployment/workforce figures, thusly increasing unemployment by another 2 to 3 of percent.

[Another item in the DOL household survey is the incredible number of Ineligible households!! Thats 12,000 out of a sample lot of 72,000 or 16.6%..

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, I always thought that if you paid your bills you weren't "living beyond your means". We are talking about people you lost their jobs, not people who were spending more than they earn.

If you lost your $45K job and had to accept a $20K job, I guess we shouldn't feel sorry for you.

Empire needs you!

[Maljin Jolt]

I guess all those jobless yankees could simply join the army. With 2.6M stormtroopers, US could conquer some another continent for them, er... their corporations, to colonize for cheap resources.

Soft Landing

[Tablizer]

While I agree that the shift is probably innevitable in the long run, steps can be taken to reduce the pain to those *currently* in the field. These include:

1. End the longer-term "tech" work visa programs immediately, and clamp down on shorter-term visas.

2. Limit offshoring in government contracts for at least 5 years.

3. Put into place laws that restrict sensative customer and medical information from being processed overseas.

4. Officially suggest to schools not to promote IT education.

On the one hand it seems many want to keep a strong "tech base" in this country for national security and "cutting edge" reasons, yet they don't want to pay for it. The gov subsidizes farmers. Are farmers a more strategic resource than tech workers? You can't have it both ways. You cannot force people to go into a dying field. They seek stability and money, both of which are rapidly dissappearing.

Also

[Poligraf]

The goods that are getting cheaper are usually not whatever people buy every day. There are certainly exceptions, but still most of expenses are incurred on living/food/gas et al whether consumer goods made in a different country are not bought that often.

This is like....

[Iowaguy]

Wow, this is like a typical slashdot post, except thought out and informative. :)

Outsouce Economist and Statagist Next

[cinni]

Diana Farrell, director, McKinsey Global Institute, said, "People in the US are looking at it as a job issue. They are not economists and therefore, they don't necessarily see the whole picture. Yeah thats easy to say for McKinsey (who I might add work very closely with CEO's....'KICKBACKS' FOR GENERATING OFFSHORE PROPAGANDA).....until ofcourse an Indian Stratagist and Economist come and take their job.... see how quick they will change their opinion!!!

Re:Outsouce Economist and Statagist Next

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it matters for them one way or another. They have enough money stashed away to start something else if they get thier asses kicked out of their jobs. They will just say "see, it works." But if that happens to me, I will be running out of my saving in 2 months and be a bum for the rest of my life. They will say that I didn't manage my finance properly.

Global Capital vs. Global Labor

[Phoenix666]

IAAE (I am an economist). See, the problem with free trade is that the people who tout it are really only talking about the free movement of capital. Free movement of labor does not really exist. If a U.S. company outsources your job to India, can you pick up and move to India to get it back? No. Foreign workers can come here (yes, it's a pain in the ass to get the visa, but it is done) and take jobs from Americans, and foreign workers can take jobs away from Americans through outsourcing. But can Americans go take away their jobs where they are? No.

So you get an imbalance in the global market. The Chicago School of Economics would say that given free movement of capital and labor that the market would seek a global equilibrium whereby the programmer in India would make the same wages as a programmer in America. But in reality there are significant barriers to entry, especially for the American worker trying to go elsewhere to take jobs away from the locals. So if you really are a free-trader, and not just an MBA trying to justify your ridiculously high bonus, then you'd push for the elimination of structural barriers to free labor flow. Then all kinds of neat things will happen like foreign MBAs coming to America to drive down the cost of executive pay, and you the American techie can go get yourself a good job in sunny Goa.

But somehow I don't think that the MBAs making these outsourcing decisions would like that kind of free trade.

Re:Global Capital vs. Global Labor

[hawkfish]

This is the most intelligent posting on this subject I have seen in months. Mod up please.

Irredeemable dollars are valueless

[rolofft]

What's wrong with a "trade deficit"? Doesn't that just mean that since the US is richer it buys more stuff? Other countries get green pieces of paper. In exchange, the US gets useful stuff (i.e. VCR's, cars, wine, etc). It's a good deal for the US.

In reality, of course, those green pieces of paper get redeemed by foreigners for US goods and services. It's not like Toyota just sits on top of the dollars they earn like Scrooge McDuck. Otherwise, we really would be just trading scraps of paper for automobiles. If it seems like a country is importing more than it exports (a real long-term trade deficit), we must be missing something - because that would imply that the other county is essentially giving something for nothing.

Like buying beer from Belgium or a video games from Japan, buying outsourced Indian programming is a good deal. You're not exporting greenbacks to Japan when you buy a PS2; you're making an exchange that benefits both parties. One might say the US isn't exporting jobs to India, its importing Indian labor.

Re:Irredeemable dollars are valueless

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Here's the thing--we buy DVD players and running shoes today. Next year, because of wear and tear or competition with newer, superior products, the things we gave them pieces of paper for are worthless.

Meanwhile, perhaps those green pieces of paper, while not as valuable as when you got them (see the dollar's fall) are still fairly valuable. The degrade more slowly than the products we exchange them for.

Re:Irredeemable dollars are valueless

[rolofft]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. Say I buy a bottle of Chimay beer from Belgium. I'll drink it that night. I got the full benefit of the good, even though it's now gone. I don't care how long Chimay holds on to the $10 I spent. No matter when the brewery decides to redeem the dollars I gave them, they ultimately have to be redeemed for an American good or service. Although there's been a "trade deficit" in favor of Belgium (I don't remember Chimay ever contracting me for any programming work), we're both happy.

Likewise for Indian programmers, the money we send them has to come back, or we've got something for nothing. Regardless of when or where Indians invest their US dollars, we got our program written. And in the case of a program - unless bit rot strikes ;) - we've got a good that can last forever.

Re:Irredeemable dollars are valueless

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Yes, the two individuals involved are happy. That does not mean that all of America and Belgium feel likewise. The problem is that the money we send them comes back LATER--and if we let our labor force atropy for lack of employment in the meantime, we're going to have trouble paying it back.

Programs do not last forever--information needs change, security holes become apparent, what once fulfilled your needs can become worthless, though the actual bits do not change. In the meantime, the Indian programmer has been gaining experience that will make him or her more useful in future programming tasks, and he or she has helpful currency to use in future consumption.

Re:Irredeemable dollars are valueless

[rolofft]

If I understand correctly, you're worried that exporting programming work to India will cause the US to lose its own edge at programming. I wonder if it's more likely that the competition will motivate us to make strides?

The thing that got me thinking about the whole topic of international trade to begin with was Home Depot. They were going to build one locally in Auburn, California. A group of concerned citizens (whom I suspect were mom & pop hardware store owners) lead an uproar that they didn't want their Auburn-earned money going out of town and state to Georgia (where Home Depot is based). Imagine if protectionism were really applied between states, or even counties and cities. Those damn Georgians taking away jobs from hard working Californians!

To me, fretting about Indian programmers is like fretting about French winemakers, Japanese carmakers, or Swedish heavy metal bands. Don't let fear paralyze you, let it motivate you to make better wine, cars, heavy metal, or programs.

I'm not saying "let them eat cake". Economic idealogy won't console someone who's fallen on hard times. But I'm afraid putting the brakes on our economy to "save" jobs might not help anyone in the long run. Change, progress, upheaval are reality. If we stand still, what's to keep other countries (who do take advantage of Indian programming) from leaving us in the dust?

Re:Irredeemable dollars are valueless

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

To be perfectly honest, China worries me a lot more than India. It IS frightening that its no longer possible to outpace developing countries with education, but rather than make me sympathize more with programmers, it causes me to sympathize even more with manufacturers who have been getting shafted by international economics for much longer. The sick part about globalisation is that American workers are told that they can't compete because they're too lazy, they're getting paid too much, and that it's completely their fault, when in reality it's not their fault at all. Asian banks proping up the dollar until recently simply forced manufacturing jobs out of the country.

Looking at China rather than India might make my fear more explicit--China buys US Treasury bonds, holding up the dollar. This causes Americans to buy Chinese goods more cheaply. In the short run, except for the poor bastards who lost their jobs, this is great for Americans and bad for Chinese people--foreign goods in America's stores became cheaper, foreign goods in China's stores became pricier.

Since we really weren't buying any capital goods from China (after all, what idiot would want to build a factory here?) the Asian consumer goods we purchase make us happy only temporarily. Now, the dollar is falling, China is stuck with lower valued dollars BUT still probably has more wealth overall than they would have if they had not supported the dollar's value. Essentially, they traded away their consumers' short term welfare for more national wealth and power.

My suspcion is that unemployment among Americans is not caused by American laziness (we work many more hours with fewer vacations than Europeans) or lack of intelligence (unless your going to try to pull a "The Bell Curve" and argue that more racially pure Europe will have a higher IQ than mixed America) but by worker-unfriendly fiscal and trade policies.

I don't think we should close the border, but anyone arguing for an open border needs to realize--a closed American economy is a perfectly realistic option. One way or another, employment must be maintained, or social services expanded to fill the gaps. It is not acceptable in a civilized society to allow huge masses of people to remain idle and without sufficient medical care--that is the recipe for a revolution.

Actually, there would be a lot of benefits to state-based protectionism. Currently, states must compete with each other when setting tax rates, otherwise businesses will move out and ship their products in from some other state. Maybe libertarians think this is the great free market in action, but what they don't realize is that this forces our federal government to collect the lion's share of revenue in this country--revenue collection needs to take place at a high enough level that corporations have difficultly evading it simply by moving. The inability of states to regulate interstate commerce has made American capitalism much more efficient, but at the cost of severely weakening American democracy--now most of the decisions effecting our economy take place at the federal level, far too removed from the people for them to participate in.

The fact is, almost all Americans are both Consumers and Workers. American law has started to favor Consumers over Workers every chance it gets, but at the end of the day Consumers and Workers are the same people. Huge corporations and mass production make life easy for consumers, but also takes the joy out of working. The mom and pop hardware store owners probably see their jobs as the fulfillment of the American dream--they were their own boss, they could take pride in providing a unique service to their friends and neighbors. Who the heck dreams of working at Home Depot? The central planners of the American economy see consuming products as the ultimate road to happiness, but anyone with common sense can see what a hollow happiness that would be.

Of course, local monopolies, nepotism, Good Ole' Boy clubs, and corrupt labor unions al

Re:Irredeemable dollars are valueless

[rolofft]

The smartest, most hard-working programmer on the planet would still have his ass kicked by Brad Miller on the basketball court. Likewise, you don't have to be lazy or dumb to have your industry outpaced by another country. The US makes good movies, Germany makes good cars, Costa Rica grows good coffee, India makes good software. None of that's the result of a globalisation conspiracy. Sure, China's $300 billion in foreign reserves helps keep the dollar strong. But do you think that even with a weak dollar we could produce knick knacks as efficiently as the Chinese?

Cutting yourself off from international commerce is suicide. The most economically isolationist countries are the most wretched: North Korea and Belarus, for example. I don't want to follow their pattern. Your point about federalism is interesting, but probably too big of a topic to delve into here.

I like Home Depot, and I know people who have enjoyed working there. Some things scale well (like hardware and book stores), others (like craft & pet stores) seem better suited for mom & pop. Home Depot provides a lot of good services that mom & pop could never afford (e.g. huge stock of rental tools, home repair clinics, self-checkout counters).

Have you ever played Sims? A sim needs to regulate his hunger, comfort, energy, fun, social contacts, etc. Pure consumerism by itself won't make a sim happy. Buying your sim a large screen TV and pool table will keep his "fun" meter high, but if his "social" meter is bottomed out he'll still be miserable. I don't think that's too far from reality; Will Wright based Sims on David Friedman's "Economics of Everyday Life." Consumerism is hollow by itself. But, in context, buying stuff lets us furnish ourselves "a social and a personal identity."

P.S. Have you ever read the Poul Anderson story "The Last of the Deliverers"? Our discussions reminds me of it.

Re:Irredeemable dollars are valueless

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

The world doesn't need enough movies to keep a population of 250 million people employed, and I rather expect the value of movies and any other individual piece of content to decline in value as the number of producers of content increases (which will happen as the world's technology catches up with the West.) Content is not king, content is doomed. American society will fall apart if it can't remain somewhere near full employment--I don't advocate isolationism, but if it is the only alternative to unemployment then it must be accepted. There are some major differences between North Korea and a potential isolated U.S.--for one, the U.S. is still the largest economy in the world. So we restrict Americans to trading only with 250 million people instead of 6 billion. That's still a huge economy. America could also isolate itself economically without cutting off the flow of ideas or people--which I suspect is the cause of far more of North Korea's misery than the cutting off the flow of money. As long as we are still sharing ideas with the rest of the world, we won't fall extremely far behind. I'm not saying isolation is the way to go, but it is a perfectly viable alternative, one with reasonable employment for everyone. Globalists can't just shrug at the unemployed and say "sorry, the free market is invincible" because it is not. Democracy can beat capitalism, if it is forced to do so.

Working at Home Depot might be enjoyable in the short run, but I can't imagine many would want to do it as a career unless they had a spectacular lack of ambition. It is difficult for me to imagine anyone seeing work at the Home Depot as fulfilling the American Dream. I do not contend that the services offered by Home Depot are in any way inferior to that of the Mom & Pop, but someone working at a Home Depot has sacrificed a large amount of control and responsibility of their own life in exchange for the comfort of consumerism. I cannot see this leading to happiness.

A simulation is a formalization of a theory, not evidence in support of it. Yes, consumerism leads to happiness in the Sims, yes people define their Sim in terms of the products it consumes--but I think these are properties emerging from the assumptions in the software. Real human beings need to be creative. They need to exert their influence on the world surrounding them--to effect things beyond themselves. It seems our current society tends to maximize the choices of consumers, but add growing limitations to the choices of workers and creators. We can wear whatever clothes we want, watch whatever we want on television--so long as we work in the prepackaged boxes defined for us. The Sims satisfies Utilitarian-based welfare economics, but not Maslow's hierarchy of needs--as a person's needs are met, they always find more needs. A person wants nice food to eat, then nice clothes to wear, then nice people to like him or her, and then after that the needs become very vague and incomputable--a person needs to become a better person. An economy that begins and ends with the person will be a serious hinderance to people making this final step.

