Slashdot Mirror
How India is Saving Capitalism
alphakappa writes "Salon goes onsite to Chennai (Madras) in India to investigate the whole offshoring phenemenon (free daypass) and comes up with an interesting series of stories. Katharine Mieszkowski starts with a company CollabNet which creates collaboration software for teams to work together on projects from locations all over the globe, and has centers in Brisbane (CA,US) and Chennai (India) - a company that would not exist if they didn't have access to engineers from India. She makes the case that in most cases, it is the necessity to survive, rather than greed that has fed the offshoring process. As Behlendorf from CollabNet puts it - 'We saved the jobs of the people who are employed in San Francisco by hiring people here [in India],' he says. 'I don't know that we would be around as a company if we hadn't done that. What was the right thing to do, morally?'"
Since when did capitalism have anything to do with morality?
So now the media thinks we should *thank* them for taking our jobs. :-) Capitalism is great for the top 2% of the country. For the rest of us... Well, we dont have time to think about shit like that, we have to get up, go to work and make other people rich...
When will the middle class realize that the upper 2% is screwing us in the ass daily, and actually do something about it???? We are the *majority* afterall...
--Ryan
that every company's situation is different. While it may be true that CollabNet has to outsource to survive, other companies (Dell comes to mind) DO NOT need to outsource to survive, they outsource because it is cheaper. We can argue all day about the morality of outsourcing, but the bottom line is going to be profit in many cases.
'I don't know that we would be around as a company if we hadn't done that. What was the right thing to do, morally?'"
The right thing to do, morally, is probably to go out of business. What if the choice was to not pay for workman's comp insurance or go out of business? Or to pay their employees $2 an hour or go out of business? Using "but... but... we'll go out of business if we don't do this" is a lame ass excuse.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Thats why its been called "A race to the bottom". Once your competitors start hiring offshore, you're forced to do it to compete on price.
The NY Times Tom Friedman has written many articles arguing a similar point.
Nike wouldnt exist if it wasnt for childeren in Pakistan. http://www.american.edu/TED/nike.htm
Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
Sounds a lot like justification to me. Whatever helps him sleep at night.
We couldn't save all the jobs, so we saved half.
If companies refused to go off shore, then everyone would be able to survive and we wouldn't lose any jobs.
Can I bum a sig?
The real question here should be not was this right morally, I think we Americans are being far too self-righteous (not like that'd be unusual..) if we put it in terms of morality. What we really should be asking here is what can we do to warrant our pay? How can we become more competitive in an increasingly connected world? Rather than complaining about outsourcing, we need to find out how to be more competitive. Any ideas?
The old rationalization was "we outsource to increase value for our shareholders". How generous!
Now, this rationalization, it's "we outsource so at least some people in the US can keep their jobs". How noble!
Prediction: later it will be "we outsource because otherwise we'd have to move entirely out of country and then the US wouldn't get our taxes." How civic!
All have the same underlying message they wish to send, "we want to help people!" But corporations don't generally exist to help people, they exist to make money.
There are 2 _good_ reasons to outsource, both based on the fact that labor is always the number one expense for a company.
1) We can stay in business, whereas otherwise we can't. 2) It makes us more money long-term (not just short-term profit sheets). Unfortunately, both may be true right now.
A.
As many people are still wanting the wife/husband, 2.3 kids, a dog/cat, 2 cars, a TV, home theatre, good computer (maybe 2), etc, goods and services will have to remain relatively inexpensive.
Now add in health insurance for the family, dental insurance, minumum wages, retirement matching, etc etc that a company has to setup for its labor in American, and you'll see that goods and services cannot be inexpensive if made in America. The cost of labor is too high here if we are to guarantee cheap goods and services.
It's an interesting paradox: In order to keep prices reasonable for a middle class, a majority of the labor needs to be paid at or just above the poverty line...which would theoretically remove the middle class.
So what should we do? In my eyes you either make wages worth more to the people (ie lower taxes) so you can offer less, or you cut down the overhead cost of labor (ie have the government install laws against frivolous malpractice lawsuits to reduce health insurance costs).
What do you think?
(Taking tongue away from cheek) Ha ha only serious. On a more positive note, it's also India's Bandwidth Capital because of all those transpacific cables landing here via Singapore. And electricity is very cheap here, probably the cheapest among all of India's major cities.
I believe that it can be shown with little doubt that it is corporate greed that has led to the current situation. That said, it is not necessarily corporate greed that is the current motivator... it just started the chain of events.
