Slashdot Mirror
What Should a Documentary Filmmaker Ask About Offshoring?
Philadelphia-area development economics and finance student Rachel Anderika and her associate, programmer/filmmaker Krishnan, are making a documentary about the effects of offshore outsourcing. Their "still under construction" Web site, Project Outsourced, gives you more information about their work. They're interviewing economists, bankers, anti-outsourcing advocacy groups, pro-outsourcing CEOs, columnists, and others. Where you come in is helping Rachel and Krishnan come up with good questions to ask. We'll forward 10 - 15 of the highest-moderated ones posted here (within the next 24 hours) to them. Expect summaries (and possibly audio or video clips) of the answers in late May, and news about the finished film this Fall.
Geek jobs come under threat. Suddenly geeks lose libertarian leanings* and belatedly side with the ex-manufacturing workers who bullied them through High School
*For ENTIRELY unrelated reasons, obviously. No hypocrisy here at all
A documentary is important and I would fully support one being created (Disclaimer: my first major in college was documentary film), but perhaps more importantly, that documentary would be made much stronger if it would include some hard numbers and studies including rigorous statistics on just how offshoring is helping (or hurting) the 1) corporation, 2) worker, 3) consumer. Perhaps not just the viewpoint in the US as an interesting perspective could be made from the person getting the job.
So, here is the deal: Documentaries are often about perspective but ideally, they are about finding the truth and revealing that truth to your viewer. Political perspectives are going to be difficult to get, but contact someone like Robert Reich who could place you in touch with a variety of folks in and out of the political scene.
bob@RobertReich.org
Robert Reich
P.O. Box 381483
Cambridge, MA 02238
(617) 547-2206
Fax: (617) 498-0048
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
What sort of responsibility to create jobs should a company have to the nation that purchases/has a demand for the goods they're producing?
Ask the arguments of the other side as questions.
For example, ask the anti-outsourcing advocates what the cost in non-visible jobs is by engaging in protectionism of the highly visible tech jobs lost to outsourcing.
Then ask the pro-outsourcing folks a question like how will the economy absorb the displaced workers resulting from outsourcing.
This will make each side actually defend their position instead of using you as a sounding platform for their agenda.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Africa doesn't have the education levels, yet. But when they do, we'll be there.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Seriously.
I am so sick of people whining "outsourcing sent my job to India" then walking out the door to climb into their Toyota. I'm sorry that your job has been outsourced, I am. But don't you realize that your decisions sent others to the same fate--where was your sense of moral outrage then?
My question would be... If the US is outsourcing many areas and this in tern is bringing the other countries up in the economic levels, then what can US workers and companies do to stay ahead of the curve and continue to be a worlk leader?
At the rate we are going with outsourcing jobs and having decreasing technical educational levels (studies have shown drops in math in science all the way through college) by the time i am old we will not be tha major world power anymore. Other countries will have taken that from us.
Evolution or ID?
As an informed, identity-paranoid IT person:
How will my SSN and other personal information be secured from workers who have zero responsibility to secure it, from a legal perspective?
Offshoring jobs increases the management/labor revenue split.
Isn't offshoring just a way to make the rich richer without regard for the American working class?
Isn't it evidence that the wealthy have no regard for those who must do work to stay alive?
Isn't it an utter repudiation of the widely held belief that concentration of capital is good for all of us?
Isn't it a strong reminder that the only thing that keeps capitalism alive is tolerance of the working man for the profligacy of the non-working class?
I'm no socialist, but I know a revolt when I see one coming. The rich in this country will be lucky if they aren't killed, cooked, and eaten before it's done.
And you thought you got screwed over as a developer?
Nurses get all the shit, all the repsonsibility, and none of the respect. The hospitals try to keep the number of RNs to a minimum, giving nurses up to 15 patients at a time.
My wife is an RN, and she's told me horror stories about this sort of shit.
If the hospitals could outsource nursing care, they would. Actually, they do. It's called "registry nurses".
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Ask them this, "Why aren't high level executive jobs outsourced?"
Note: I would not put much stock in the CNN list when it comes to VA. I'm not saying that they DON'T outsource, but VA bought machines that were assembled overseas to re-sell in the US, and that's not quite the same thing, IMHO, as laying someone off in order to send their work overseas.
Now, if VA is *currently* sending work overseas, I'd be interested in hearing about it from the horse's mouth... horse?
Not only that, American labor (non-union, at least) is actually cheaper than Japanese labor.