I do object seriously to the Reason article for arguing that consumerism and populism are one, when despite the confusion of some elitists, they are in fact orthogonal. My objection to consumerism is not that the products produced are inferior or trashy--in fact I suspect the opposite is the case--but that they deprive the people of the chance to create things for themselves. Consumerism is a combination of Elitism in production, and Populism in Consumption--when really I would prefer to either have Populism all the time or to have the two roles reversed.

Re:Irredeemable dollars are valueless

[rolofft]

My main fear of protectionism comes from China's history. China's economic and scientific progress outperformed the West from 1 to 1500 AD. Then the Ching dynasty consciously chose a policy of extreme protectionism that put China in stasis for the next half a millennium. By the 1970's, China's GDP was only on a par with Canada's. China is a big country. It still stagnated when it was cut off from the rest of the world.

How would isolating our economy create jobs? Would these jobs be any better for our economy than WPA "make work"? Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't seem much better than banning dishwashing machines so restaurants would have to hire more people.

I know I'm biased. Even if it meant the US could have three jobs for every worker, I wouldn't close trade with Belgium. There are regions of Belgium where beer is brewed with wild yeasts that exist no where else in the world. Cutting ties to Belgium, would be for me like denying a diabetic his only source of insulin. ;) I'm also worried what would happen to my friends in Turkey if we retreated into an economic cacoon. Turkey has a fragile economy. I know some of my best friends there would be in a tight spot if they were denied access to our market.

I'm not a blind follower of the theoretical benefits of free market ideology. My brother's mortgage company expanded their core business because they were able to reduce their overhead by offshoring some work to India. He has his job because of that expansion.

The Sims doesn't prove anything, but playing it did help me see how consumerism affects me. Soon after first playing the Sims, while watching basketball on my father-in-law's big screen TV, I realized my "fun meter" really was higher than sitting in front of my 13" at home, just like a Sim. The Sims game distills basic human needs in a way that made me more self aware of what brings me satisfaction. I've read J.K. Galbraith's ideas about how passive consumers are brainwashed into buying stuff they don't need. I've come to realize that Galbraith's ideas aren't any more true for me than they are for a Sim. I think Will Wright has done a better job than Abraham Maslow of defining human needs, at least for the 21st century man.

Maybe consumers aren't as passive as you think. I used to carry around my guitar and scorn "passive consumers" carrying Walkmans (Walkmen?) Nowadays, I'm an avid fan of "recording artists". Contrary to my erstwhile scorn, listening to recordings can be engaging. I used to badmouth TV watchers. Who would watch Seinfeld when they could be reading Proust? With all the TV-inspired fan fiction on the Internet, it's clear TV can be a creative impetus. I used to think sports fan were the worst of passive dolts. Today, I'm a basketball fanatic. Following the NBA can be at least as compelling as Proust. And, contrary to all my geek impulses, I now spend a fair amount of time on the court reverse engineering Karl Malone's hook shot and Allen Iverson's jumper.

In Poul Anderson's story, "The Last of the Deliverers", technology has given everyone the ability to live completely "off the grid". A small town is capable of thriving without any outside commerce. People can produce everything they need without any traditional income. Consumerism is obsolete and dead. Governments have nothing to tax, so they devolve to the most local level. Anderson's scenario seemed idyllic. Short of such a sci fi utopia, I don't see how protectionism and anticonsumerism can pan out for the best. Look to the economies of Syria or Myanmar to see what protectionism is like in the real world.

Re:Irredeemable dollars are valueless

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Question: was the Ching dynasty's protectionism cultural, like pre-Meiji Japan or current North Korea, or purely economic, like America has practiced to some degree since the constitution was signed, without which we would never have had an industrial revolution here. From an economic point of view, America is definitely large enough to be able to live off the global grid. Yes, global trade has benefits to some. But you should expect to see violent agitation if those benefits are not spread to all very quickly. Are you ready to die for Belgian beer? Because are those muscular unemployed laborers are going to be willing to kill for their next meal.

There's a huge difference between protectionism and WPA or Ludditism--protectionism doesn't protect jobs that shouldn't exist, it just makes sure the jobs are done here at home rather than abroad. Build a dishwasher to save labor if you must--but build and operate it here at home.

I don't really know what to say to your Sims-realization--it seems irrefutable to me that people need to be DOING something to become happier--pleasure is a small component of happiness are unconnected. I know quite a few unhappy people with gigantic tvs. If Will Wright has indeed better defined 21st century man, this may explain why birth rates in industrialized nations keep falling. (America included, as long as you don't count immigrants.) People are realizing that their existence is adding nothing to the world, therefore they have no desire to create more copies of themselves. Will Wright's 21st century man will be extinct by the 22nd or 23rd century--man is a creature that needs purpose. My perverted world view can only account for your realization in one of three possible ways:

Perhaps you've acquired Stockholm syndrome. Having a different set of goals in life than everyone else is hard. There is a saying about the five people nearest you--looking at them today is looking at your own future. Human beings are social animals--they travel in packs, they have brains that are designed to emulate the other brains they surround themselves with. Spend enough time with anyone who doesn't do anything other than consume, and soon you won't either. Or you'll go insane. I'm opting for the latter.

More likely, you've managed to adjust your creative desires into a form that fits into consumerism. Awesome. Good job. But realize that you are a rare sort or organism. I've met far too many people who simply deny that creativity is of any value at all. They go to work, they do what their told, they go home, they watch what they're shown, they eat what they're fed. Some of these people I have great respect for--they're older people, who were brought up in times of great want and tribulation, who believed that working hard was the only way to stop the Nazi's/Communist's or whatever other war they were fighting at this time. Wasting time with artsy crap was a national disgrace--just a waste of effort that could be used to make our country a stronger place. They achieved Maslow self-actualization, ironically, by consciously deadening their need for self-actualization. They sacrificed their souls, their uniqueness--whatever they had to make America a stronger military power.

Most Americans spend a lot more time working than playing--yet we have optomized society for the enjoyment of the playing time, with little or no regard for improving the fulfilment that people find in their time spent working. Even as you defend consumerism, you don't mention anything about how happy you are as you're working. Because work has become so centralized and organized, people now have little influence over their own working environment--the assymetry of information between multinational employers and individuals has become too great. Even in the Will Wright, utilitarian world view, this will lead to unhappiness. Perhaps you are happy at your job--but that places you in a very fortunate minority.

The Anderson story sounds interesting. Still, I don't view isolationi

Like educators?

[Iowaguy]

You mean, like your high school math teacher, who makes about that? So yes, many people do feel that is a normal amount of money for a 4 year degree. I won't even get into nursing etc. Just a thought.

Re:Explain it to me....

[BSD Yoda]

I would venture to guess, the % of Americans with non-retirement, soluble $$'s in the stock market, that they can manage and access freely, is a very limited number. So, no, the majority of US citzens do not benefit from the stock market.

The fact the an investment is not liquid does not detract from its benefit. You are exactly wrong.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are making the assumption that offshoring will only effects high-tech jobs. Why shouldn't companies outsource their entire finance departments, all data entry, etc.?

Low standards

[Iowaguy]

I never understand why ecconomists are so respected. It seems to me that only they and weathermen can be that inaccurate and still employed. For example, when was the last time you saw a ecconomic crisis predicted beforehand? Oh, after the @!## hits the fan, the ecconos come out and say, of course it is becuase of this. But, honestly, I can stick my head out and know it is raining. Only forsight is useful...

My two cents,
-Iowa

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Great for the ruling class. Hell for the workers.

Then we should be asking ourselves how do we become a ruling class?

Thus making it worse.

The trick is not to escape slavery by becoming a slaveowner. The trick is to end slavery.

Cause and Effect

[realslash]

The present global outsourcing trend that we are witnessing is but a result of the Globalization that United States has so vigorously and relentlessly has been and will continue to pursue.
In this new world of 'free trade' where countries are persuaded ( read arm twisted ) to indiscriminately open up their economies to American and other western Multi-National Corporations, little attention has been given to the plight of the local people in whose countries the MNCs operate.
In the agro-based industry, these MNCs flood the local markets with highly subsidised produce that they sell in the local regions, thereby destroying their economies and lives. This phenomenon is widespread in Africa and spreading to other poor nations.
Even in other industries, these MNCs take over the local business and destroy the local industry, making the local people loose jobs.
The Americans go around the world explaining to everyone the 'benefits' of opening up their economy to allow free flow of goods and services. However, when its their turn, they do not follow what they preach!
One cannot have a cake and eat it too. While the multi-billion dollar American companies can have easy access to all countries, they turn protectionists in their own backyard. This is another glaring example of hypocrisy !

Now we are in a situation where the whole world is becoming an economically integrated place ( and Americans are the ones who had a major role in making the world so ) and globalization means the Forces of Economics - namely, Demand and Supply will always regulate the trade of goods and services.
In this scenario, it is only natural that businesses will (like always) go for the cost -benefit analysis. And the conclusions of such analysis revels that they can cut cost by 40-80% by outsourcing, while maintaining the quality, then so be it !
The laws of economics are at work, just like a consumer will always go for some product that is cheaper and better than the product of rival, same way the corporations will behave in a similar fashion.
Corporations save cost and this helps them to not just avoid bankruptcy but grow further. This situation will obviously be much better than Americans getting laid off in the event of the corporation going bust in a recession economy that they have been experiencing. So if, in a case where, a corporation is just giving the benefits it gets from outsourcing to its CEOs then its not the problem that was created by outsourcing, that problem was inherent in the American business ethics and it's the Americans who need to plug that hole, and this problem is prevalent across the board, whether the corporation outsourcers or not !

Water always seeks its own level. And outsourcing is done for mutual benefit of the concerned countries. So if you want the entire world to open up, surely you cannot expect to remain protectionist !

All of us have to now bear the good effects and the ill-effects of globalisation and free trade that the Americans themselves have unleashed on the world ! so you cant hide from it now.

Inverstors

[DrCode]

Okay. I, like many readers here, have money in mutual funds. With all the money being saved, we should see new dividends flowing freely into our accounts, or prices rising to new highs.

Seems like prices have barely made it back to the point where they were when Bush took office.

Economic hubris

[rolofft]

The man on the street doesn't often fancy himself competent to speak to issues in physics or architecture. But everyone thinks they understand economic issues. Economic realities can be complicated and non-obvious. I think the quote was saying that people with no expertise in economics can jump the gun on fully understanding economic issues.

For example, I remember strong anti-Japanese sentiments in the US when their auto industry started seriouly challenging ours. When GM layed off 75,000 people it was hard to consider the long term benefits of "comparitive advantage". I remember the story of an Asian man who was bludgeoned to death in Chicago by some men who had lost their jobs. But today, that ill will has dissipated, and we're all driving around in these great Hondas and Nissans. If they had been protected from the competition, US auto companies wouldn't have improved as much as they have. I think US programmers will similarly rise to meet the challenge. The alternative is to be coddled from competition like the US steel industry was and to whither away like an atrophied limb.

Re:Economic hubris

[sTiv0]

"Coddled" my ass.

High tech corporations were showered with all kinds of benefits, tax breaks, etc., largely because they were viewed as an engine of job creation. No taxes on e-commerce. Gotta grow those high-tech industries. Your tax dollars and mine built the Internet. We then gave it to the corporations, and now, all of a sudden, it's all theirs, and the hell with your jobs, we'll move 'em anywhere we damn please, thank you very much.

In the long run, we're all dead.

Re:Economic hubris

[rolofft]

Do you know of an example where protectionism been successful in the long term? It's been used many, many times. The result is always less competition. Doesn't protectionism, by definition, means you're protecting (coddling) an industry? The topic has been illustrate well in satire: The Candlemaker's Petition.

The justification of a protectionism is always that it'll have some general benefit to society, but it's always really a hidden transfer of wealth from consumers (who would otherwise pay less for the protected good) to local producers. For example, costlier steel (because of tariffs) doesn't help America, it just means our cars cost more.

P.S. I'm just as opposed as the next guy to corporate welfare.

Re:Economic hubris

[sTiv0]

OK, you're just as opposed as the next guy to corporate welfare, but that corporate welfare happened. By accepting that welfare, the high tech corporations accepted an obligation to the taxpayers who gave it to them. Now they disregard that obligation and lecture us about free trade.

You free trade absolutists sound to me approximately the same as Soviet commisars. "Comrades, you may be dying in these awful coal mines, but remember, we're suffering so that your grandchidren will experience the perfect society, Communism, which will be heaven on earth. So stop whining and keep digging that coal!"

From the free trade absolutist we hear, "People, protectionism never works. Free trade always does. So never mind that in your lifetime we pull two or three careers away from you and move them to lower wage countries, you guys should just 'move up the value chain' and learn the skills that will make you competitive. So stop whining and get yourself a new career."

I was a machinist once. That job moved to Mexico and the field didn't look promising. But I'd been messing with computers so I made a career switch at 35. I forced myself to learn programming. Would I have done so had I known I would be virtually unemployable at 50? I doubt it. But I didn't know that, so I learned C, C++, java, relational databases, oop, uml. And damnit, I'm good, as anyone who's ever worked with me would tell you. But now I hear one of two things at almost all jobs I'm lucky enough to interview for

1. we want someone who knows skill X like the back of his hand. (Never mind that I could learn it in about 2 days).
2. you're overqualified for this position.

About all I can find are low-wage consulting gigs that offer no health insurance. And these damned economists sit up there and have the nerve to tell me that I'm not seeing the whole picture. As if they are! They don't see me or anyone like me. They're nothing but whores for the corporations who pay them. Now I suppose you might say I should go back to college and study nano-technology, but what's the point? Even a young guy making that his career would have to expect that once the technology was perfected, his job too would be farmed out.

The reason this is happening is in part because we allowed high tech, the golden goose of jobs, to write its own ticket and hyperaccelerate a process that should have taken three or four decades into less than decade.

The only way you can succeed at high tech is to make your millions in the first ten years. If you haven't by then you'll be judged over the hill. To me that's fundamentally inhuman, and that's exactly what's wrong with your free market absolutism.

Re:Economic hubris

[rolofft]

OK, you're pissed off. However, do you know of an example where protetionism has done more good than harm? Protectionism has a long history.

