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

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.

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?

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: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.