With all other corporate scandals and problems taking place, greed is essentially at the center of the motivation wht with pump and dump activities, monopoly abuse, anti-trusts and the lot going on. But the start of the trend changed the landscape considerably.
I complained in-person to a Dell representative about Dell's off-shoring of support to India. I exclaimed that I would never again buy Dell while they are off-shoring the ONE thing that made Dell great -- their support. The representative said it was a decision made so that it could remain competitive. I still think it's a tremendously stupid and inappropriate thing for Dell to do -- sell-out on their one and only unique selling-point and gambling with their brand-name as their primary value...bad idea guys! Now Dell is just another clone! Back to IBM for big business.
Anyway, I digress. I believe that the start of this is corporate greed and the current status of the problem is now competitive culture. The end of it, if there will be any, will start with legislation. Only law can correct the problems that greed/capitalism creates.
I can't beleive how dense these outsourcing people are. You employ 100 people to develop software to ship thousands of jobs overseas. How does that help us?
I really dont understand how companies can layoff people, send their jobs overseas, and expect their profits to rise. They layoff people, their customers... WHO will buy their products? with no one having enough money to buy them.
There is only ONE reason for outsourcing. Only one reason: to make the CEOs and execs of these companies more money.
These stories of how outsourcing is better in the end are a complete farse. There is NO benefit for the average american worker.
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
" The moral thing to do is for management is to uphold their DUTY to the shareholders"
That isn't a moral imperative, that's a fiscal imperative. But fiscal duty can and must take a back seat to moral imperative, otherwise you can justify virtually anything by saying "I had a duty to the shareholders...".
NO.
Corporations exist as a legal fiction primarily because society decided the benefit outweighed the risks. If corporations become more of a burden or risk to society than they pay back, they will simply be done away with (in a legal sense).
There is no inherent right for a corporation to exist.
You know, there's a similar situation going on in the farming industry. It's been declining since the 70s - THE 1770s. Back then I think 90% of people were farmers, and thanks to *progress*, we don't need that many people working to feed the country. There are people all over the midwest complaining that their way of life is going to disappear, and we all pay extra taxes to subsidize their plight -- the plight of people unwilling to change jobs when the market disappears.
And not only do we pay higher taxes, and higher prices for food, but farmers in places like Africa have nowhere to send their goods, and they don't have the infrastructure to do anything else.
I think it was Bill Maher who said (and I'm paraphrasing), "Americans seemed to be more concerned with taking their own lifestyles from 10 to 11 than to help others bring theirs from 0 to 1." And that's the absolute truth. No one reading this is starving. Even if you did nothing but collect welfare, your lifestyle would still be better than 90% of the world.
So, you're a programmer. Someone else can do your job for 1/4 of the price with the same quality. You have a few choices:
1. Find an employer who requires a warm ass in a seat in the States.
2. Raise the quality of your work.
3. Be your own boss.
4. Change careers.
You know how the RIAA doesn't provide a unique service anymore? Neither do you. You have lots of competition, and right now you can't compete. Or can you?
My biggest problem with outsourcing is that it is the product of a system which is skewed in favour of corporates, and screws the little guy. The problem as I see it is that one of the reasons why wage costs are so high in developed nations is because our cost of living is equally high. And one of the reasons for the cost of living being so high is because people cost too much to hire. But the problem we are getting now is that companies don't want to hire expensive people so they outsource. But the prices don't go down to reflect this. So as a labour force we still can't compete because our cost of living remains too high.
Detroit was faced with the same problem in the 70's. The Japanese were whipping us six ways to Sunday. The unions wanted us to support American-made cars even though they were utter crap. You could go into a showroom and see that the doors were mis-aligned, switches were poorly installed, etc. And that's just what you could see doing a casual inspection. American public said, "I don't think so" and purchased Hondas, Toyotas and Datsuns (now Nissan) They were simply far better products.
Detroit bitched bellered and bawled about it but finally got their act together and started producing a much better product. For Detroit, it was a stark reminder that they couldn't just throw up barriers and hope to have a captive market. It was painful but they came around and are able to compete globally now where in the 70's they were getting creamed.
Same thing is happening to us - we simply have to be able to compete. Whining about unfair competition just makes us look like whiners.