Change and upheaval aren't products of free market idealogy. They're facts of life. A programmer who expects his niche to last forever is simply deluded. Do you think the government should or could have protected Cobol programmers from becoming obsolete?

Even if the government managed to freeze progress in the US so your job could last indefinitely, the rest of the world would pass us by. Once we fell far enough behind, you'd lose your job anyway. If you doubt that, talk to someone who worked for Bethlehem Steel.

Re:Economic hubris

[sTiv0]

Who's talking about protectionism?

I'm talking about facing the reality that there no longer is a labor shortage in the American high-tech industry and that a cutting back the number of H1B and L1 visas issued is indicated. The justification for these was, originally, a labor shortage.

And while we're on the topic of free markets, if we are going to allow H1B and L1 visaholders in to take these jobs, how about doing something to protect THEM against the kinds of indentured-servant conditions that many of them are forced to labor under, which depress wages even further?

Don't call me obsolete! I can program the crap out of many thirty-year-olds who are still gainfully employed, as any employer who gets beyond his stereotype of what a fifty-year-old programmer is like, will find out. But this free and easy access to third-world-wage programmers means they don't have to confront their stereotypes. They don't have to take risks on hiring someone of my age. they don't have to expend the necessary effort to find the good talent. They're the ones who are being coddled, not me!

Isn't it ironic that at the same time that baby-boomer retirement and its effects on the budget are serious political and economic concerns, baby-boomer programmers are being pushed out the door in droves?

Re:Economic hubris

[rolofft]

So it's not about protectionism, it's about restricting immigration. If the demand for work has dried up here, then what's motivating the immigration? And if immigrants aren't better off here (because of "indentured servant conditions"), then why aren't they staying in their homeland?

Take this with a grain of salt... but it may be possible that your weltanschauung isn't at the same level as your programming skill. You could have the technical acumen of Linus Torvalds, but if you didn't have his ambition, drive, optimism, or charisma, you might still languish. Being a foreigner also has its downsides. You make it sound like being a greybeard is an insurmountable handicap. There are successful people in the software world who've overcome bigger hindrances.

Try reading the "personal productivity" section of this website and see if it doesn't change your outlook. Joel (from JoelOnSoftare.com) recommended this site, and it motivated me out of the doldrums.

Re:Economic hubris

[sTiv0]

You're assuming that unrestricted immigration, even when it is transparently intended to shove down wages, is the norm. It is not.

The measure of whether there is a labor shortage or not is the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate is our profession is currently about 9%, which is well above the national average. There is no shortage of labor in our field. There is a shortage of cheap labor, which is what this is all about.

Are indentured servant immigrant programmers better off here than if they stayed home? I suppose so, or they wouldn't come. But you're the one advocating for "free markets". If an immigrant programmer sees a better opportunity than the one he's indentured to, why shouldn't he have the right to go for it, if free markets are the be-all and end-all? The fact that they are not is more proof that this is in part a wage-suppression scheme. And if you insist on putting quotes around "indentured servant", I suggest you read some recent testimony before Congress on the subject by someone who worked for one of these firms.

And I'm not in any doldrums, thanks so much for your concern. I found a gig. I'll probably find another. But damnit, I put in my time. I've earned those weeks of vacation I won't be getting.

I looked at your "personal productivity" pages. Sorry, I don't need lectures on entrepreneurialism. I don't want to spend large segments of my time selling myself or a product. That's not what I do best. I'll do it if I have to, but I consider that a separate skill from programming, and one that I find an annoying distraction.

Re:Economic hubris

[rolofft]

To me, it's not about ideology ("free markets" or whatever), it's about worldview. Have you read the Wired article on Indian progammers? It's got both sides of the story. These aren't faceless foreign devils, they're ambitious, well-educated, talented people who are doing a job cheaper than we can do it. Our character will be shown by whether we face this challenge openly, with optimisim, or as defeatist isolationists.

"Buy American" campaigns won't work, whether it's cars, VCRs, or progamming labor. Capital and labor mobility have been the norm for the past couple of centuries. That means that when labor is too expensive, either jobs or workers will move across borders.

The wages some of those unemployed 9% of American programmers want exceed the demand for their labor. Dell sells more PCs than Alienware. That doesn't mean Dell should be restricted from selling its low price PCs so Alienware can sell more of its expensive systems.

I'm not necessarily a total advocate of the way these immigration programs work. But it's better than nothing for foreign workers who get better jobs here. Do you think idle workers in "third world" countries shouldn't be allowed to move to where their skills can be best applied? How can the global economic engine not benefit from India's enormous idle labor pool being put into gear?

Re:Economic hubris

[sTiv0]

I say ideology, you say worldview. To me there's no difference between these two terms. My ideology says that as a citizen of a democratic country I have important rights to seek redress of grievances for things done to me unfairly. Your worldview tells you to eschew all that and face the future with optimism and you'll be all right. I say it's great to be optimistic, but why be optimistic if reality says otherwise.

I have read the Wired article and agree that it tells both sides of the story. I have also worked with Indian programmers many times. The team leader of my current team is Indian, and he's one of the nicest and most talented developers I've had the pleasure of knowing. He came to this country in 1992. He lost his last job when the development team he headed was outsourced to India and the company subsequently bought by the Indian company that provided the outsourced labor. He thinks we're crazy to let all these jobs go so easily. I've worked with other Indians who were better and worse than American developers I've worked with. I worked with one who was a total fraud. He was hired as a programming whiz at top dollar and fired when he started asking questions like "how do you install java"?

I believe Indian programmers run the gamut of skill levels and are basically on a par with American programmers. That's irrelevant to the point at hand. I'm sure there are many Indians (not to mention Americans) who could do the work of corporate execs for far less money than American corporate execs, but nobody's putting their jobs at risk! Why not?

I disagree that capital and labor mobility are the norm in this country. What do you suppose would happen if, lets say, large numbers of Chinese were brought to Detroit to work the auto plants at sub-prevailing wages? Immigration has been an important part of American life but it is often restricted when it's seen as a transparent attempt to drive down wages.

Having just been laid off, I have to cackle at your statement that the wages American programmers want exceed the demand for their labor. All too often, they take one look at your resume or grey hair and simply assume you're too expensive without even asking. When employers are in that good a position vis a vis employees, something's out of whack. And H1B/L1 have put them in that position.

Finally, I must ask you, what future do you see for the United States? Do you really think that America can survive as the "idea generator" for the world? Doesn't sound right to me. That's not the whole story of how this country achieved its greatness. It is part of the story. But that greatness was also paid for with solid effort and dogged persistence. Edison's "98% perspiration" if you will. The "greatest generation's" army was an army of guys who knew how to fix things. My son can't tell the difference between sitting in a car with the motor running or not running. He can play a mean video game though. Where are we headed?

India made a conscious decision and plan to go after computer programming jobs. What's America's plan? Sue everyone for violating our intellectual property? (and by the way, have you noticed that Indian farmers are up in arms over Monsanto somehow getting a patent on the wheat seeds they've been growing for centuries?)

Your "optimistic worldview" doesn't sound like much of a plan to me.

Re:Economic hubris

[rolofft]

You're not a foreigner-hating curmudgeon; I'm not the capitalist counterpart of a Soviet commisar. I want what's best for myself, my countrymen, and the world abroad, just as I'm sure you do. If I were an idealogue, I'd say "David Ricardo's treatise on economic theory shows... blah blah blah". Instead, I'm saying "you think think the glass is 9% empty, I think it's 91% full." That's worldview.

Have you ever read biographies of corporate execs? I have. By and large, they are men of Antaean charisma. You couldn't replace John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Steve Jobs, or Howard Schultz with a man on the street anymore than you could replace Miguel de Icaza with Joe (or Hardeep) Sixpack. That's like saying the NBA could save money by replacing their high paid pros with guys from the CBA.

Do you complain when electronics are imported to transparently drive down prices? Best Buy operates on razor thin margins. I don't know about you, but I sure like being able to buy a DVD player or stereo for a song. I'd feel hypocritical if I then turned around and complained when labor is imported so consumers of programming labor (e.g. the financial industry) can get a bargain. Disclaimer: my brother's job in the mortgage industry benefits directly from Indian workers.

I'm just speaking for myself here, but when I feel the impulse to begrudge Indians I see it as coming from the worst aspect of my humanity. I've got a wife and son to support. Competition from Indians isn't making my life any easier right now. If I start thinking ill of Indians, I'm remember of a group of displaced Detroit autoworkers in the 80's who killed a random Asian man (who turned out to not even be Japanese). Keeping foreign workers out of the US seems motivated by that same blind, misplaced, short-sighted self-interest.

Your son sounds like he's tuned in to our future. The US has a dominant entertainment industry. I'm sure a lot more kids today aspire to work in the video game field than as mechanics or auto workers. Vacationing in Turkey a few years back, I got the distinct impression that the world has no shortage of demand for American entertainment.

I don't have a "plan" for America. Individual producers can determine what's in demand that they have a knack for serving or producing. A Soviet commisar might say "our best experts determine the nation should focus on producing shoelaces this year." I, however, think individuals acting under their own motivations, can yield a better result than any centralized planner.

Re:Economic hubris

[sTiv0]

I would say that the key point of difference in our ideologies/worldviews (I don't buy your distinction) is that I think it is important and valid to act in the political arena in my interests and you evidently don't want to go there. I would remind you that the corporations in this industry had no such compunctions when they first proposed H1B - regardless of whether or not H1B was justified.

I haven't read any books recently about corporate execs. There was a time in my past when I read books about labor history, which puts a little different spin on the characters of some of these guys - but let's not even go there. I'll assume, for the sake of argument, that you're right about their charisma and values.

My point is it doesn't matter if you're the Antaean Rockefeller, Carnegie, Jobs - or Kennyboy Lay. Until his ponzi scheme collapsed, Lay rode just as high as these guys. And Wall Street didn't care that he was a crook. Or what about "Neutron Jack" Welch of GE? What were his accomplishments other than to keep his stock price high by ruthless outsourcing? And yet everyone fawned over his "charisma". I suppose there really are lots of people in the world who could have equalled those "accomplishments". And I'll bet even the Rockefellers did not earn salaries at the same multiplier to the average worker's salary as these guys. You want to be a master of the universe, there are some obligations this places on you.

Have you ever read "Yertle the Turtle"? I commend it to you, highly. I know of no better takedown of the cult of the CEO.

Do I complain when electronics are imported to tranparently drive down prices? I suppose not, but I don't rush to shop at Walmart either. I don't look down on grocery clerks or begrudge them their union scale jobs just so I can have my food a little cheaper as some geeks do.
If computers were more expensive, maybe I couldn't afford more than one. Wouldn't be the end of my world.

I recognize that whether or not this group or that group suffers from high unemployment can affect my well-being as well. And having high-perfoming stocks in my 401K will be faint consolation to me if I'm unable to contribute at my profession - until I'm ready to retire.

Somewhere in between Soviet planning and the current rush to enshrine the market as the only element of democracy worth saving lies the "plan" I was talking about. The Indian push for high tech is more than just the market at work. It is a plan, not in the Soviet all-encompassing sense, but a plan nonetheless, for where they want to take their country. I ask again, where's our plan? And if we Americans don't like it, we have the right to ask that it be changed.

"greedy little American corporate execs"

[Poligraf]

"are pissing away a highly trained workforce for short term gains and making a present of high technology to India which is only too happy to accept it since the technological exchange will eventually allow her to dispense with the Americans and compete with them" because greedy little American lawyers sue the shit out of companies whose stock dropped when the quarter earnings were lower then what greedy little American "industry analysts" forecasted.

Read this:
http://www.wfu.edu/users/palmitar/Courses/S ecReg-P almiter/Handout/Articles/Elkind-Lerach-King-Dead.h tm

Re:"greedy little American corporate execs"

[Savage-Rabbit]

I suppose you mean the same greedy industrial/stock analysts who browse internet Job/Employment sites to see if companies are hiring, which has led to companies flooding these same sites with phoney job offers to fool the analysts? I just love answering Job advertisements 60% of whom are practically guaranteed to be turned down because the were just posted by some corporate slimeball for for "PR reasons".

Re:"greedy little American corporate execs"

[Poligraf]

The same industrial/stock analysts who change rating to "buy" as soon as the company announces layoffs.

This is a vicious cycle.

H1b visas

[Corpus_Callosum]

Philosophy under the Clinton Administration: Increase the number of H1b Visas, bring the brains to America while keeping wages from skyrocketing. This was very advantageous to U.S. businesses and the increase in activity in the U.S. benefited the U.S. worker. It did not, as some claimed, reduce wages - although it did help reduce hyper-wage-inflation.

Philosophy under the Bush Administration: Decrease the number of H1b Visas, send the brains back home. The result? A catastrophic wave of outsourcing of knowledge-work to outsource companies in India, Russia, China and the Philippines. Have you been to the Bay Area recently? The region is in a depression and this has much to do with it.

We would be better off opening the H1b floodgates until everyone was working at minimum wage IN THE U.S., than outsourcing everything. At least the technology (and the tax-base) stays here. How much is the U.S. government loosing in lost tax revenue anyway?

Film Industry

[Anonymous Coward]

I got in a little late on this one, but I think we should take a lesson from the film industry.

All those actors you see on Leno & Letterman who say they've been in Canada recently? That's that entertainment industry's equivalent to our Indian outsourcing problem. Los Angeles has been shafted by loss of jobs in that industry, largely because Canada has passed lots of laws giving the studios huge breaks on filiming there. The way the studios see it, if they take just the director (maybe the cinematographer too) and the one or two bigname stars to Canada, they can reduce costs and still pay Tad Hamilton his $20,000,000/movie fee.

Why do I bring this up? Well, the word on the street is that the industry surrounding film in Canada has "grown up," and they're now charging essentially the same as what the guys in Los Angeles charge for rentals, locations, craft services, etc. There is a *possibility* that a lot of the work lost to Canada may be coming back, if not to CA, at least to the USA.

Can the same happen in India? Who knows? But if it does, that is, if the IT industry in India starts charging roughly the same rates as the IT industry here does, and US companies start pulling out, will India be able to accomodate those people back into their economy? Canada can--it's a modernized, industrialized country with lots of employment opportunities (compared to, say, Lesotho).

But as so many people have already asked, what's morality got to do with bidness?

