Slashdot Mirror
Labor Department Downplays Offshoring
twitter writes "The New York Times is reporting the US Labor Department's first assessment of International Offshoring. The report claims that less than 3% of Q1 2004 jobs were lost to offshoring. Companies were asked if workers had been replaced and taken at their word. A Federal Reserve governor is also quoted as dissmissive. Estimates by Goldman Sachs are 20 times higher. Despite Washington's IP fetish, no one quoted is worried about the export of US research and knowhow. Your job and 830,000 others are gone."
Kerry will stop this offshoring nonsense!
oh wait, his wife's companies are offshoring as much as anyone else.
ummm...
NADER '04 !!!1!
Dey took arr jabs!
Here is some advice that I took after I graduated college. During my last few years of college there was a lot of talk that companies may start outsourcing their work to places such as India. Living in an area where there is a large air force base I was given the advice to get a job there working with either with a contractiong company or the civil service (government). They are so strung for computer-minded people that they can offer up to a $60,000 hiring bonus on top of about $60-70,000 per year just to get you to work for them. And the best part? The US government isn't going to outsource your job anywhere. The only thing to worry about, however, is that your job can be eliminated. But the benefit of working for the civil service? They also have to find you a new job of similar pay.
Hmmm.
I think they have to downplay it because its election season and Bush doesn't want to lose an election.
The report claims that less than 3% of Q1 2004 jobs were lost to offshoring.... Estimates by Goldman Sachs are 20 times higher.
So 60%? I don't think so...
I feel for people who've lost jobs -- my wife lost hers, twice, and several of my friends did as well. But you know what? It keeps the labor market dynamic. "Well, if this is dynamic, I want none of it!" Sorry, but that's a kneejerk reaction: if people overseas can do it cheaper, and maybe even better, WE HAVE TO LET THEM. If we don't, then some day they'll come along and simply overpower us, because they -aren't- stagnant. Look at what happened (say) to American automakers when they were dismissive of Japan! How about textile workers? It's part of being in a global economy. Unless we wish to become entirely self-sufficient and isolationist, we HAVE to learn to do well what we do well: innovate, create jobs, create wealth and opportunity. But don't try to bail out a tepid economy with finger pointing and a leaky pot.
was answered by Sanjay Patel, who couldnt comment as his superiour had popped down the shops in Delhi for a curry
Yes, when you take a survey, you expect people to be honest, the very few that aren't honest won't make much of a dent in distorting the picture.
Anyway, I don't know why slahsdot is playing protectionist when it comes to tech jobs in the US. You people enjoy the fruits of offshoring in cheap computers, gadgets, and other electronics. Tech jobs aren't any more sacred than manufacturing jobs. Adapt or die.
Slashdot Moderation: From positive to terrible in 2 "insightful" posts.
I have to reply as an Anonymous Coward b/c my indian replacement took my slashdot account!
It is not downplayed in India. BPO jobs: Devil in sheep's clothing? Call centres put Indian mores on the hook
I think that almost every president has been trying to further his own while in office. He has to think of himself when he gets out in 4/8 years.
Hmmm.
3% of the total job market outsourced is pretty bad, but certain sectors (like IT of course) are having a huge impact.
They dont really give a shit now, because everyone is earning big bucks, but perhaps the government will rethink this when the National unemployment rate jumps by 3%.
Isn't there an election coming up in the US soon?
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
There is a big attitude that ofshoring is taking away people's jobs.
What bull! Of course, These jobs don't belong to you in the first place, but that's missing an important point. There are always more jobs. Many of them will NOT be offshored. People need employees. People will create jobs when there are some free workers. If you can't get a job writing tedious code that a trained monkey can do, learn to do something that requires real skill and talent.
But you also need to take into account that these foreign workers :
So how can you compete when they can feed a family of 10 on 10K a year and have housing while you would be in poverty here if you made that much ?
UPS Sucks
Bush IS doing something about those jobs, from the 17th green !
still at least GWB outsourced torture, wouldnt want blood on American hands now would we ?
now stop whining and let the man who has spent 50% of his presidency on holiday get back to the real issues at hand, like sinking that putt.
... for Washington's laws. Think about it.
Yes! Let's do exactly that!
While we're at it, let's ensure that no policy that would cost American jobs is ever passed. We should tax the hell out of any company that attempts to hurt American workers by doing things that increase efficiency, automate labor, or make products and services cheaper. Sure, we'll all have to pay $50000 for a computer assembled by hand, but at least we'll have all those good-paying jobs right here in America.
All this regressive protectionism is a throwback to the nativist movement and the failed policies of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. You can't take the benefits of global trade and then complain about how terrible it is that people are getting their jobs replaced by cheaper workers. We all benefit from products and services that would be prohibitively expensive if it weren't made in a distributed fashion.
The best way of saving American jobs isn't by shutting our borders and going back to the 1920's, it's by reducing the cost of health care and enacting tort reform to prevent frivolous lawsuits, both of which would decrease the regulator burdens that make it very hard to add new employees and be able to pay them well.