You might ask how you can compete with a $5/hour worker. What I've done is started a small business that uses software I wrote. The business is large enough to support me and a couple of other people but small enough that it doesn't attract competition. Niches abound if you're willing to go look for them. Just don't sit around waiting for someone to hand you a job - get out and create your own job.
"Major American companies get most of their business from the WORLD. It was convenient for Americans to enjoy record growth and prosperity when the world sent their huge investment dollars to the U.S., purchased tickets to watch Hollywood movies, and purchased American products. During these very same boom years, 99.9% of Americans completely ignored the plight of poor workers in the Third World who complained of illegal farm subsidies and globalization issues. Now, some of these same Third World countries have opened up their markets (India/China), educated themselves, adopted American-style marketing and are competing on a more level playing field. American workers...have to show why they should be paid more for a job that can be done equally well for a lower cost in India/China. If they can't show this, they will have to develop new industries and skills to adjust for their lack of advantage."
...at least on an individual level.
If you are a developer in the US and you are worried about outsourcing, get a job that requires a security clearance. That job must always be done by a US citizen, in the US, and therefore can never be moved offshore.
In the Washington DC area there is a huge, huge demand for IT people with clearance, and there are also lots of companies that will hire you and help you get a clearance.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
What was the right thing to do, morally?
Quit paying you and the top executives and senior management team filthy, unreasonable salaries. Not only are they inappropriate in most cases, the fact you failed (repeat that over and over again a few times to let it sink in) means the top brass should take it, not the producers in your company.
This is not the rant of some 20-something employee just out of college. I've run two companies I founded and grew, and don't see that I should fleece my customers or shareholders for obscene personal benefit (yes, $100K individually and over in this economy is obscene - you need to be living with less, providing good jobs for people, and investing in rebuilding your company!)
I see this over and over again. Wharten, Harvard, Yale types born on third base (thinking they hit a triple), that are slaughtering company after company for short term protection of their fat income. I own and run a tech company in the midwest that employs twenty people, and I'm the lowest paid. And no, it doesn't produce amazing profits I pocket as dividends. Someday it will be a nice company but I haven't earned that yet.
I get those silver spoon types all the time telling me how I should outsource my labor - which would be possible for us. Put all the tech oversees, along with support call center. I'd be making over $300K annually. The funny thing? They simply cannot understand why I would want to make less and employ people, because (you may have guessed), THAT IS WORK! Outsource it and collect the checks is the new Harvard MBA strategy, apparently.
Seems I saw the movie Wall Street. I've seen people pursue short term profit through slaughter. But you know, someone's gonna have to be around to buy your product, and if you get rid of the middle class, you might not have many customers. And don't forget, as long as you're expensive overhead (and not producing hard, tangible results towards the bottom line), you're expendible too.
Brazil has a very viable capitalistic system, too.
Unfortunately 95% of the people are quite poor but for the rest it's an excellent place.
Once the USA had it's middle-class destroyed, too, it will definitely resemble Brazil.
Sigged!
It's a dirty little secret of modern Capitalism that it basically can't work the way it's "supposed" to, given the current conditions. I'm not trolling, and I'll be specific.
The Classical theories on which Capitalism is based were written in the 19th Century. At that time, capital was basically land, and labor was much more free to move about than it is today. Before anyone objects that transportation is more advanced today, let me explain what I mean: in those days, workers were not locked into compartments from which they could not escape, and could basically go where the work was without having to worry about passports and work visas. Anyway, because of the conditions that obtained in the 19th Century, the Classical theories are based on assumptions of immobile capital and highly mobile labor.
The conclusions of the Classical theories are nice, especially "mutual advantage." Unfortunately, those theories have about as much to do with our current reality as the "spherical cow" of every physics nerd's favorite joke. In today's world, capital moves at a high fraction of the speed of light through wires, or even at the speed of light as radio signals in the air or visible pulses in fiber optic cables. Meanwhile, because of the fortified borders between countries and the need for passports and work visas and such, labor is basically locked into little compartments. As a result, the situation of today is almost exactly the opposite of the situation assumed by the Classical theories.
Because of this, the conclusions, like "mutual advantage," are utter bunk in today's world. In fact, there is basically nothing now preventing capital (a term I also use to refer to those who control large amounts of capital) taking total advantage of labor. So when American workers want adequate safety conditions at work, capital dumps them and goes to Mexico. When the Mexican workers get uppity and want a decent working wage and don't want pollutants dumped in their rivers, capital takes the jobs to Vietnam... etc., etc.