Cause and Effect

[realslash]

The present global outsourcing trend that we are witnessing is but a result of the Globalization that United States has so vigorously and relentlessly has been and will continue to pursue. In this new world of 'free trade' where countries are persuaded ( read arm twisted ) to indiscriminately open up their economies to American and other western Multi-National Corporations, little attention has been given to the plight of the local people in whose countries the MNCs operate. In the agro-based industry, these MNCs flood the local markets with highly subsidised produce that they sell in the local regions, thereby destroying their economies and lives. This phenomenon is widespread in Africa and spreading to other poor nations. Even in other industries, these MNCs take over the local business and destroy the local industry, making the local people loose jobs. The Americans go around the world explaining to everyone the 'benefits' of opening up their economy to allow free flow of goods and services. However, when its their turn, they do not follow what they preach! One cannot have a cake and eat it too. While the multi-billion dollar American companies can have easy access to all countries, they turn protectionists in their own backyard. This is another glaring example of hypocrisy ! Now we are in a situation where the whole world is becoming an economically integrated place ( and Americans are the ones who had a major role in making the world so ) and globalization means the Forces of Economics - namely, Demand and Supply will always regulate the trade of goods and services. In this scenario, it is only natural that businesses will (like always) go for the cost -benefit analysis. And the conclusions of such analysis revels that they can cut cost by 40-80% by outsourcing, while maintaining the quality, then so be it ! The laws of economics are at work, just like a consumer will always go for some product that is cheaper and better than the product of rival, same way the corporations will behave in a similar fashion. Corporations save cost and this helps them to not just avoid bankruptcy but grow further. This situation will obviously be much better than Americans getting laid off in the event of the corporation going bust in a recession economy that they have been experiencing. So if, in a case where, a corporation is just giving the benefits it gets from outsourcing to its CEOs then its not the problem that was created by outsourcing, that problem was inherent in the American business ethics and it's the Americans who need to plug that hole, and this problem is prevalent across the board, whether the corporation outsourcers or not ! Water always seeks its own level. And outsourcing is done for mutual benefit of the concerned countries. So if you want the entire world to open up, surely you cannot expect to remain protectionist ! All of us have to now bear the good effects and the ill-effects of globalisation and free trade that the Americans themselves have unleashed on the world ! so you cant hide from it now.

get over yourself

[bmajik]

the idea that tech work is the darling of ths US economy and that people in IT are head and shoudlers above the rest of the universe is really disgusting.

guess what. People that work with/on computers only do so because computers aren't good enough to run themselves, program themselves, or solve all of our problems. people that focus on personal job security in the IT field are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

As long as there are UNIX administrators employed anywhere in the world, IT and software have failed. Computers should run themselves, not have people that think their college CS degree qualifies them only to be a machine babysitter complaining about how they're getting replaced by cheaper staff. (what happens when somebody finally gets the software right, and computers manage themselves ? will you bemoan the loss of college-degree management/programming jobs in india, that are now being replaced with software ?)

Re:get over yourself

[Grishnakh]

The day we don't need people to administer computers will also be the day we don't need people to drive cars, to fly airplanes, to fix cars and airplanes, to fix houses, etc.

Sure, a home PC shouldn't need much administration, but a corporate datacenter doesn't set it self up; someone has to decide what equipment to buy, what software to use, and has to put it all together and get it running in a configuration specific to that company's needs, then you still need someone to keep up with all the changes needed over time: adding/deleting users, maintaining disk space, managing backups and archives, creating custom in-house software/scripts to do various tasks, etc. A system that large isn't something you just buy and plug into the wall.

Well-heeled

[rolofft]

$45k/year puts you in the top 1.72% richest people in the world. If you're in the top 2%, is it reasonable to complain about your life style? At $45k, you probably own a TV, microwave, hot tub, two cars, DVD player, PC, PS2... Imagine what kind of college savings you could accumulate for yor kids if you put as much money as you spend just on cable TV monthly into savings with compound interest. The average Joe in India makes $500/year. I think we can cut them some slack for trying to make a better life for themselves.

Re:Well-heeled

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not adjusted for cost of living. $45K in the US doesn't enable a better lifestyle than 98% of the world. An Indian making 12 lakh Rs ($30K) is better off than I, even though I make $80K.

Re:Well-heeled

[rolofft]

Oh the woes of affluenza... A cup of Starbucks costs $3, outrageous! Your Direct TV bill is $50/month, egad! A large screen plasma HDTV costs $5000, the humanity! A Lexus costs $50k... Face it, you live better than Caesar or Charlemagne. You're among world's top 0.719% richest people, living in a land of plenty. I don't think it's fair to begrudge India because it has a low cost of living.

Re:Well-heeled

[Anonymous Coward]

What job in India pays 30K a year? I am interested!

Re:Well-heeled

[Rich0]

You are missing the one bill that really counts - the cost of a home.

In the USA that can easily be $200k (if it is VERY modest - 4 BR, and not large ones at that). In most suburban areas that could easily be closer to $300k.

In India you could probably buy a town for that much.

You missed a point.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Immigrants and other low-wage earners tend to live from paycheck-to-paycheck, so they don't save much money and don't really take much out of the economy. The money they spend creates jobs for somebody else - it's called the 'multiplier effect'. Higher paid jobs are good, but those individuals tend to save a greater proportion of their salary, resulting in 'leakage' and a smaller multiplier.

Sorry, not true.

Illegal immigrants tend to spend little of their earnings in the US, sending large amounts back to their families in the "old country". Any multiplier effect is felt there, not here. (By the way: "savings" also have a multipler effect - because the bank loans the money out to people who spend it, then repay it when the depostior wants to spend it himself or invest it elsewhere.)

And in the public sector: Some of them also escape taxes (often even if it's withheld - by declaring large numbers of dependents, something the fed usually doesn't check on low wage workers.) The rest are taxed at a very low rate, thanks to the "progressive" tax rates and their low wages.

Meanwhile, many bring their spouses to the US, where they rear more children than they could at home. "Child-only welfare", the extra costs of bilingual education programs, and use of emergency rooms (under "must treat, can't-ask" policies about illegals) more than consume their tax contributions, with the remainder being funded by higher health insurance and tax rates on the rest of us.

In California alone, teetering on bankruptcy (and still depressed, thanks to its high tax rates), over half the budget is for education, moch of that for K-12. Yet between a third and half the elementary school children are illegals or their children, in disproportionately expensive programs.

I'll just mention in passing the costs of the significant fraction of the illegals that are gangsters on the lam from the law in their own countries, setting up here where enforcement is so much more lax. Murders by illegal-immigrant gangsters dwarf the US deaths in Iraq, and the financial cost is staggering. (Not a ding against the NON-criminals - though being here illegally is already breaking several laws. But their costs are WAY disproportionate to their numbers.)

Then there's the coyote network of alien smugglers, providing a river of flesh across the border in which terrorists can mingle. As long the US administration allows that flood to continue, the "anti-terrorist" airport security, coastal defenses, and customs checkpoints are a joke.

The american public probably disagrees

[Outsorcerer]

The fact is a large majority of teh american public isnt as privileged as many slashdot readers are. In that sense this is the great equalization... No one ever saw such a dedicated bunch of anti-free market protestors among teh techies before...says a lot... its okay as long as iam not affected.... well, screw you for that. stop whining, and get another job. and wipe that saliva off your chin, you are frothing.... STOP WHINING!!! You dont have a right to a job...heck, even the president doesnt... get your fat asses off the chair and learn to live like other americans do, and oh, sell that SUV you have... The techies are in a large part reponsible for teh amzing rise in rents in many places, forcing average americans out... crazy, and now when equalization arrives, u still want concessions?

Re:The american public probably disagrees

[Anonymous Coward]

That is true no one is entitled to anything. But an American consumer has the right to talk to an american. As a support person I tell people to demand an non indian when they call tech support.

Free Trade necessary for growth !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The International Monetary Fund may say so, as it imposes Reagan-Thatcher-Clinton-Bush style solutions all over the world, but its own figures tell a different story. Its report on The World Economy in the 20th Century", published in 2000, includes a graph - printed very small, perhaps in the hope that no one would notice - which shows that the period between 1950 and 1973 was by far the most successful of the century. This was an era characterized by capital controls, fixed exchange rates, strong trade unions, a large public sector and a general acceptance of government's role in demand management. The average annual growth in "per capita real GDP" throughout the world was 2.9% - precisely twice as high as the average rate in the two decades since then.

you deal with it !!!

boyott offshore outsourcing companies

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish we had a better way of finding out who they are. A decent approximation is Zazona's LCA Database--generally the companies that do intense outsourcing also hire lots of H-1b/L-1 workers.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Xthlc]

You can't plan to live at the level of your total family income in this wonderful, dynamic economy. Most family bankruptcies today occur when one parent has to go unemployed for a few months. Realistically, a family must be able to meet expenses (food, school supplies, mortgage, auto repairs, insurance, etc) using the lowest of their two incomes for several months. The other income goes towards college funds, retirement, and luxuries like cell phones and vacations.

These days, $45K isn't enough to keep a middle-class family going for that long without going into some serious debt. And once that happens, it's nearly impossible to claw your way back out these days.

Good article explaining this by a Harvard economist:

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/10/13/bankr upt_parents/

More propaganda...

[msoftsucks]

from India. They see the backlash and are trying to preempt any action by confusing the debate. The reality is 2 million high paying, highly skilled jobs have gone to countries that don't respect human rights, treat people like cattle, women are treated like property and are killed by their husbands if they don't have enough of a dowry. Is this the world that we all want to live in? Yes, America has its problems, and is not blemish free. But compared to all other countries in the world, its paradise.

Companies that outsource to India are anti-American and are a cancer to the US. Its time to put theses guys out of business by boycotting companies that outsource our jobs overseas. Also, we need to vote out of office the bastards that supported NAFTA. Here's a short list of companies we should start boycotting: (add your own if you feel a company is deserving of this treatment)

Walmart (these guys have done the most to destroy America)
AT&T
Electrolux
American Express
GE

Also, pressure should be applied to the government and to the SEC to force companies to disclose how much outsourcing they are doing in their public filings. Companies should realize that outsourcing is not pain free.

Techs that want to do something should visit: http://www.techsunite.org

about $2-$3 billion in lost income tax as well

[Anonymous Coward]

Losing those jobs also means losing the income tax generated by the income (the main source of income for the US government) and the loss of goods and services that the high income person would consume in the local economy.

Not exactly...

[gillbates]

In theory, your premise is valid. But it's not that simple. One of the biggest problems with the laize-fare ideology is that it fails to account for differences in economic base. For example, to live comfortably in the Chicago area requires an income almost double that of downstate Illinois - this is primarily due to the high cost of real estate. I simply don't have the option of charging less because otherwise I couldn't afford the rent.

But the bigger problem is outright anti-American discrimination. Overseas outsourcing has become trendy in CEO-land, and the big corps are doing it to at least give the appearance of being more profitable.

But in reality, it's not just about the money. There's a double standard for the American worker:

• Indians are allowed to telecommute, but I can't.
• Corporations will hire Indian programmers sight-unseen, but I have to show up for an interview and convince them that I'm capable of doing the job.
• I don't have the option of reducing my living expenses and taking a pay cut - American programmers are expected to work on site.
• Most corporate decisions become evident only after several years. I simply don't have that kind of time for them to discover that overseas outsourcing is more of a minefield than a greener pasture. And when I am shown right, they will inevitably ask, "So why haven't you worked in the past few years?" - to which I'd like to reply: "Because your CEO is an idiot who thought he could save money on outsourcing,"; but I know that that response won't get me a job.

The problem is that it has everything to do with perception, and nothing to do with merit. Yes, there are good Indian programmers. But American programmers risk downsizing not because they are greedy, but simply because they can't live in America on anything less. And even if a programmer was willing to cut his costs and move to the sticks, most corporations wouldn't hire him.

Same line of reasoning I am

[PotatoHead]

following.

I honestly don't think everyone is going to be simply unemployed. I do believe many folks will be devalued. Hope I am not going to be one of them.

Leverage is a good way to put things. Anytime there is a trend of sorts, somebody benefits, it is just a matter of who and what skills / attributes they have.

You have read my guesses, any of your own to share?

Jobs are Jobs

[Outsorcerer]

and more jobs make more sense, the government is not indebted to you to preserve your fat ass high paying jobs for you, at the cost of 22 million other that can be created... eat it now. 22 million average paying jobs=22 million households approximately, and that is a more just way of dividing wealth...

The Lessons of History

[cquark]

Trade imbalances between the West and East have happened before. Commerce between the West and East has ebbed and grown throughout the centuries, depending on the current state of civilization and barriers to commerce such as agressive Steppe nomads or the rise of Islam. The last times the West sent vast quantities of its currency to buy goods from India and China, that investment has not come back to Europe. India and China simply wouldn't buy European goods to the same degree that Europe would buy goods from India and China.

One of those times resulted in the Roman economic crisis, where they attempted to solve the problem by devaluing their currency (sound familiar?), leading into the crisis of the 3rd century, which Rome barely survived and which eventually led to the fall of the Western Empire. The other of those times was at the beginning of the modern era, when Europe saved itself by discovering the New World and using its resources to supply its need for currency. While the current economic crisis may be different, I see no evidence that Japan, whose populace does have money to spend, is buying Western goods at the rate that the West buys Asian goods. Should we expect China and India to act differently when they haven't in the past?

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[MoneyT]

and luxuries like cell phones and vacations.


WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. This is where the problem is, people think they need this shit and they pay for it when they can't afford it. You dont NEED a cell phone, so if you can't afford it get rid of it. You don't NEED cable. You don't NEED a new computer. You don't NEED to take a vacation once a year. You don't NEED a new car. You don't NEED broadband internet. You don't NEED a new TV.

All of this shit is extras that you shouldn't be buying when you don't have the money for it. Why is it that people think that when their income is no longer 80k a year, they have to maintain their 80k a year lifestyle? It doesn't work that way.

IT is deadend

[FirstTimeCaller]

It's becoming clear to me that IT is no longer a growth industry. As of tomorrow, I'm starting telephone sanitizing school!