The problem, the way I see it, is that there's a difference between first-world countries (Europe, Japan, US) trading with each other, and us trading with third-world countries.
If we buy Japanese or European products, we can feel safe that we're buying from companies that compete on a level playing field with our own: the cost of living is roughly comparable, and environmental and labor laws are fairly similar. Companies in Japan or Europe aren't able to lower their prices by simply hiring sweatshop workers or dumping toxins in the nearest river; they have to do things properly and keep themselves efficient.
But when stuff gets outsourced to third-world countries, these protections are absent, which allows companies there to keep their costs extremely low. How can an American manufacturer compete against one that can pay their workers pennies a day, and dump their waste wherever they please?
I'd say it seems outsourcing CAN work both ways. Japan is a good example of where outsourcing does work. Two nations with strong trade ties both derive benefits from outsourcing labor. Japan doesn't just get cheap products, they get more market access for their goods as well.
But look at somewhere like El Salvador. If you ship a car plant there, we get cheaper prices on labor. But we don't get the subsequent increase in revenues because El Salvador doesn't represent a good market for American cars. So the net effect is to push down wages at home and ship our investment capital overseas. The benefit that gets touted is usually prices, but the truth is that most goods maintain price levels because they were within the public's buying envelope anyways. It's only the high end luxury goods that get their prices lowered.
This is why bilateral, negotiated trade is the way to go. It doesn't make sense to have the same trade policy with every country.
You covered most of what I was going to say but let me elaborate a bit.
Most economists/capitalists used to say that the market will sort this sort of thing out. Their highly simplified models of humans tell them that when labor markets shift and jobs go overseas, unemployed workers can simply retrain. However real people aren't always retrainable. Sometimes the 52 year old factory worker can't go out and learn something new. Also, most jobs with a similar skillset might become filled rather quickly. For instance, many people suggest unemployed IT workers should start a local IT support business. That may work for a while, but soon that market is saturated.
I think in the end there is a real unavoidable cost for outsourcing and it would be great to hear an economist admit it instead of simply glossing over it with tales of the invisible hand. Then we can consider what measures society/government can take to bridge the gap between economic theory and reality.
I'm not against outsourcing, however I think there needs to be a great deal of focus on retraining, extending unemployment compensation, incentives for early retirement... whatever a more detailed study than I'm willing to undertake would prove effective in helping the newly unemployed.
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
Think about it, even reporters, lawyers and medical work is being outsourced to other countries.
Which is why we should tariff the import of intellectual property. Businesses want their intellectual property protected just as if it were actual physical property (DMCA, copyright law, patent law, etc), but they import intellectual property in the form of code, legal advice, chemical formulas, genetics research, etc, into the country without paying any value-based tariff.
Either it's property or it isn't. If it is, keep your copyright and patent laws, and pay up when you bring this property into the United States just as you would if you brought a truck load of goods. If it isn't, then say goodbye to its legal protection, and finally say hello to inexpensive AIDS medication, "legal" pirate operations for CD and DVD sales, etc.
MORTAR COMBAT!
Bingo! It's a double standard. IP is now an imported product just like everything else we consume. We as a nation (and I understand that not all Slashdot readers are from the USA) need to look out for and support our "middle class". If this means making it cost more to "outsource" and thus keep more jobs here, it's something we need to do.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
All ivory tower economist fantasies.
The real issue is gross domestic salary. Is the buying power of American consumers at large at least remaining steady or is it in rapid decline?
What is the social impact of retraining highly experienced specialists that may have spent 10 or 20 years developing their skills? What is the economic impact when those people suddenly can't continue the level of consumption they had previously?
What do we do when the tradesmen and laborers that those professionals allowed to be employed are also on the unemployment line?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
A friend of mine tried working for a registry. The hospitals in the area would call up for 15+ nurses just to make sure they had enough to cover the shifts of nurses who called in. When the hired employees showed up for their shifts, the registry nurses were told to leave. No guarantee of work or anything. Sounds even worse working for a registry than it is to work for one hospital.
I don't know if my friend is still working for a registry. I know she started looking to get a regular job as soon as she realized how messed up the system was. I don't see how registrys can keep treating their nurses that way and hope to retain employees.
The situation with nurses seems ripe for unionizing--high demand for workers and poor treatment of employees.