Of course, why bother with a nuanced solution when we can react in a kneejerk fashion and makde a cheap ad hominem against the President?
I don't know about you, but I'll probably be dead in 80 years... I'm betting Bush and Cheney will be, too!
..within my department at work. The company recently exported some data entry positions to India. Our IT manager claims this is just a natural progression to the "next thing", just as we made the move to a service-based economy. But what is the next thing? A progression to service seems natural in hindsight; can anyone point to what is after that? Of course, I hear people say that wages overseas will eventually climb, making companies here rethink this outsourcing strategy. But when? 50 years from now? I am no alarmist, but this is beginning to really, really worry me.
Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".
depending on how much they need the computer-minded people. However, they're very flexible in hiring young people and are willing to give them a chance to establish a work history that they can use in the future.
-Cyc
/.'s 10 Millionth
You know why? Because companies that do this should be taxed to hell and back for doing it.
Fine, but be prepared to pay at least twice what you now pay for a lot of your consumer goods, including your PC, TV, clothes and most of what you can buy so cheaply at the mall or Wallmart. Why is it OK to outsource the manufacturing jobs so you can have cheap electronics, but when the job being outsourced is something you're trained / interested in, it's wrong?
... is to be the best ! No matter the cost, if no one is able to do your job, you are safe. With the development of automatic code generation, middleware and so on, the number of coder will fall in a near future. Trying to reduce offshoring is just a way to gain time. Remember the beginning of the modern era, when labor worker where replaced by machines... but there are still manual worker, they are doing "haute couture" and earn a lot of money. Now, it is the same thing with software. But, maybe we are all wrong, maybe there ain't enough job for us all, not enough place, not enough ressources... Want to drive a SUV ? Eat super maxi menu ? We can't go on like this, it is time to slow down, relax and live a better life. The more is not always the best.
No. That's not how it works. It -is- a level playing field, almost by default: their cost of living is lower than ours, regardless of the reason. That means that there are certain things that they can do cheaper. WE HAVE TO LET THEM. Eventually, their economy will get better, raising their cost of living... or it won't, and they'll no longer be a concern. But if you try to "level" the playing field, you're just kidding yourself. If someone else can do it cheaper, and you don't let them, YOU WILL LOSE: that's the only sure bet. Check history if you don't believe me; gov't instituted remedies in situations like this just don't work, as most socialist countries were fine examples of. Free market may not be fun, but it's the only game that consistently wins, because there's nothing artificial, and greed -- the great human motivator -- is allowed to run rampant.
My job has not been shipped offshore. There is no risk of my job being shipped offshore.
Of course, I've escaped the rut of the corporate/educational/medical IT structure and gone into business for myself. There's no more worries about losing my job because some corporate bigwig doesn't know how to use a computer correctly. I don't worry about the High Point Furniture Market doing badly, causing a warehouse glut and staff cutback. I can no longer use victim-mentality to explain what goes wrong with my career.
These days, if I don't make much money, it's because of the ups and downs of the retail cycle. It's because I need to get off my butt a bit more and do some work. It's because of a lot of things, but it isn't because of offshoring of my job.
Want to be insulated against offshoring of jobs? Learn carpentry, or HVAC maintenance, or any number of trades. Then, buy yourself a van, hit the road and work for yourself. The rewards are greater, the hassles are more easily managed, and you get paid extra for working with bigger problems or worse customers.
Oh yeah, and you'll get a thank you occasionally, from those you do the jobs for.
Visit Lockjaw's Lair. He won't bite.
Excuse me but zero jobs should be lost to overseas workers.
Ah yes, the boundless economic ignorance that leads to +5 insightful on Slashdot.
An economy where no jobs are going overseas or coming back is a lifeless, growthless economy. Acting as if even one job moved overseas is somehow a problem does nothing but illustrate your own particular ideological blinkers, which prevent from thinking in any halfway rational way about complex topics like economics and globalization.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
Don't open that! You don't know if there's air out there! /obligatory GalaxyQuestReference
schild
editor, f13.net
"Comapnies that do this should be taxed to hell and back for doing it?"
This post betrays an utter lack of economic sense, and a complete disregard for individual rights. So you think companies should be taxed to hell for hiring employees outside of the U.S., and then Slashdotters think this idea is insightfull? What the hell happened to keeping the federal government out of private buisness? I see now that most of you slashdotters are all about personal rights, so long as those rights are yours and rights aren't given to other people who might use them in ways that you don't like
Your idea that "zero jobs" should be lost to workers overseas is completely, utterly, assinine. Anyone who thinks this sort of thinking is "insightful" needs to learn some basic economics. Everyone benefits when companies become more productive because their products are made cheaper. We have seen a net increase in the number of americans employed as a result of international trade, because those people in foreign countries who get jobs will now be able to purchase more expensive American jobs.
