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?
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.
So, the right thing to do is to lay off everyone (go out of business), rather than laying off some fraction of everyone? How odd....
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.
(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 was planning on making some "In Soviet Russia" joke, but I guess you won't understand why it was funny.
/. probably means that you fall in that top 2% (when you consider the planet as a whole). Remember, the majority in this case is the billions of people in the third world who also want a piece of the action.
PS. Just the fact that you are posting on
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
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.
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.
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.
If open source is good for programmers, than outsourcing is also good for programmers.
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.