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[MoneyT]

If you lost your 45k job and had to accept a 20k job, it's time to cancel the cable, and the broadband internet. It's time to cancle the cell phone, and cut back on your nights out on the town. It's time to buy hamburger helper instead of sirloin steak. It's time to stop spending money on $6 starbuck 5 times a day. You'd be suprised at how little money you can live on.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Anonymous Coward]

25 year olds fresh out of college? Around here, people graduate when they're 22. Three years is a long freaking time.

Bah, I have a skewed perspective I suppose. I'm 27 and still working on a BSCIS. Going part time takes forever.

Value generating jobs

[pkiesel]

"...and the people (in the US) can move on to higher paying, more creative, more value generating jobs"

Would that be value-generating jobs like these? (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos249.htm) Instead of manufacturing old-fashioned material goods, we can manufacture a world safe for "democracy"!

Re:"8 long years of management"

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot he created the Internet bubble. What has Bush created besides war, lies and corporate raiding of the treasury. Attacks on the middle-class are standard Republican fare. Just look at Bush's attempt to reclassify overtime. Who do you think that it benefits? The working man or the corporation?

At least with Bill Clinton, he was screwing the girls and not me. Bush has been a miserable failure to date.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Grishnakh]

Here's another thought for you to ponder: instead of just looking at convicted criminals and gang members, what about people like corrupt and amoral politicians, CEOs, lawyers, etc. that seem to be dragging society down? These people are like criminals, except that they're typically smarter and either work within the law or avoid getting caught. It'd be interesting to see how many of those were raised by parents that were never home. How did Darl McBride and Bill Gates grow up?

Re:Exportable Jobs (2nd try)

[Esion Modnar]

So, it looks like miners and farmers will always have a job.

Huh?

[Gorimek]

The way I see it, it can be a poor country that gets state aid, or it can be a wealthy country that competes with us, but it can't be both.

See it this way. India is a poor country that's competing with rich countries. As such, it's main competitive edge is its poverty, which makes it possible for it to do things cheaper. This is how all poor countries become wealthier, including whatever rich country you may read this from.

You seem to think half the population of India are writing software. It's really helping some small pockets of hi tech, but I doubt it even affects 0.1% of the population. Remember that India has more population than Europe, USA and Japan combined.

Re:Exportable Jobs (2nd try)

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and as record of the current POTUS on this issue, you don't have to accomplish much for everyone else either.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Slashdot is blowing the whole economy thing out of proportion because it has adversely affected the tech sector.

That is a nice straw-man fallacy.

While it is true that the tech sector has been turbulent, most of what is being discussed here is on a much grander scale. We see current trends, and we are talking about where they lead.

The continued elimination of the middle class will result in a reduced capacity for upward social mobility. Eventually America will consist solely of the greatly rich, and greatly poor. The high paid jobs will be filled by the children of the rich, and vice versa. One ten thousand poor will get a scholarship and be able to move up. With that kind of hopelessness, crime rates rise at an alarming rate.

History has shown what happens. We have even seen class riots in American in our recent history. We are walking the exact same path that has been walked before, and we will arrive at the same destination.

We could learn from our mistakes, and prevent our fate, but we won't. People like you are part of the reason why.

(yes yes, bold words from the AC. Lets skip the ad hominem fallacies, allright?)

HOWTO: Avoid Admiral Pehri

[Vagary]

This is the first post I've seen which finds the narrow edge between laissez-faire and protectionism. The purpose of governments in a capitalist society is to smooth out the highs and lows of the market and provide a social safety net to ensure that workers don't die (because if physical needs aren't being met, a large enough market crash would be unrecoverable).

If the US government turns to protectionism, then in a few decades you'll have Admiral Pehri opening the domestic software industry to bootstrapped Indian companies. Instead, the government should devote resources to retraining tech workers for more competitive positions while at the same time enacting legislation that slows the outsourcing to a managable pace. They should also consider ways of making US tech jobs more cost-effective such as socialist post-secondary education and health care.

Finally, many /. posters seem particularly put-off that a company can outsource its entire workforce but keep its headquarters in the US. If there is value to basing companies in these jurisdictions, as they imply, then the government needs to start increasing corporate tax to reflect that value.

Re:Explain it to me....

[cayenne8]

But, this investment does not put food on the table or give you a way to support your family NOW...you are needing a job today to do this...so, this money is really not of any use to the average person. It is of no benefit to you until you are at retirement age.

Most people don't have private portfolios, that generate revenues they can live off of....so, my argument is that the avg. person, does not benefit in real time from the stock market, especially if he has no job to enable him to continue to buy into the market for retirement, and meet day to day living expenses.

Programming *is* service sector

[kimbly]

The government classifies programming as a service sector job. This is because no actual tangible good is produced -- it's not farming, and it's not manufacturing.

I read your objection as saying "yes but those are low-paying jobs" and that may be true. But "low-paying" is not the same as "service sector", and should not be confused with it.

OSS is destroying jobs?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it amusing that programmers are complaining about lack of jobs, and then write code and give it away for free, or nearly free (GPL). Doesn't it occur to you that this lowers the dollar value of software?

Re:22 MILLION JOBS WILL BE CERTAIN TO CREATED!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are absoluely right. The lowering of environmental standards will be of particular help to the US in creating new jobs here.

The US Interior Department is currently negotiating with a wide range of industries to use public lands to receive industrial wastes of all kinds (from strip mining in Utah to mountaintop mining in West Virginia and elsewhere). Current plans include clear cutting of national forests, such as DeSoto National Forrest in Mississippi, so that they can be made ready to receive this new source of revenue. The well placed Mississippi delegation, eager to create jobs in the country's No. 1 shipyard is already negotiating for contracts to build the needed vessels.

Once these sites are widely recognized as contaminated and the various neighboring communities evacuated, the US will be in a position to import millions of tons of industrial waste from other countries such as India and China, whose burgeoning economies will have need for additional landfills.

DOE plans currently in in-house review include receipt of nuclear wastes for storage in the Nevada respository.

This adminstration is serious about creating jobs!

Try the Socialism module: Capital Gains Tax

[Vagary]

So I hear the US is having some problems with wealth redistribution? Luckily: the First World has been developing a solution which we think would really help your organization. The solution is called Socialism and our customers have been happily running it for decades.

Your share holders are making profits from their investments in US companies which are outsourcing all their labour; this results in un- and under-employment. However if you activate Socialism's Capital Gains Tax module, then you can redirect some of the stock profits to help the unemployed. Socialism will also directly increase employment by requiring larger government infrastructure.

WARNING: running the Capital Gains Tax module can result in emmigration of share holders unless your organization deploys Incentives. We recommend you study our successful customers' Incentive implementations, for example: Canada's primary Incentive is Natural Beauty, Japan relies on Distinct Culture, and France has Cheese.

We think you'll be really pleased with Socialism, so please take the time to read more about it and consider what it can do for your organization.

Left out the usual

[sacrilicious]

for every dollar invested in the offshore space, $0.58 was directly saved. This could be either redistributed to investors or customers.

Makes it sound like execs will forget their usual antics: taking ever-more-astronomically-high salaries.

....um...some unions may dissagree...

[GoChickenFat]

they can buy goods from overseas and luxury goods - the production of which doesn't create very many jobs.

Production is not the only source of jobs. If the wealthy choose to spend for overseas goods it still has to get to their home... shipworkers, shipping yards, truck drivers, dock workers, delivery drivers, whatever... will still benefit.

A flatter distribution of income creates more jobs producing things that benefit more people

Do you really belive this? I believe that incentive helps to drive inovation. A flatter distribution creates little incentive. How well would you produce at your job if you knew that you would always be paid the same as the guy next to you who is a total slacker?

Re:....um...some unions may dissagree...

[Lemmy Caution]

I said flatter, but not flat.

A not-steep distribution curve incentivizes better. If I'm in a group of 10 people, one of whom makes a million dollars a year and the rest of whom (including myself) makes about 20,000 a year, I'm probably going to be motivated to just keep going and instead find my sense of accomplishment in other areas of my life.

If, on the other hand, there's a more moderate spread - say, the slacker makes about half of what the super-achiever does, and the person next to me makes 10% more - then that curve is more "climbable." This latter curve is the sort of distribution we had in the 1950's. The former - one king and a dozen serfs - is the kind we are getting now.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[EastCoastSurfer]

Heh, do you require 6 figures to live? Perhaps the artificial boom got you used to a quality of life that isn't possible with just sitting around and coding?

In my area 40-55k/year is thought of as a great a salary for the little bit of experience we were looking for. The problem was that we either got people who thought they were god and wanted much more than we were willing to offer (and for the most part they were far from being great at tech) or we got people who had heard tech was the place to be and had done some html at home.

22 MILLION HIGH TECH JOBS WILL BE CREATED!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are absoluely right. The lowering of environmental standards will be of particular help to the US in creating new jobs here. THAT IS WHAT WILL MAKE THE ESTIMATES ACCURATE!

The US Interior Department is currently negotiating with a wide range of industries both foreign and domestic to use public lands to receive industrial wastes of all kinds (from strip mining in Utah to mountaintop mining in West Virginia and elsewhere). Current plans include clear cutting of national forests, such as DeSoto National Forrest in Mississippi, so that they can be made ready to receive this new source of revenue. The well placed Mississippi delegation, eager to create jobs in the country's No. 1 shipyard is already negotiating for contracts to build the needed vessels.

Once these sites are widely recognized as contaminated and the various neighboring communities evacuated, the US will be in a position to import millions of tons of industrial waste from other countries such as India and China, Europe, and elsewhere whose burgeoning economies will have need for additional landfills.

DOE plans currently in in-house review include receipt of nuclear wastes for storage in the Nevada respository. Japan has limited storage space and in exchange for its purchase of US treasury debt it will be the first foreign customer.

THESE WILL BE HIGH-TECH LANDFILLS SO THIS JOBS WILL BE HI-TECH JOBS AND WILL LEAD TO THOUSANDS OF PROGRAMMING JOBS TO KEEP TRACK OF ALL THESE IMPORTS.

This adminstration is serious about creating jobs and IT HAS A PLAN!

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[blink3478]

Not meant to be a troll, but one solution is 'Don't have kids.'

My generation (generation X), is finding that one (of very few) workable solutions these days, along with a lot of anti-consumer attitudes to help save the little money you have. Cooking at home, moving out of the major cities, getting roommates, shopping at thrift stores, getting that Civic instead of the SUV...

It's having an impact - marriage rates are dropping, divorce is way up, the average marriage here in California now lasts 5 years and fewer children are being born.

Re:THEY WILL BE HI-TECH JOBS!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are absoluely right. The lowering of environmental standards will be of particular help to the US in creating new jobs here.

The US Interior Department is currently negotiating with a wide range of industries to use public lands to receive industrial wastes of all kinds (from strip mining in Utah to mountaintop mining in West Virginia and elsewhere). Current plans include clear cutting of national forests, such as DeSoto National Forrest in Mississippi, so that they can be made ready to receive this new source of revenue. The well placed Mississippi delegation, eager to create jobs in the country's No. 1 shipyard is already negotiating for contracts to build the needed vessels.

Once these sites are widely recognized as contaminated and the various neighboring communities evacuated, the US will be in a position to import millions of tons of industrial waste from other countries such as India and China, and Europe whose burgeoning economies will have need for additional landfills.

DOE plans currently in in-house review include receipt of nuclear wastes for storage in the Nevada respository. THESE WILL BE HIGH-TECH LANDFILLS SO THIS JOBS WILL BE HI-TECH JOBS.

This adminstration is serious about creating jobs and IT HAS A PLAN!

Tired of being Trickled on

[tres]

Let's get a real estimate of how well economies can work without looting the wealth of future generations:

How did things look under Clinton?

Unemployment

4.3 percent unemployment -- the lowest peacetime rate since 1957. The unemployment rate has stayed below 5 percent for 24 months in a row. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, 7/2/99]

Income

Typical family income was up $3,517 (8.6 percent) from 1993 to 1997. Median family income increased from $41,051 in 1993 to $44,568 in 1997. [Money Income in the United States: 1997, Bureau of the Census, 9/24/98]

Wages

Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, real wages rose 6.2 percent compared to declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush years. After adjusting for inflation, wages increased almost 2.7 percent in 1998 -- the fastest real wage growth in more than two decades and the third year in a row and the longest sustained growth since the early 1970s. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, 7/2/99]

Re:Tired of being Trickled on

[toiletmonster]

yeah because the only thing that effects the economy is which party is currently in power. in fact george bush caused the internet bubble to burst and the economy to crash. if gore had been elected, the economy would have just kept going straight on up to infinity and we would all be filthy rich. jeeze what was i thinking? i think i'll go vote for a democrat now.

Re:Tired of being Trickled on

[workindev]

You forgot to mention all the companies that fraudulently overstated earnings to the tune of billions of dollars during the Clinton/Gore years (I guess its a good economy even if you are just saying that your making money), the Clinton Administration overstating the strength of the economy and tax revenues by as much as 30%, stock market inflation causing companies that had not even made a penny in profit to trade at PE ratios in the several hundreds, massive spending by state governments that has caused a state budget crisis in many states after economic growth declined to a more reasonable (and sustainable) level, and finally the millions of jobs that were "created" on such an unstable foundation that they all went *POOF* when investors finally realized that the Internet and Tech stocks that they funneled trillions of dollars into were overvalued by as much as 300% so they yanked their money out.

Yeah. Times were really good.

Re:Tired of being Trickled on

[tres]

Your post makes no sense.

Are you blaming Clinton for "overstating the strength of the economy" (according to that oracle of truth, Robert Novak), or for the greed of corporate executives and MBAs that caused the stock market to crash? What does one have to do with the other?

Do you know what you're talking about?

You know it's just sad to read stuff like this. It's sad to see how desperate people on the right are to find someone else to blame for the blight both Bush presidencies have been. At least when Clinton was around, you had someone to blame. Although after spending 25 million tax dollars investigating him, the only thing they could blame him for was being a bad husband.

This is nothing personal against you, but your post is simply rhetoric. It's a hoax in writing. Go and find something that connects the Clinton administration with dubya's friend over at Enron, "kenny-boy" Lay. Go and find something that connects the Clinton administration with the overvaluation of stocks or with anything having to do with the rampant greed of investment companies recommending unwitting investors purchase overvalued stocks while they reap the benefits of those sales. Go find anything that connects Clinton with the accountants who were being paid to look the other way.

