Slashdot Mirror


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."

21 of 948 comments (clear)

  1. Well look at that by Sarojin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An Indian journal reporting that Indian outsourcing is good!

    --
    HOW'S MY POSTING? CALL 1-800-POSTING
  2. Right... by Einer2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    Microsoft delenda est!
    1. Re:Right... by Frymaster · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

  3. Re:Some more statistics on the subject by Eskarel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. so.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:so.. by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Funny
      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...

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  5. In 6 more years? by Malk-a-mite · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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..... :-/

  6. Can't Outsource me by king-manic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    1. Re:Can't Outsource me by Grei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  7. Re:Just one catch.. by gtshafted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  8. Re:Some more statistics on the subject by Monkelectric · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    --

    Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  9. I'd like to believe, but by NixLuver · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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?

  10. Faulty logic and misleading headline! by grape+jelly · · Score: 5, Insightful
    [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).
  11. Re:Some more statistics on the subject by gurustu · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.
  12. I smell bull by shaldannon · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.
    --


    What is your Slash Rating?
    1. Re:I smell bull by schrockn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Schrock.
  13. surplus value by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  14. Re:22 million jobs by arc.light · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  15. Re:The rich, backwards by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  16. Re:Sauces, use thereof by Yartrebo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  17. Clear and compelling logic by dbc001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.