1. CEO's tend to make the argument that they need to outsource in order to compete with their competitors who are outsourcing. (sounds an awful lot like an argument between kids on the playground - "he's doing it too!" - where nobody wants to take responsibility). Given that CEO salaries run into the $millions (typically 20 to 40X the pay of their average employees) why don't CEOs consider cutting their own salaries in an effort to remain competitive?
2. Many unemployed and about-to-be-unemployed US engineers would be happy to work for less money (within reason)in order to keep their jobs, however when this is suggested to companies the companies usually choose to go with outsourcing. If an engineer is willing to take a 30 - 40% pay cut to save his/her job, why isn't this offer taken seriously by most companies?
3. (related to 2) It's quite clear that if we want to continue working in the engineering fields in America that we'll either have to become much more productive (2 - 3X) or we'll have to accept much lower wages (or a combination of the two). By some measurements we're already much more productive than our overseas counterparts by virtue of the fact that we have more experience with real projects, so it all comes down to money. What can American engineers do to lower their cost of living in order to try to compete with 3rd world salaries?
4. Most offshoring advocates say that we need to just be patient as we await the 'Next big thing (TM)' that will be invented in America (they have a lot of faith). Any idea what the 'Next bit thing' will be and what do we do in the meantime?
5. (related to 4) In the software arena, most of the offshoring advocates say that US developers need to 'move up the foodchain' into project management. Given that you never need anywhere near as many managers as you do managees, what how will most US developers 'move up the food chain'? (perhaps they'll become hunters)
6. (related to 5) What if you'd much rather develop code than manage projects?
7. For outsourcing advocates: Why not make the argument that we should outsource every possible US job to cheaper, lower labor-cost countries and then bring in 'guest-workers' to fill the positions that can't practically be outsourced? It seems that the outsourcing advocates would find this a favorable plan since there would be so much potential money savings. If money savings is the primary economic motivator then this seems like a logical plan, however, what do we do with the millions of US workers that would be put out of work in this scenario?
Commentary: The outsourcing advocates take a very narrow view of economics. To them cost-cutting is the primary motivation for doing anything - "if it'll save a buck, then do it" is their motto. However, it isn't clear that the money savings from outsourcing white collar jobs are actually going to be able to counter-ballance the economic devestation brought on by widespread offshoring. So what if US corporations suddenly become wildly profitable (for a quarter or two) while millions of workers are put out of work. Eventually those millions of unemployed workers won't have the money to buy the products of the wildly profitable corporations and profits will go down. I'd rather see corporations break even while providing good jobs to millions, than see them be wildly profitable but providing no jobs to US workers. Oh, and if millions are unemployed, who is going to pay the taxes to support the schools that we supposedly need to train workers for the 'jobs of the future'?
Er, no, that's no the way it works.
Yes, moving a car factory to El Salvador will cost some US jobs in the short term. But no, there will be a price drop (or a price/performance improvement) in cars available in the USA. There is the idea floating around that outsourcing means that companies just keep the profits, and that money just vanishes from the economies somehow. However, in a competitive market like cars, some company is always willing to trade lower profits for increased market share. This can take the form of selling the same car for less, or more car for the same price. But this puts pressure on everyone else to lower prices.
For example, compare how much car you can get for 1/4th of the median family income today compared to a few decades ago. A 2004 Civic is a vastly better car than anything one could buy in 1972.
And look at how much better US made cars got in the decade after the Japanese import boom started. While it might have been painful for the workers in Detroit, for the vastly greater number of US car drivers, imports and outsourcing have been a HUGE gain.
The thing about free trade is that the pain is concentrated, but the benefits are diffuse. But the aggregate benefits always (and yes, I mean ALWAYS - I don't know of a single counterexample in the last few thousand years) outweigh the aggregate losses.
The wage differential between the USA and India is a reflection of our greater wealth and productivity, not a threat to our wealth and productivity.
My video compression blog
Well, unskilled labor manufacturing is leaving in droves, and has been for decades. This is probably a good thing in the long term - you want pollution producing industries here?
The way American companies compete against foreign companies is the same way we have for centuries - innovation and productivity. Even though Ford could build a car plant in Mongolia and pay 1% of UAW wages, they'd lose their shirt. Shipping costs to consumers and from suppliers, lack of a trained labor force, etcetera would cost them much more than they'd save.
Now, making plastic toys? Yeah, that's in China now, for the reasons you cite. But how is that a bad thing? Have you SEEN the toys you can buy for $20 now? Unbelievable! What do you think it'd cost to build, say, a Hoberman Sphere with US labor? How many fewer would get sold at that price. Not a lot of US jobs saved, but Hoberman is a lot poorer. And he lives in the USA.