More relevant to this discussion, when computer programmers in Silicon Valley start getting six-figure salaries, capital starts by importing Indian programmers. When the imported Indians get wise and jump ship to higher-paying companies, capital gets smart and takes the work to India. In general terms, capital (the "2%" mentioned in the parent post) can play the labor forces in different countries against each other and pick and choose which countries' laborers will get work.
Is all lost? Maybe not. It might be possible to restore something more closely resembling the "mutual advantage" ideal of the Classical theories (though I'm sure there are some who don't see "mutual advantage" as a positive ideal and prefer the current situation...). All we have to do is restore the mobility of labor. Make the borders as open to people as they are to capital. Yes, in the short term, there would be disruptions, like a huge mass of people whose knowledge of the USA comes from Hollywood, who would flood the USA temporarily looking for that streets-paved-with-gold-and-everything-works paradise, but eventually, things would settle down again, only with better conditions for workers (read: people).
For those who worry a lot about the short-term consequences, consider that that worry is part of the "playing labor forces in different countries against each other" I mentioned above. You want to preserve the apparent advantage workers in your country currently appear to have, and capital plays on that to make you oppose the kinds of changes that could actually make Capitalism work for many people, instead of horribly failing the great majority, as it has been for quite some time.
--Mark
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
With all due respect to Mr. B and Collabnet, "we saved the SF jobs" sounds like a well thought out rationalization, for a much larger problem which is ultimately destroying IT, research, and technical innovation in America.
The first excuse from companies from two or three weeks ago, was, "American colleges are not producing graduates with strong enough skills in CS, math, science, and engineering, so we are forced to outsource"..
Now we're hearing, and I bet other corporations (of Collabnet's size and position) will pick up on this, that in order to save a few jobs and the company there was a "moral" directive to go get cheaper labor.
Nobody says American companies are required to create jobs - but by outsourcing everything they're destroying the next generation of technological innovation - you saw the last wave of hackers in the dot com boom. The next wave you see is going to be a mix of MBAs and sanitation engineers - the new U.S. demographic mix.
The technical industries are far more important to preserve than say, the automotive industry, ever was. Cars burning petroleum were never going to be the final answer for the planet - we knew that since the 50s.. technological innovation is going to save the planet. Too bad it won't be coming from the U.S.
- A Chennai resident
If outsourcing to india saves jobs in the US, just think of how many jobs could be saved if we stopped criticizing sweatshops.
I mean, cheap labor = good, right?
If you want to save jobs stop paying management absurd amounts of money and start giving a shit about the health and well-being of your employees. That way maybe they'll feel good about the company and start doing work instead of spending time on the net looking for a new job because your company fucking sucks. This saves jobs because maybe then your company will actually prosper.
Or you can outsource your tech support to india and just piss off your customers.
'Sup EA.
I am really busy and my time is more valuable than I could buy outsourced developers. So I am going to start an open source project and hire India developers for peanuts. I will then put on my resume that I developed program widget and get a higher paying job.
Does this seem stupid at all levels? If it does than outsourcing should be viewed the same way. If not than maybe this is a massive shift by society and I'll have to keep the idea for my future management move...
Supposedly anyone who kicks against outsourcing is against companies being profitable. I have no problem with companies being profitable.
What I have a problem with is the fact that I'm in my mid-40's and high up in the payscale for my particular niche. If my job got outsourced, I'd like to know what these profitable companies expect me to do for a living?
So far -- as the article points out -- all the executives can tell us is "Uh, think of something."
So forgive me if I don't cheer for India's (current) good fortune. Twenty years ago, when the manufacturing jobs began leaving the US, at least The Information Economy was on the rise, and most people managed to change gears.
Today there's nothing on the horizon unless you count flipping burgers. Uncool.
Well not compared to other Americans anyway. What happens is that value of the Almighty Dollar falls as the economy weakens, becoming worth less on the global market. *That* effectively reduces your wages compared to the rest of the world, making you cheaper to employ and your products cheaper. Your pay remains at a similar level compared to other Americans. e.g. A Harley now only costs 5200GBP. That same Harley cost nearly 9,000GBP a couple of years ago.
I don't know if you've noticed but the Dollar has been falling for the last couple of years. In 2002 1 dollar would have bought you 0.7 pounds sterling (GBP) or 50 Indian Rupees (INR). Now, 1 dollar will only buy you 0.55 pounds sterling or 44 Indian Ruppees (INR). That's more than a 10% reduction in all American's wages right there.