And using Robert Novak as a reference? Please. That's right up there with using Fox News. Try using a reference that actually has some merit. Read my post for an example.

Re:Tired of being Trickled on

[workindev]

Are you blaming Clinton for "overstating the strength of the economy" ... or for the greed of corporate executives and MBAs that caused the stock market to crash? What does one have to do with the other?

If you re-read my post, I was not blaming anybody for these things. You gave a bunch of fancy numbers trying to prove how good we all had it during the Clinton/Gore years, and my only point is that things were simply not as good as they seemed. The so-called economic strength of the late 1990's was built on a foundation of inflated stock prices and corporate fraud. That is why the market analyists called it a "market correction" when stock prices dropped to normal levels.

The company I work for had a stock price of about $20 and employed about 100,000 people in the mid 1990's. During the "boom" of the late '90s the stock was trading at $150 and we had 150,000 employees and everybody thought things were great. Guess what? Things took a dive and now its back down to $20 and we again employ only 100,000. (I should also point out that we announced our first layoffs and corporate restructuring in Q1 2000, a full year before Bush was sworn into office -- I guess the Democrats would argue that it was a pre-emptive strike, just in case Bush got elected).

Go and find something that connects the Clinton administration with dubya's friend over at Enron, "kenny-boy" Lay.

Well, you asked for it. Buy I guess you think that including Enron officials on trade missions to India, China, Pakistan and South Africa in exchange for the largest single campaign contribution to the 1996 Clinton/Gore ticket doesn't mean a thing, right?

Mr. Lay also served as a trustee at the Heinz Center for Economics from 1995 - 2003 (thats 2 years after the demise of Enron), an organization which is ran by John F. Kerry's wife.

And using Robert Novak as a reference? Please. That's right up there with using Fox News. Try using a reference that actually has some merit.

Ah, the "liar liar, pants on fire" technique. Why don't you do some research to prove him wrong, rather than telling me he is wrong because you disagree with him.

Re:Tired of being Trickled on

[tres]

Don't even start thinking I'm defending the Clinton administration as a whole. Trade missions were, and are a small part of the corporate welfare system that Reagan, Bush, Clinton and this excuse for a president have all used. They should be done away with--I'm glad you seem to agree on that. And I definitely think that the campaign finance system should be dramatically reformed; it no longer works. But that's not what we were talking about, now was it?

I guess you'd like to think that the "boom" was some kind of mass hypnotism that Clinton's wagging mouth invoked upon us all. But that doesn't change any of the numbers that were in my original post (released by governmental agencies).

And whether you like it or not, these are the same kind of sources that Cato used for their processed report you seem to put so much credence in.

And as for Novak; I think it's okay to wear your heart on your sleeve in an editorial. It's okay to express your opinion as a journalist where it's appropriate. It's not okay to present your opinions as objective reporting. It's not okay to present yourself as a news organization or a journalist when your objective is not clarity, but rather persuasion.

We could have forestalled this.

[wcrowe]

Back in the late 80's, early 90's there was a lot of talk about requiring state certification for IT professionals similar to Medical, Bar, and CPA exams. This was resisted by many in the industry (sadly, myself included), and by the time the .com boom began, nobody wanted to make it harder to hire people by requiring state certification.

Now, I think we blew it. If we had established a system whereby state certification would be required to perform these jobs, they would be protected, just like MD's, lawyers, and CPA's positions are.

Biased anyone?

[deepvoid]

Neither source can be considered unbiased. Both have a stake in protecting the ground they have taken in the outsourcing situation. As far as the creation of more jobs in the US; a flat out lie. I hope the press picks up on the audacity and rips them a new one for it.

India doesn't need aid anymore

[aat]

Yes, India shouldn't get aid, since:

1: India gives developmental assistance (mostly to neighboring countries like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bhutan).

2: It's a creditor to the IMF (International Monetary Fund).

3: It's written off loans for some desparately poor countries (mostly in Africa).

4: Foreign Aid is a very small part of India's GDP, at least when compared to Israel and Egypt. It's symbolic for India more than anything else.

5: America _now_ accounts for an insignificant amount of India's foreign aid:

"The United States accounted for 8.6 percent of all of the aid India received from independence through FY 1988, but for only 0.7 percent in FY 1989 and 0.6 percent in FY 1990." source

I've considered your appeal

[FanaticalDesperado]

and I'm just as willing to sell F-16s to India as to Pakistan. How many would you like?

Given any luck, you can shoot down those Paki bastards so they have to buy more!

UhHuh

[kaffiene]

I've read /. for quite some time now, and I've found the US posters to be largely bullish supporters of capitalism.

Now the invisible hand is favouring India and all of a sudden capitalism isn't all so good? Hmmm...

Perhaps it's self interest that Americans are really committed too, rather than capitalism or free trade?

Not that I mind - it's your country after all - I'd just like you contrary buggers to be consistent. I don't mind you deciding that perhaps allowing corporate anarchy is not such a great idea when you look at the human costs just so long as you stop trying convince the rest of the world that it's the way to go. Case in point: the US preaches free trade but has tarrifs all over the place and does not trade freely even with its allies.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[rpbird]

Are you on drugs? Is that your excuse? Every study I've EVER read says just the opposite. One $50K+ job can generate from three to ten minimum wage jobs. There's a chain of employment, all locked together, all dependent on the high wage job at the top. The kids flipping burgers are there because there is a high wage job at the top of the local economy. It gets even worse for you. Numerous studies have shown a solid link between high wage manufacturing jobs and generating employment in the service sector. If you lose those high wage jobs, soon the minimum wage jobs go away. The current fad for outsourcing is slowly turning the USA into a third world country. And dim thinking like yours only contributes to the problem. Go read a book!

two words

[espo812]

economic cycle

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Anonymous Coward]

well, you complain a lot when at 45K a year you live in complete luxury compared to most people in the world. Before you go with the usual lines that things are more expensive in the US, remember that in the US, even the poor people enjoy significantly higher standars of living, stability and security than other nations. Also, there is no guarantee of success for everybody in the US. Noone told you to get in debt. Noone told you to get married and breed. Those are all your choices and risks you took and now you have to provide for your family.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Rich0]

Uh - where I live a very modest single home capable of housing my wife and two stepchildren cost us $200k - and this is certainly no mansion. If you do the math on the mortgage you'll find that will cost you at least $1600/month if you go with 30-year fixed (including taxes, insurance, etc.).

$20k/year is about $1800/month. I think you need to cancel a lot more than your cable and broadband. The last time I checked, most people don't spend more than about $100/month on that sutff, and eating out often might bring in another $300/month in bills. If your salary BEFORE TAXES is only $200 more than your mortgage then you need to downsize your house and stuff your family of four into a two bedroom apartment (where you will barely scrape by). A rowhouse in a not-well-to-do city neighborhood costs the better part of $100k these days. Better teach the kids how to dodge bullets if you go that route, and hope they stay off drugs.

You obviously don't have kids and a home...

$20k is just enough to survive in most of America, unless you want to sleep on park benches.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Rich0]

Ok, you technically don't need anything more than a cot, some rags, and a whole lot of macaroni and cheese. So, what's your point?

Sure, the average person can't expect to buy the latest and greatest plasma TV when it first comes out. However, is it unreasonable to expect that a majority of a nation's population should be unable to afford even a basic luxury like a cell phone?

I don't know about you, but I don't envision my sole purpose in life to be sleeping, eating, working for 14 hours a day just to pay for sleeping and eating, and then having kids so that they can do the same.

Obviously if I lost my job I'd just have to do without for some period of time. And that's fine - that's just life. However, I think that a sign of a great society is that it is able to take a little care of those who have fallen on bad luck, and that an average person should be able to live at an average standard of living. As opposed to a society where the average income is $40k, and 95% of the society makes under 20k (with the average weighted by the 5% who make 195k).

no worries

[FanaticalDesperado]

We don't begrudge the fact that you are doing better for yourself or and that it's a good thing for India. I'm happy for you. We just wish there was some way to do so without losing our own jobs.

I don't think it will be too long before you start to see more Indian software companies making their own products instead of outsourcing. You should be able to find yourself a job that's a little more exciting than grunt work then. Good luck.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Rich0]

I think that this is definitely evident in housing prices. Housing in a congested area (ie an area that actually has jobs) tends to be limited in availability, and therefore houses are sold to those who can afford to bid the most. Obviously a couple making $100k can bid more than a couple with only one income of $50k. So the prices are driven up. Now, the couple making $100k finds that a third of their income goes to paying the mortgage, and if either loses their job for long they are in trouble. If every house had a single income, the housing prices would be lower, and the relative standard of living would probably be about the same (the take-home pay after taxes and mortgages would be comparable).

My wife works while the kids are in school (mainly to avoid being bored at home), but because she works part-time, most career options are closed to her (most companies expect working mothers to have a good "work-life balance" - ie life takes a back-seat to work). Sure, we can't buy as much as we could if she dumped the kids in after-school care and got a more serious job, but we're happy as it is, the kids are happy, and we have enough. However, if I lost my job we'd be in big trouble.

Tech support

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you guys, but I cant wait to get a job doing tech support in broken Indian for Indian clients. It will pay for all the years of broken english Indian support you get when calling Oracle, IBM, etc....

Re: Investment Where?

[Herkules]

For all AC's that didnt know this! Banks loan money to people and invest money. So you see that money is not acctualy in a big valt as you see in cartons =)

Add H1b visas to reverse outsourcing trend

[iendedi]

I completely agree. Keeping the jobs in the U.S. should be a high priority. We should increase the number of H1bs, and continue to do so until we reverse the outsourcing trend. Better to have the jobs here, even if they are paying lower than we are used to, then not having them here at all.

I'm confused...

[Corpus_Callosum]

Tell us again, why they should get aid? Cuz I think you said they should get it because they give aid to some other guys and only get a little bit from us.

I thought you guys were supposed to be logical?

I didn't get any aid last year and I'm very generous. Maybe I should get some too.

Re:I'm confused...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even read his comment? Why are you being so hostile? He was making the argument that India doesn't need any aid, and the aid it gets now is trivial.

Try being more civil next time, jackass.

Woops, okay..

[Anonymous Coward]

I see - I was confused!! I thought you said "should get aid" when you said "shouldn't".... Woops!! Sorry...

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Rich0]

It's having an impact - marriage rates are dropping, divorce is way up, the average marriage here in California now lasts 5 years and fewer children are being born.

Sounds just like the American Dream to me!

(Yes, I know the parent was being sarcastic...)

Contrary to your beliefs...

[Elpacoloco]

We only keep corporations because we find them convinient. They have no right to live, profit, or whatever.

Now while it's sad when they die (ie: go out of business) because the people involved are out of work, it's no skin off my back.

Re:Contrary to your beliefs...

[Radical Rad]

Actually corporations in the US have been granted "personhood" as if they are living beings. It is weird yes. And it caused many inconsistencies in the laws which are still being worked out usually to the detriment of actual living persons.

you get what you ask for.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a support person I tell people to demand
an non indian when they call tech support

you ask for "an non indian". so you get anon-indian. :-))

I abhor these taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the fuck should I pay for someone else's retirement? Why cant their families take care of them? Did they bury their heads up their asses when they were earning money? They should have saved money for the future. Why should I work 2 out of 10 days to pay for these oldies?

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, the poor misguided fools probably wanted a wage they could actually live on.

Look, I stayed in the midwest (Ohio) all during the dotcom boom and $75k/year here is a SHITLOAD of money. Should I feel sorry for the people who moved to California and got hired on by some startup making $150k/year while they were sharing a one bedroom apartment with 4 other people? Absolutely not. I'm just getting sick and tired of whiny California brats complaining that they can't afford to keep up the mortgage on their $800k/year 1500 square foot house in San Jose anymore.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[MoneyT]

If you're 4 person family is living regularly on a 45k income, you shouldn't be living in a 200k home. Furthermore, if you wind up having to take a 20k a year job, and that's your only income, maybe it's time to consider having your wife work some too? Some times you have to make sacrifices like that.

I never said 20k is enough for a 4 person family. But it should be plenty for a single person, or really even two people.

Complaint or competition

[rolofft]

Do you mean the USA or California? You couldn't buy a hovel for $200k in Santa Clara, but that'd afford a large house in Georgia. Regardless, don't you think it's asbsurd for someone with as many luxuries as the average American to complain about the cost of living? This is the wealthiest place in the wealthiest time in history.

I complained myself until my wife and I got serious about tracking our budget, and I realized how much we spent on DVDs, video games, soda pop, broadband, cell phones, beer, and a hundred other costly trifles. Once we cut that crap out of our budget, saving for a home downpayment was smoother sailing.

My point is that griping is the wrong response to outsourcing. If the tactic of the American programmer is to complain instead of compete, he's doomed. No amount of government protectionism will defend a stagnant industry from being passed by.

Our situation as programmers is not unique to history. The steel industry has the most obvious parallels. Complaining about India's low standard of living will lead us down the same path as complaining about "dumping" lead the US steel industry: otiosity.

A THEORY is not a STUDY,

[Cryofan]

dipshit.

Re:A THEORY is not a STUDY,

[Killswitch1968]

Promoting your own site via third party sources from a SOCIALIST PROPAGANDA site is hardly the basis for an argument. Communism/socialism has tried and failed. Get over it.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Punctuated_Equilibri]

You're trying to fight gravity. As long as we all live on the same planet, there is no stable equilibrium in which highly-paid Americans can keep jobs away from low-paid Indians with equivalent skills. You can't build walls high enough, even if it was morally acceptable to keep India poor. We need to look forward, not back.

The bad news

[rupert2000]

20 million of the new jobs positions will be for translators.

Fret didn't save candlemakers from the lightbulb

[rolofft]

I think there's a future in technology. Our agriculture industry is bigger now than it was during the agricultural era; our manufacturing industry is bigger now than it was during the industrial era; I can only assume that our technology industry will find ways to grow in the "knowledge era". That is assuming we don't while away all our time taking umbrage to India.

The US sells more cars now than it did before the Japanese became serious contenders. Competition can spur an industry to success.

200K and houses

[Anonymous Coward]

for $200K, you could buy a couple 5 big houses in india in a big city. real estate is not very cheap in india. and the average indian is piss poor and cannot dream of such houses.

when the going is good, everyone swears by capitalism. when the tough times start, people want Karl Marx.