As for environmental protections, we certainly need better global environmental controls. But trade isn't the problem or the solution there. Even if we had complete trade barriers, greenhouse gasses don't know borders.
My video compression blog
I'm wondering then, where the problem begins.
So if VA were to start off assembling computers themselves, decide they can't compete financially with companies that are buying assembled computers from Taiwan, so they close their assembly line and buy from Taiwan, then that's bad.
However, if they never employed anyone to assemble computers in the U.S. at all, then that's OK?
How about this: they keep assembling computers in the U.S., and go out of business because everyone is buying from vendors who "outsourced" to Taiwan?
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Question 1: Retrain in what? Will the new jobs created by trading our jobs with India be created here?
During the 1980s, blue-collar manufacturing workers whose jobs were offshored were told to retrain in some other area, particularly knowledge jobs. Some did, most others moved into other blue-collar jobs such as construction, automobile repair, and other such jobs which aren't so easily offshorable.
Today, the message from economists and CEOs is the same: retrain in some other field. We know that jobs in programming, software-engineering, and most other fields of engineering (electrical, mechanical, chemical, etc.) are being offshored.
So what exactly does one retrain in? Let's look at the options:
* Biotech -- is there any reason that new biotech jobs can't be created overseas instead?
* Nanotech -- is there any reason that new nanotech jobs can't be created overseas instead?
* Medicine -- oooh, wait, radiology is already being offshored, and so are surgical jobs
Note that those are all technology-oriented jobs which do not require one's presence. What technology-oriented jobs require one's presence then?
* Auto mechanic -- for the few geeks who can tolerate working outdoors, with their hands, getting dirty, etc.
* IT technician -- the basically blue-collar guys who schlep computers around, run cables, and replace bad hardware
* Nuclear engineer -- because It Is Stupid to not have people on-site to prevent a nuclear plant from going boom in the event of an emergency
So, can the hundreds of thousands of software geeks who have had their jobs offshored retrain to be auto mechanics? Even if they wanted to, I doubt they could, and as cars become increasingly-reliable, demand for those jobs will decrease. IT technicians? We have a glut of them as it is. Nuclear engineers? This nation is too scared of nuclear power (thanks to Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island) for there to be much of a market for nuclear power.
So, what do we do? Just what jobs are there beyond "knowledge" jobs? If you assume that international trade (and preferably free trade) is a good thing -- as I do, due to comparative advantage -- then you must admit that many of these jobs can go overseas now thanks to the Internet's ability to send data worldwide at dirt-cheap prices.
Now, the standard economist's response to that is that "new jobs will be created as a result of trade." On the face of things, this is true.
But return to the fact that the Internet makes all jobs which deal primarily with information (instead of people) offshorable. Given that fact, what reason is there that the new jobs -- which WILL be created, just as economists tell you -- won't be created overseas, but will be created here in America? Again, is there any reason the new jobs -- which we can reasonably expect to see in biotech and nanotech -- won't simply skip the step of being created in America and instead get created in India first?
I wrote an email to one of my economics professors asking that question (and many others) recently. His response? "Gee, you know that's what interests me about economics so much - why do these things happen?" But he never really answered the question.
If a college professor in Econ. doesn't know the answer, who does?
Question 2: Education.
Often the advice to unemployed IT geeks is to retrain. Retraining requires education. Education requires years of time and money.
Simple question: Where does an unemployed IT geek *get* that money to retrain with, given the rapidly-rising costs of a college education?
Moreover, how can America -- which largely does not subsidize post-secondary education -- compete with foreign nations which do subsidize post-secondary education?
So long as this educational barrier-
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
I can remember a few weeks ago - and this is purely anecdotal on my part - watching CNBC on the TV in the Cafeteria at work, and they were interviewing a couple of stock analysts about the "recovery" and offshoring labor, and one of the guys made a comment that made everyone in the room sort of gasp.
He said, paraphrasing, "America, which for the last fifty years or so has been consuming vastly greater amounts of resources than they produce, has had an artificially high standard of living. Its going to be painful until the American lifestyle comes more in line with the rest of the world."
Just thought I would relate that observation. It seemed appropriate when the topic of outsourcing and offshoring comes up. You can take it as either playing devil's advocate, or something to get you motivated to ensure that it doesn't happen.
What?