Another example is the Japanese Yen. It halved in value during the 90s while their economy was contracting, effectively halving the wage bill compared to the rest of the world. Harder times for everyone in that economy.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Sweden again, as an example |(I'm not Swedish, but i do think this country is the most advanced culture in the world).
A whirlpool/electrolux factory was here making microwaves, but 1 person working in the factory cost the company the same amount of money as 40 people working in a Chinese plant. So, they moved. Swedens old paper/textile industries are largely run by robots, as is thier automotive industry. All the old unskilled labouring jobs are gone, So what did they do?
They have responded as a country by doing what cannot be done in India or China. They have specialised in extreme high tech areas of work, and do shit loads of research. Biacore systems were INVENTED here for fucks sake. You can't get more high tech and shit cool than shining light at some gold to find out how much cocaine is in the blood on the other side of the fucking gold! The guy who came up with the premise of surface plasmonic resonance lives down the road from me here! This is hardcore research that isn't done in developing countries.
Or, in Ireland, they responded by making taxes on Industry a miniscule little number. So loads of companys set up in Ireland. they make a component (any component) and price it to themselves as a very expensive commodity, and pay very little tax on it. In all other countries where this company works, they pay high taxes but can pretend they make cheap components and then as a global company they save a lot of money. And Ireland gets lots of jobs and tax money. The US is a big country and it can handle itself, I'm sure it will be bouncing back in no time at all.
You know, I'm so fucking sick of hearing people bitch and complain about all of the jobs flowing overseas. You know what? Get over it! The United States encompasses less than FIVE PERCENT of the world's population. Do we have a God-given entitlement to jobs? Fuck no! Why should 80% of the world live in squalour whilst we drive around in our two-mile-per-gallon Humvees and gorge ourselves on Mickey D's supersized value meals? Short answer: they shouldn't. If offshoring means raising the standard of living for the 4/5 of humanity who have to worry about an empty belly at the end of the day, I say let it happen. I will survive.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
We have seen this situation before. It used to be that only a few could go to college. Now a college eduaction is much more widespread and available. That means we need to find more ways to stand out to secure our careers and jobs. When more people went to college, it flooded the workplace with "educated" people. It was still the best and brightest (or best connected) people who got the jobs. The offshoring just opens the field more.
An answer, improve ourselves and make ourselves indespensible. This doesn't guarentee anything, but it helps to hedge out bets. When it comes down to it, skills and competency will always be needed, at whatever cost. Also, we need to make it obvious why our "local" work is necessary. Increasing personal interaction in a productive way can make a huge difference in overall productivity. This is something that can't be felt with workers around the world.
I think the offshoring is good. The only moral issue is whether you are doing what you need to do to secure your job in the face of supporting a family or that BMW. The work makes us sharper, and the exposure makes our lives richer.
If open source is good for programmers, than outsourcing is also good for programmers.
The United States is a third world country that hit the lottery. We were the last man standing after WWII. People bought our stuff because most of the rest of the manufacturing base in the world was bombed flat. Rather than invest that money into improving education, we squandered it as profit, has a moon shot or 4, and built a really big road system.
We are now sliding back into a largely agrarian economy. About the only thing we produce that the rest of the world wants is food. For a while it was computers, but in our absolute lust for profit we sold the production capacity to Asia for cheap.
We have a first rate University system, but increasingly our own students aren't educated enough to use them. We can spend 600 billion dollars protecting ourselves from missiles that don't exist, but we can't spend 6 cents on education without some regulatory string attached to it.
We have fine hospitals that none can afford. When my wife delivered our baby, we were surrounded on all sides by women with no insurance, who often had no pre-natal care. And that stuff is cheap at twice the price.
We have sports fields that are subsidized by taxpayers that few citizens could afford tickets to. Our schools are scraping change, but we can cut massive tax breaks for a couple of billionaires to build a new ballpark.
And hey, I am an American. Born here. Educated here. Live here. But this place is a playground for the rich. There is the resort, but outside the resort is abject poverty.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
The main reason for the outsourcing to India is quite basic at heart, their hi-tech sector is maturing later than ours did. Wages in India are rapidly rising, and once that tech sector reaches the maturity of the US, a balance will be struck between the two and some jobs will come back over here as the wage savings won't be enough to cover the other expenses of outsourcing (time zone difference, communication barriers, etc).