Compete or perish.

Upheaval is nothing new

[rolofft]

How long did you expect the US's domination of the tech industry to last? It's like the game industry. Atari, Nintendo, or Sony couldn't stay top dog forever. The US is like Sega; we're losing the game of "making consoles" (goods), so now we've got to focus on "publishing" (services).

Re:I smell bull...agreed

[Ex-MislTech]

When you are paid to print your opinion, your opinion
is often remarkably like those paying you .

Some pretty obvious logic there .

Peace,
Ex-MislTech

Re:India

[Anonymous Coward]

Go and hang yourself son of a bitch. Americans don't learn lessons from their past mistakes.

bad business

[Anonymous Coward]

the caste system is alive and well, thank you. i know, because i am an indian and have seen it and borne the brunt of it sometimes. the outsourcing boom gives opportunities to twenty-somethings to make about 300-400 dollars a month at the most (call center pay). The call center guy/girl can pick up the phone, speak english and answer support questions. the reason many of you morons are not "greedy executives" is simple...you would pay an american $3000 a month to answer the same call that Joe Indian does for 1/10th the price. Bad business.

Re:bad business

[Anonymous Coward]

Until I take my American business dollars elsewhere because the Indian is totally useless and can't answer a god damned thing without talking to his manager 18 times for every minor thing and then declare his shift is over and could I call back to talk to the next shift, here is your ticket number, thank you very much for calling, quality service is job one, good bye, click!

Re: Don't blame immigrants

[rolofft]

It's a myth that immigrants, illegal or not, hurt the economy. Both countries benefit.

"The methodological arsenal of modern econometrics cannot detect a single shred of evidence that immigrants have a sizeable adverse impact on the earnings and employment opportunities of natives."- George Borjas

Re: Don't blame immigrants...cato

[Ex-MislTech]

Cato Institute is a Right wing Corpracracy pandering politique .

If there is anything I have learned EVERYONE is being bought off,
and EVERYONE is biased .

Just because Georgie boy has an opinion does not mean it is
going to be right , and immigrants can affect an economy .

The US economy was built by immigrants .

The original railroads were largely built by them .

The majority of crops picked in the southern US are
done by migrant workers from mexico .

Scab labor was used to bust strikes by workers, workers
wanting the labor laws that are now in place .

Read your history, there are MANY other cases .

Peace,
Ex-MislTech

Burger flipping

[rolofft]

Would a country of burger flippers outsource its programming needs to India? If the only thing the US is good at is flipping burgers, what will the Indians spend their dollars on? Dollars are only valuable to Indians to the extent they can be exchanged for US goods and services that Indians want. We're watching a teetertoter tip, but don't make the mistake of imagining current trends can be extend into the future indefinitely.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[qtp]

Many people work their entire lives in their profession and never earn more than $45k/year.

Yes, but the people refered to in the grandparent post are lucky to be making $20,000.00 a year, and I personally know many highly skilled, highlty educated folk who would love to get a $45,000.00 a year job.

It was the assholes who were being payed the six figure salary (and those who were paying them) that spoiled the pot in this case and attracted the "money set" to tech jobs in the first place, often replacing those who have the aptitude and the nknow-how with those who have the connections.

It wasn't the techies who were coming up with the asininely stupid "get-rich-quick" business plans in the first place, but they sure are the ones paying for it now. Case in point, ArsDigita, a company that was profitable from the start, but failed after the venture capitalists came in to "help". I'm sure that there's otheer examples of how the business community screwed promising young companies out of a future, but this one is a prime example of how the venture-capital scam was not a crime on the part of the techies, but rather on the part of a business culture that wanted "in" on this "internet thing" when they had very little understanding of how any of it works and even less interest in what the implications of the internet are for businesses who wish to ply thier trade there.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you missed the part where he said "Now, if both parents want to work and bring in that kind of money"

With children, there is a lot of value in having a parent at home 24x7.

Re: Don't blame immigrants

[PotatoHead]

I am sorry, but I am going to totally blame immigrants for a lot of things. There are two kinds of these, legal and illegal.

The legal kind are good. They become citizens and pay taxes and such. Nothing wrong with this, it is a good thing that needs to continue.

The illegal ones are a big drain on our economy right now. I live in Oregon where the State is constantly asking for more taxes on top of already very high tax rates. The official dogma we hear is the "starving schools". Same crap I have heard all of my life here in Oregon. The more the illegal population rises, the sharper the school cry becomes. After a while the real picture sinks in. It is not hard to link the two.

Oregon has a state wide health plan, food assistance, housing assistance and other social programs that are filled to the gills with non-American citizens. Many of these folks have residency, but not citizenship. Why we think they are entitled to the help is beyond me. Somebody here illegally deserves exactly nothing! That is what Americans get. That is what our citizenship status is supposed to be about! If they can get it just for being here, then what do we have exactly? (Jack.)

If we were to ask for proof of citizenship before rendering public aid, the burden my state currently is facing would drop in a big way. Do that across the country and suddenly things would look a lot different. Most state governments would find themselves flush with cash. Enough to put these dollars into tax incentives for business, education assistance (for citizens), and many other economy building activities.

Taking care of these folks costs us an awful lot of money the current economy does not allow for.
How willing, to work here, do you believe these folks would be if they had to pay taxes and qualify for services as the rest of us do? Given the high tax rate and their low wage, I would wager the whole thing would not be worth it for either party.

Don't tell me illegal people consuming goods and services for next to nothing help both countries. Vicente Fox is happy as hell to keep these folks out of the country. Sure Mexico benefits, at the working middle classes expense.

GW knows damn well that a condition of citizenship would sharply reduce the incentives, for both parties --worker and employer, currently keeping this whole mess running. You think both countries benefit from that? Some businesses in our country do benefit, again at the expense of the working middle class.

Myth my ass! I know people on the take when I see it.

I can't say I blame them, however. They know our nation currently turns a blind eye toward this for political and business reasons. Given their position in live, I would do the same.

Again, consider the nature and value of American citizenship. If somebody can just show up here, get a drivers license, place to live, subscription to the food, housing, and health plan subsidies and vote, what exactly do you have that they don't?

Higher taxes and devalued jobs to compete for -nice huh?

Re:Explain it to me....

[Killswitch1968]

Oops sorry, I meant maximizing employment and welfare. In economic terms, welfare does not mean government transfers, but more like standard of living.

The fact that these stocks are insoluble is irrelevent. They still require companies to do well in order for them to pay off. If these companies are restricted from 'unconscienable profits' than everyone is hurt by it.

Three types of free lunch

[rolofft]

If you like the idea of "subdivided housing", might I recommend the book "We The Living". The protaganist's house in Soviet Russia is subdivided so that she has to accept tenants in her home. In practice, it ends up not being all that appealing.

You want to break up drug companies? I read a good article in Forbes magazine about drug researchers. The good ones tend to be top notch scientists, really the pinnacle of humanity. If drug research weren't a rewarding industry, I'd be suprised if it attracted the same caliber of people. I wouldn't be too quick to stiffle a vibrant industry.

What is "affordable housing"? Who would build homes that couldn't be afforded? You mean subsidized housing, which drives up the cost of unsubsidized housing for the middle class.

Re:Three types of free lunch

[Yartrebo]

Subdivided housing means that landlords or owners are allowed to split a large home into smaller apartments. It generally is profitable for the landlord to do it, but the town generally opposes this because it increases the town's population without increasing the tax base and it will put a strain on town services like schools. No owner is forced to subdivide a house.

As far as drug companies and research go, the cost of research is a small fraction of drug spending. If companies stop researching after applying price controls, the government could fund the research directly and recoup the spent money by lower medicare and medicaid spending which will result from keeping drug prices in check.

Affordable housing means small and cheap housing built on small lots and multifamily housing. It can be built without subsidies, but most towns have zoning laws prohibiting such construction as a way of keeping low income people out and to keep density down.

Re:Three types of free lunch

[rolofft]

The subdivided and affordable housing you describe sound like good ideas.

As far as nationalizing drug research, I'm skeptical. The profits drug companies make reflect the value people place on innovative drugs. It's like sports. It may seem outrageous that guys like Shaq makes millions, but if there weren't those millions to be made, the NBA wouldn't attract the world class athletes it does. I don't want an FDA quality agency in charge of curing cancer or alzheimers. I'd prefer the scientific equivalent of the Los Angles Lakers: Biotechnology All-Stars. Price controls are even more misguided. Our medical system isn't perfect, but moving it in the right direction might best be done by looking to the success of Singapore.

I just realized this is way off topic... uh, and what about those Indian programmers, huh? We're gonna have to keep sharp if those folks aren't going to make the American programmer a relic.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[ScrewMaster]

Central planning didn't work for the Soviet Union and it sure as hell won't work for us. But we are heading toward just that situation, and I haven't the slightest doubt that we'll crash just as hard as they did, and for the same reason. We have a population that is untrained in personal responsibility or initiative, is functionally innumerate and illiterate with limited critical-thinking skills, doesn't understand that casting a vote wisely involves more than who looks the most "presidential", and expects to be told what to do because it otherwise hasn't a clue.

Furthermore, the power of the States is being slowly usurped by the Federal Government in direct contravention of the Constitution, and when the last vestige of State's Rights has been eliminated, your Central Planning will be a fait accompli. I don't think I will want to live here then: the Federal Politburo probably wouldn't like me very much.

"Wealth Tax" issues

[Anonymous Coward]

- People have to get the wealth as income at some point-- so wealth has already been taxed

- Even inheritences are taxed

- Wealth usually generates income... so wealth is taxed.

Also on pre-existing wealth:

- wealth is inherently taxed by inflation... just as debt is relieved by inflation.

- wealth tax may be useful where deflation exists

Conclusion:

Flawed argument

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Rich0]

The point is that if we want families to be able to support themselves in modest comfort, then average incomes in America need to be higher. Being able to raise a family of two children shouldn't really be something only attainable by the top 2% of wage-earners. Nor should be living in something larger than a one-bedroom apartment.

A 200k home is not a luxury in this day and age. Unless you want your teenage children to share bedrooms you need one at least that big (remember, we're talking 5-6 rooms, not 8. In the 60's it wasn't unheard of for average-incomed families to be able to afford such houses...

Obviously Americans live high on the hill compared to India. And I'm all for something that will help Indians to live more like Americans. Maybe we don't all need wasteful SUV's either. However, shouldn't civilization be trying to move in a direction where an average person can live in a nice modest dwelling?

If I wanted to gauge the true quality of a society I wouldn't go looking at Donald Trump's house - I'd go looking at Joe Smith's home. If Joe Smith has to work 80 hours a week and is constantly stressed about the next round of layoffs and lives in a shack with his wife and one kid, then I have to judge that he does not live in a quality society...

Re: Don't blame immigrants...cato

[rolofft]

Are you saying it's bad that "immigrants build the country"? I missed your point. Personally, I think immigrants are great (but, hey, I'm descended from immigrants - well, aren't we all).

P.S. Cato isn't right wing, they're classically liberal (think John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson). They support drug legalization and many other liberal issues. I'd hardly say they pander to politicians. Their agenda is far more consistent and redical than most politicians would find politically expedient.

Re: Don't blame immigrants

[rolofft]

Sure, legal immigration is preferable, but I tend to like people in general. I don't scorn someone because a govt agency like the IMF hasn't given them their blessing. You see those guys who float here on rafts made from old cars or inflated condoms or whatever, braving the sharks, and you want to turn them away? Hell, if anyone's going to appreciate the country it's a guy who's had to risk something to get here. Instead of kicking 'em out cuz they ain't legal. Make it easier for 'em to join the club legit. Have them memorize the Constititution, or whatnot, and get on with things. I don't think going through the IMF's bureaucratic nightmare helps anyone.

I don't want to be presumptuous, but are you sure you aren't using immigrants as a scapegoat for your state's problems? You're offering benefits to illegals, and blaming the illegals for taking advantage of it? I'd say scrap the benefits and welcome the immigrants.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[MoneyT]

See the problem is people view a 200k home as being a non luxury. I grew up in what ammounts to a 60k home. 3 bedrooms, one bathroom, kitchen, dinnning room, living room. And you know what, that's a perfectly fine house for a family of 4. A 200k home may not be luxurious, but it's certainly not a modest home either. A 70k combined income is a perfectly livable income with basic luxuries (including a cell phone, cable, broadband and 2 cars).

Anyone can attain a comfortable lifestyle, but it's a matter of prioritizing, which is what people have forgotten how to do.

Re:Explain it to me....

[Anonymous Coward]

I would agree. The book value of your 401k means exactly squat when your cupboard's bare.

Re:Explain it to me....

[Anonymous Coward]

"You're not an econmist. You don't see the whole picture." Gag me. One day someone is going to figure out a way to automate the process of being an economist. It should be easy.

if (x == "government regulation")
return "bad";
else
return "good";

The sorts of parrots who can utter these cliches without even looking at the actual people affected and without batting an eye could easily have their jobs outsourced to India, or better yet, performed by a robot. What I want to know is why these assholes are considered "high skill", while I, a 50 year old java programmer, am on the scrap heap.

Mod this man up.

[grubert]

Exactly true.

Who's fault is that?????

[willtsmith]

Americans didn't run over to India and fornicate out of control to create 1 billion people.

INDIANS made all those people. INDIANS are responsible for feeding them.

Don't ask Americans to contribute because Indians can't stop fucking.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[MoneyT]

There is, but sadly we've created a society where both parents in most cases must work. Now we have to deal with that reality.

The Solution ...

[willtsmith]

The solution is VERY HIGH tariffs on countries with low wage, living, safety and environmental standards.

We need a foreign minimum wage to encourage foreing countries to treat their people correctly. We simply won't trade with countries that treat their people like shit.

We USED to have a program like this. It was called the "cold war". We didn't trade with communist societies where people were treated as little more than ants. Ah, the good ole days when we pointed nuclear missles at communists. now we trade with them ... bleck!!!!!

Whatever ...

[willtsmith]

Oh yeah, we have growth in AGRICULTURE. Where do most of those jobs go ... ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

Good fucking strategy for US future.

INDIANS LISTEN UP. LAUGH IT UP WHILE YOU CAN. THIS SHIT IS NOT GOING TO LAST MUCH LONGER!!!!!!!