Why not analyze the flip side of outsourcing. I am a software developer who is about to be "bangalored". Fine. I am not going to pout about it. The media writes that we are in a "global economy" so deal with it. OK I will. But we should take the global economy one step further. If US corps. can offshore their labor, allow US consumers to offshore their consumption. For example, if Pfizer Pharm. can offshore its IT staff to save money, then I should be able to purchase my drugs from Canada or Mexico to save money. I would like to see how IBM would react if I could buy an imitation Thinkpad laptop from Singapore for $300. US corporations are lobbying for the right to offshore yet also lobby for protection for their products. I say make it fair. If you want free trade, you should feel the sting a free trade. Allow US citizens to buy goods directly from countries with lower costs of living. I guarantee that offshoring consumption will make the big US corps. whine and pout and hopefully, the outsourcing proponents will deliver the same message that you are delivering to the US IT workers that are getting laid off. Free trade is good for you. It's a global economy. Deal with it. The threat of duty free imports will make CEOs rethink their offshoring strategies.
So, considering the Caste system still exploits nearly 200 Million people - called Untouchables -- treated as virtual slaves by their caste superiors, its nice to see American Capitalists praising India for its Capialist Victories.
The trouble is simple, there are many many poor in India. They are many educated intellectuals, and a growing upper class. YET they still have teaming masses of poor. I can gaurantee you that India's poor will not tolerate the this -- India is a Secular Democracy -- and its people can see the "promise" of Capialism for what it is: Extending the domination of the Upper Class.
In a global context, the USA is the Upper Class. The rest of the world is being (via propaganda like this, WTO treaties and open Warfare(justified time and again by self-serving lies, but still never comes close to excusing the Imperial Warmongering Aggressors to anyone with perspective, a lack of jingoism, a bit of history and a mote of objectiveness) taught a lesson (and sold a noble lie) either continue to serve our economy or face conequences. The DOMESTIC US middle and lower classes had better wake the heck up -- only you will prevent the US plutocrats from extending their Empire over the world. If you dont, these (cluefull) foreign masses *will* eventually kick off their yokes. Inspite of all this flower-y "India as proof of Capitalism" propaganda. The only thing it is proof of, is that YET AGAIN, USA's Plutocrats will make league with ANY CORRUPT system that will butress their status... Saddam, Shah of Iran, Gen. Zia ul-Haq of Pakistan in the 1980's (who helped nurture what later became Al Qaeda), Gen. Suharto in Indonesia, Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, Ferdinand Marcos, and and and. Obviously the American people DO NOT CARE about justice and democracy in the world as long as they Can Get Rich.
So when you middle and lower classes in the USA finally realize that "Free Trade" really means "Tolerate sinking living conditions at home, so we can finance the extension of our empire and underclass-serfs, so we may get stinking rich or else be hungry today." than we can discuss what the implications of Free Trade with India's wonderfull New Capitalists.
It is ironic that India that succumbed to a single British corporation - The East India Trading Company - should be seen as savior of capitalism. Here is the classic example. Indian weavers and cotton and silk was some of the best on the planet. The Egyptians mummies were wrapped in Indian muslin (ends in an 'n'). The British at the onset of their Industrial Revolution had no consumers for the crap their power looms produced. So the East India company kills Indian cottage industry, takes away Indian cotton to England, processes fabric and sells it back to India. Some percentage of that fine industrial age English middle class must have immigrated to the United States.
It is not much different today. The iron ore produced in India gets shipped to Japan to come back as automobile engines, the GSM chip designed/QA'd locally comes back as Motorola cell phone etc.
Morality? Gimme a break.
It's the "Ant and the Grasshopper" story. During the boom, many people with high paying jobs purchased expensive house, SUVs, boats, and various other toys and got into even more debt. When the bust happend and their last their jobs, they blamed everyone except themselves. Meanwhile, the "Grasshoppers" saved their money and bought stocks at dirty cheap prices during the bust.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
It applies to software, and here is a similar one:
In the economy, you are the following 3 things:
1) a consumer
2) a investor
3) a worker
Now pick two. What's good for those 2 choices may not be good for the remaining one.
Currently, it's number 1 and number 2.
If you look at this story you will see the real issue. US companies going overseas and hiring workers, and making profits on those workers, don't have to pay tax on those profits.
That's a losing proposition for American workers. I know some web designers who would have accepted $20k/yr to do work, if they could work from home. THey had broadband, there was no functional difference between them and the Indian worker. The problem is, corporations can hide profits made my Indian workers and skirt paying taxes, and all the other hassles American workers have with them, such as employment benefits, the paperwork associated with W2s. You can write a single check to an outsourcing firm overseas. Anyhow, read the Yahoo article.
Bush doesn't care, he'll give US corporations anything they want, any tax loophole they can find he will support. The middle class is destroyed, and so you will need business skills and the ability to create an LLC and be an indepedant IT consultant to make it, because nobody will hire you.
Outsourcing is nothing more than a natural market reaction to overpriced labor in certain areas of the economy. It is clearly in the interest of corporations to find the cheapest labor skilled enough to do a job. Outsourcing is a market-driven hint to some in the labor pool to expand their skills, find new opportunities, invent, completely change career paths, or otherwise find a way to make themselves valuable.
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the US enjoys a trade surplus in services, to the tune of $60 billion. A large portion of that surplus is computer services. This bears repeating: we import more programming/analysis/consulting than we export. The the overall service balance is shrinking, from $64B in 2002 to $60B last year, but is still a large surplus. The shrinking is easy to explain: as more nations/laborpools develop the skills to do certain jobs, companies are given greater selection. Salaries in the computer services secotr in the US will trend downward, while they will be pulled up overseas. They will meet in the middle somewhere
Not all jobs will be outsourced. There will still be many jobs, especially in emerging markets, that cannot be outsourced because laborers overseas do not yet have the skills needed to do the jobs. This is a great opportunity for those left without a job to improve their skills and enter these 'safe' markets.
There is no sence in complaining about outsourcing. "Evil" corporations are going to do it whether you like it or not. Government protection is not the answer, mainly because it isn't the government's responsibility to ensure you have a job. That onus lies on you. If you are unemployed, stop reading Slashdot and find a way to be valuable to the economy. Self-reliance, innovation and hard work are what made this country what it is and will continue to keep it great.
As the US labor pool is forced to become more skilled, the standard of living in countries like India will rise, creating a larger market for US produced goods, thus creating more jobs is the US.
I repeat: THE ANSWER IS NOT GOVERNMENT HANDOUT, SUBSIDY OR PROTECTION!!!! IT'S AMERICAN INDUSTRY AND HARD WORK!!!
People who didn't buck up got laid off and replaced with people willing to work 80-100 hours per week.
I'm sure my friend would have something to say on the matter, but s/he doesn't have time to read or write to /.
Names and genders have been obfuscated to protect the already tenuously employed.
The CB App. What's your 20?
mostly any american clothing, you have no moral right to whine about outsourcing.
Oh wait, outsourcing is good when it isn't YOUR kind of job being outsourced, is that what you're really saying? tough luck.
i had a sig, once..
This seems to be primarily a debate on other countries with massive populations finally being able to claim an equal proportion of the worlds resources.
America has a large share of the world's land with a much smaller proportion of the population. The benefits of this agriculture, natural resources, are the first order advantages enjoyed by the US. The mechanism of free-enterprise, and the risk-taking mentality in the have created second-order benefits which the US is enjoying today. Also, the vast separation from the rest of the world, kept the US industries standing after WWII, allowing th US to supply the rest of the world.
Now the massive population in the rest of the world has finally become a market that is worth serving, and is clamoring for resources proportional to their numbers. The US having used an enormously large proportion of the world's resources so far, is going to find itself using a smaller and smaller proportion of these resources and going back to the first-order advantages.
India and China, with their huge populations, will be able to do any service jobs that don't require actual physical presence at a much cheaper cost. The only platform on which americans can compete is their incredible efficiency, learnt over many decades. However, IT provides much of this efficiency, and can quite easily be transported anywhere in the world.
As trade between the rest of the world increases, trade between the US and the rest of the world will become proportionally smaller - except in key IP areas, where the US still enjoys a large knowledge monopoly, and agriculture, where the US has the advantage of area.
This is different from the previous scares (Japan, China etc.) as it represents for the first time, the benefits of a countries huge population, as opposed to the benefits of a small population.
The US should try to compete by growing R&D, getting and keeping knowledge workers, using NASA etc., as a springboard to newer techs, which the developing nations can only dream of.
Sorry for the long ramble... I hope some of the comments will be able to get some clarity from this..
All bow to his Noodliness!! His Noodle Appendage has touched me!