Americans are getting good and riled up about WTO and NAFTA. It's starting to dot the pages of newspapers. Hell, Lou Dobbs has practically dedicated his show to it.

Within four years, it will be gone (or we'll be in revolt)!!!!!!

Services != Social Services

[shadow_slicer]

My economics is a little rusty but IIRC....

Service Industry: Industry that doesn't produce a physical product, but instead renders a service.

Ex. Lawyers, Plumbers, Physicians, Consultants, Hair Dressers, Telephone Sanitizers, hookers, etc.

Basically any time you pay someone to do something, not for something<physical object>, you're paying a service industry.

Re:Services != Social Services

[Malk-a-mite]

Social Services = direct quote

Yes there is a difference between Services and Social Services, in this case they stated phrase was social services.

breaking down political barriers

[sonictheboom]

presume you mean 'we will have world peace and everyone will live happily ever after'? Actually the cultural trade will need to be two-way. As other countries get richer they will also start exporting their culture (anime anyone?). India already produces the largest number of movies in the world, though the revenues are much smaller than Hollywood. Personally I think cultural trade would be good thing, especially for Americans, who tend to be very parochial.

Re:breaking down political barriers

[Grishnakh]

I don't think anyone except Indians will be too interested in Indian movies, unless they make some serious changes to them. Anime movies are appealing because they have excellent animation, sci-fi themes, lots of violence, etc. Indian movies are all just love stories heavily steeped in Indian culture and tradition; they're also excessively long, have far too much dialogue, and tend to be very formulaic. No sci-fi, no special effects, no really unique plots; just because they make a large number of movies doesn't mean they're anything that foreigners will want to watch.

Legal immigration

[PotatoHead]

Thought about our posts for a bit and calmed down...

Like people? I do as well. People start out being good people and grow either direction from there. This means most of the illegal people here are decent folks. (I see this in my neck of the woods.)

You make a point I happen to share. We can use more citizens. Make them learn some American history and what it stands for. Then they have a fair shot at contributing just like everyone else does. You are dead on regarding the guys in the boats. If we spend a little money setting the right expectations and make citizens out of them, they will likely do just as you say; namely, appreciate the country.

With regard to Oregons problems, you are not being presumptuous at all. Our duly elected leaders are currently handing things out to just about anyone that happens to be here long enough to figure that out. Given the recent moves the Govenator has just made (this is just simple humor --a play on the movies, I don't yet have a stand on how Arnold is doing because it is too soon, so don't take me to task on that just yet...) Oregon is going to get worse still as we continue to maintain our friendly environment toward illegal residents.

They (our current leaders) are the problem, not the illegals. My earlier rant did not clarify that particular aspect of things anywhere near as well as it should. You called me on it fair and square. -Good call. Clearly I have built up some sensitivity and anger toward this issue. Your post brought some of that out. I am sorry about that, marked you a foe and everything. --First one. (Took it back.)

I see a lot of these folks have moved in over the years. Know what? Many of them are decent folks, as I mentioned earlier, that deserve a break. I feel for them, but let me make my position clear. I want to help fellow Americans.

What I don't want to see is people confusing the issue as I thought you did. Open Immigration means getting more citizens in this country, it does not mean let the gates open and we all pay, status be dammed.

I am not for that at all, no matter how harsh it may be. The line has to be drawn somewhere and for me that line clearly is citizenship. Have it? Happen to be down on your luck? Go ahead and get what the nation can provide. Who knows, I might be in the same spot in the future. No harm in that. Somebody can take up the slack for a while, that is how it supposed to work.

Don't have it? Leave, plain and simple. We need to find ways to help people be legal and build from there. Anything else runs counter to how the nation was built and has too many bad side effects. Like crime. Illegal people are almost untouchable in the courts. Most minor crimes like property crime result in a citation and a demand for court appearance. They can't do anything else because deporting them costs too much and Vicente doesn't want 'em back anyway. So they walk over and over again. If we had legal people here, things would be different. (Just one example, there are many others.)

That does leave me in a hard position with regard to simple human compassion, but hey I can defend that with a willingness to help people gain their citizenship. I realize no one entity can save the world, so the next best thing is to take good care of the rank and file while building the organization as best we can. Doing some good along the way is a bonus. That is why nations have some value. Belonging to a good one that demonstrates these values is worth working and fighting for. Not so sure the USA is really shining in that area right now, given recent short-term events, but you know what I mean by this. A nation running well, can likely afford to earn a little good karma through aid programs and such. (I support all of these given our own house is in reasonable order. Today it isn't.)

Too often, I see these two issues (open borders and immigration) mixed together in a way that basically says "help the poor people, they need it." Again, I am f

Re:Legal immigration

[rolofft]

You thought I was for immigration at any cost and I thought you were bashing immigrants. But we're of like mind after all.

P.S. I meant "INS" (now BCIS), not "IMF" in my last post.

Solutions

[Anonymous Coward]

Are available, but not always clearly obvious.

(a)Job Security is dead. Accept the truth. Clinging to the old belief of a lifetime job with a good/big company and expecting government/ company to pay back will not materialize. Think about it, already so many automobile cos are squeezed due to pension costs.

(b)Reskill yourself. In *OTHER* fields - Biotech, nanotech etc.,. Above all, build a good relationship with your colleagues/immediate boss.
I know some bosses may be pointy haired types, but it pays.

(c)Find out what *WILL* be needed by the countries which are growing. What will an average middle class code monkey in India need? Find it & export it there. This was already discussed in Slashdot quite some time back - I don't remember the link.

I welcome feedback.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[El Torico]

In the United States, slavery was ended when one ruling class exercised military power to deprive another ruling class of their political and economic power. That "trick" is called the American Civil War.

This concludes your history lesson for today. Thank you, I'll be playing here all week.

Mark Twain said

[tedgyz]

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Kombat]

I agree that that's the reality. However, I don't agree that the solution is to "deal with it." The solution, in my opinion, is to fix it. If you re-read my original post, I'm saying that a society in which both parents must work in order to afford basic necessities plus retirement and college savings is a problem. It's bad for the kids. Society should strive to create an environment where the average income is enough to support an average family. On just one of those "average" incomes.

Where I live, 2-bedroom semi-detached row-houses have a base price of $200,000. If you're willing to put up with a 45+ minute commute to the city, you can get a modest single detached 3-bedroom home for about the same base price. Note, of course, that the "base price" doesn't include any upgrades whatsoever.

I'm in Ottawa, Canada, by the way. Moving to a cheaper area is not really practical, because we're both in high-tech. Areas where housing is cheap don't have any R&D going on, and thus we're not employable.

My wife and I don't have kids. We both work. We can get by with both our incomes, but we're not able to save as much for retirement as we'd like. If we had kids, we'd have to find even more (non-existent) money in our budget to save for college, and one of us would have to stay home to raise our kid(s).

To all those people who say that $45k/year is enough for a family, just look at the numbers.

Salary: $45,000/year pre-tax ($32,000 take-home)

Let's say I found an incredible deal, and found a 3-bedroom home for our 4-member family, within driving distance of the city (30 minutes), for the incredible price of $150,000. With a 10% down payment, mortgaging $135,000 over 25 years at 4%, our monthly payments would be about $712. That's $8544 per year.

Mortgage: $8544

We like to eat healthy. For my wife and I, plus our 2 imaginary kids, we'd spend about $700/month on groceries. That may sound like a lot to a lot of you bachelors, but that's less than $2 per meal, per family member. $700/month is $8400 per year.

Food: $8400

Now, bills. Say we don't have cable, or internet, and never make long distance calls. We just have water-sewer ($30), natural gas ($100, for heating and hot water), electric ($150), and basic phone service ($30). That's $310/month, or $3720/year.

Utilities: $3720

My wife and I need to get to work. Since we couldn't afford to live in the downtown core, public transit doesn't come out as far as our home. So we have cars. But for the sake of argument, let's pretend they're completely paid for, and all we have to pay for is gas ($300/month) and insurance ($120/month).

Car gas and insurance: $5040

Can't forget property tax. Average property tax in my area is $4500 per year. Since we're living at the very lower limit of our means, and we're pretending we bought a s***hole of a house, our taxes are only $2500/year.

Property taxes: $2500

Since we'd like our imaginary kids to be educated someday, we're being prudent make-believe parents and setting aside $200/month for each of our kids.
With 2 kids, that's $4800 per year.

Education savings: $4800

Whoops! That brings our total up to $33,004, which is already more than the $32,000 the government lets us take home. And that doesn't include any money for paying back our student loans, repairing the cars or house when things break, no saving for retirement, no medical emergencies, no vacations, no traveling, no cable TV or internet, no charitable donations, no dinners out, no entertainment budget at all.

We wouldn't even have enough to cover the bare-necessities, let alone a single luxury. A society where this is the case is broken. There's something wrong here. This is a problem. Both parents should not have to work to raise a child. Society does NOT benefit when parents choose to both stay in the workforce, and palm off the child-rearing to a stranger.

As you can see, $45,000/year is not nearly enough for even the bare essentials for a family of 4.

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Kombat]

in the US, even the poor people enjoy significantly higher standars of living, stability and security than other nations.

So you're saying the solution is for us to all adopt the lifestyle and quality-of-life of the homeless guy on the corner?

Noone told you to get married and breed. Those are all your choices and risks you took and now you have to provide for your family.

Great, so the purpose of life then is to slave like a dog for 60 hours a week, eat Kraft Dinner and sleep on a cot in a bachelor apartment shared with 3 other drones. All material pleasures should be foregone, since they're wasteful and unecessary.

Why exactly are we even bothering to live then? What is the point of life if you don't enjoy it? Why do you seem to feel that is acceptable for a society to consider such a joyless life "normal?"

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[Rich0]

I owned a 3BR townhouse that had a kitchen, a dining room, and a kitchen, and none of those rooms were large. It cost $126,000 when I bought it three years ago, and $140,000 when I sold it last year.

Unless you live in the middle of nowhere or in a very urban area (ie moderately high crime and poor schools) you won't find anything bigger than a 2BR condo for $60,000.

Where do you live, and when was the last time you priced homes? I'm not talking about 4BR colonials here - those sell for $300-400k these days.

Sure, if you live in an undeveloped area houses are a lot cheaper, but the jobs pay a lot less and there are fewer of them, so you still have the same problem.

I grew up in a 60k home as well, but now it would cost me $260k to buy...

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[MoneyT]

Lived just outside of Schenectady in NY. An area where the average property value was about 400k. A very affluent suburban area. The value on our house was 65k when I left. It was a very simple home, and the fact is we got along just fine. When I do a search for home arround where I live now (in the Raleigh area of NC, 200k homes are much larger than what I grew up in, though certainly not huge. And if I plug in 60k homes, not only do I find homes that are about the same as the one I grew up in, but they've also got more amenities than mine did.

Read this instead of the other post.

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Geez, let me try that again. My previous post has so many mistakes--I really should learn to preview before submit.

Question: was the Ching dynasty's protectionism cultural, like pre-Meiji Japan or current North Korea, or purely economic, like America has practiced to some degree since the constitution was signed, without which we would never have had an industrial revolution here? From an economic point of view, America is definitely large enough to be able to live off the global grid. Yes, global trade has benefits to some. But you should expect to see violent agitation if those benefits are not spread to all very quickly. Are you ready to die for Belgian beer? Because are those muscular unemployed laborers are going to be willing to kill for their next meal.

There's a huge difference between protectionism and WPA or Ludditism--protectionism doesn't protect jobs that shouldn't exist, it just makes sure the jobs are done here at home rather than abroad. Build a dishwasher to save labor if you must--but build and operate it here at home.

I don't really know what to say to your Sims-realization--it seems irrefutable to me that people need to be DOING something to become happier--pleasure is a small component of happiness. I know quite a few unhappy people with gigantic TVs. If Will Wright has indeed better defined 21st century man, this may explain why birth rates in industrialized nations keep falling. (America included, as long as you don't count immigrants.) People are realizing that their existence is adding nothing to the world, therefore they have no desire to create more copies of themselves. Will Wright's 21st century man will be extinct by the 22nd or 23rd century--man is a creature that needs purpose.

Perhaps you've acquired Stockholm syndrome. Having a different set of goals in life than everyone else is hard. There is a saying about the five people nearest you--looking at them today is looking at your own future. Human beings are social animals--they travel in packs, they have brains that are designed to emulate the other brains they surround themselves with. Spend enough time with anyone who doesn't do anything other than consume, and soon you won't either. Or you'll go insane. I'm opting for the latter.

More likely, you've managed to adjust your creative desires into a form that fits into consumerism. Awesome. Good job. But realize that you are a rare sort or organism. I've met far too many people who simply deny that creativity is of any value at all. They go to work, they do what their told, they go home, they watch what they're shown, they eat what they're fed. Some of these people I have great respect for--they're older people, who were brought up in times of great want and tribulation, who believed that working hard was the only way to stop the Nazi's/Communist's or whatever other war they were fighting at this time. Wasting time with artsy crap was a national disgrace--just a waste of effort that could be used to make our country a stronger place. They achieved Maslow self-actualization, ironically, by consciously deadening their need for self-actualization. They sacrificed their souls, their uniqueness--whatever they had to make America a stronger military power. The decision to be made was Guns vs. Butter, not Guns and Butter vs. Fan Fiction.

Most Americans spend a lot more time working than playing--yet we have optomized society for the enjoyment of the playing time, with little or no regard for improving the fulfilment that people find in their time spent working. Even as you defend consumerism, you don't mention anything about how happy you are as you're working. Because work has become so centralized and organized, people now have little influence over their own working environment--the assymetry of information between multinational employers and individuals has become too great. Even in the Will Wright, utilitarian world view, this will lead to unhappiness. Perhaps you are happy at your job--but that places you in a very fortunate minority.

T

Re:Central planning falacy. All "jobs" not equal.

[ThresholdRPG]

Whoops! These two expenses are tax deductible:

Mortgage: $8544
Education savings: $4800

Also, your $700/month on groceries is at least $100-200 too high.

Finally, you only need to save $100/month per kid to have an enormous amount of money saved up after 18 years.

This nets you $400-$500 more per month or $4,800 to $6,00 per year in less expenses.

You also gain a couple thousand from the tax deductions you forgot about.