You really piss me off. Saying that we should tax the hell out of companies so that they keep all their workers here is mindlessly stupid from an economic viewpoint, and utterly unamerican. Is there any consitutional basis for controlling whom private companies wish to have for employees? No! Mind your own god-damned buisness. If you think too many companies are outsourcing, then start your own company with only american workers and american inputs, and see how long you last in a free market. The truth of the matter is that it's the American People who are pushing for outsourcing becuase they demand cheaper products. And why shouldn't they?My blog
I know this is just your own misguided opinion... But could you at least back it up with some economic theory? Other than making you feel good for having "paid back" someone for a perceived "wrong", what will it accomplish in the long run?
You're essentially saying free markets and the encouragement of growth in the world economy is a bad thing. I'm sure people in poorer areas of the world are jumping with joy over the extra money and education coming in from this. Meanwhile, you are free as an American citizen to find other work, including becoming self employed.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
IT workers aren't going to get any clout in government until a majority of them unionize.
Old and Busted: Importing foreign IT workers to the U.S. because there aren't enough Americans to fill the jobs.
New Hotness: Hiring the foreign IT workers in their own countries for a fraction of the price.
Boeing alone, in a period from 1996 through 2002, went from a high of over 150,000 jobs to around 70,000.
That's a lot more than 3 percent!
I have no idea what started this most ugly trend of bleeding off the 'industrial edge' that the U.S. once had but, like raw engineering know-how, I firmly believe that the drain is going to reach a 'critical mass' (if it hasn't already), and true innovation and invention will be left to other countries who still value the long-term gains of pure R&D.
Boeing has already suffered so much of a brain-drain, thanks to its "outsourcing," that I question if it can ever recover.
And that's just one example.
[sarcasm_mode]
So when does the US industrial base go up on the auction block?
[/sarcasm_mode]
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
Robotics and industrial automation should be taxed too!!
..why should companies be allowed to improve efficiency and use robots or software??
Think about this
Who the fuck are people to tell others how to do THEIR business? If they want to offshore, that's their CHOICE. It's the same as using industrial automation (which people opposed in the 19th century). Why not ban that? After all, it's somehow a God given right to force a company to hire people.
Also, don't workers that are willing to work for less deserve these jobs?
I dont see how forcibly preventing companies from hiring offshore workers can be ethically or morally justified.
As a U.S. IT worker, I helped do my part for GE outsourcing. I traveled to New Delhi and GE's new facility in Haryana State where I helped to set up the infrastructure for helping to offload work from the GE financial units.
I can tell you that I did not feel the least bit sorry for the American call center employees whose jobs were sent to India. The Americans in the call center were men and women right out of high school and college with crappy attitudes and a streak of laziness a mile wide.
The Indian workers had master's degrees and had drive and ambition. The Americans did not even care about the job competition and thought they were owed work. Sorry, I cannot agree with protecting an entitlement!
That being said, there is still a barrier. Despite English being the common language between India and the U.S., Most Americans cannot understand the Indian accent and get rather frustrated. (I am sure it works both ways. ) Also, some of the Indians take a "Brahman" or intellectualy superior view and treat their American customers like crap, especially women.
The offshoring will level off in my opinion. Some companies will still try to gain competetive service level where empathy and understanding are part of the customer experience.
WTF, I have to find out on Slashdot!? Its just typical of these new management types here, to not have the sack to tell me in person.
Thats fine, I was sick of this crap anyway, I'm out of here.
Where I work, it's not even so much about your skills as it is that you're a warm body filling a seat at a lower rate.
It's beginning to look like "Little New Delhi" around my office and I'm becoming concerned that the fact that they don't understand me when I speak is going to become my problem instead of theirs since Americans are becoming the minority at my office, even though I work for an english speaking US based comany.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't some racist rant. I'm just showing a little concern for the direction things are headed.
You're idea of taxing companies for shipping jobs overseas has merit. Despite this, however, I am reluctant to go along with it. My concern is that the current state of the IT industry depends to a certain degree on the cheaper labor of programmers, etc. in countries that do not have the labor laws we enjoy here in the US. If the government begins taxing this practice will the impact force companies to hire American workers? Or, perhaps companies will fire more American workers to make up for the taxes. Or the company might just fold and leave all their employees without jobs.
I don't know enough about economics and business to make a conjecture about which of the above would happen, but they all seem like reasonable possibilities. Is there anyone with a MBA out there who can elaborate :D
As a side note I am an EE and, while I'm not one of the jobs most likely to be affected by the shift, it still makes me quite uncomfortable.
100% Crunchier
Hear, Hear! I'm sick of hearing protectionist garbage, particularly on slashdot. I like to think of this as a place where intelligent people can debate ideas. It discourages me enough when some guy says that we should tax the hell out of companies who think about outsourcing, but then when people go and say this sort of thinking is Insightful? Give me a break! It makes me think of a bunch of Neanderthals with clubs sitting around in a cave. One of them stands up and says "GROG SMASH," and the others point and grunt approvingly - "Grog Insightfull!" they chant, and Mod him a notch.
My blog
I think one of our fellow Slashdoters has a sig line that says the following:
"If They have access to our jobs, I want access to thier cost of living"
This my friends is the crux of the matter. One thing we must understand is that the cost of living in the United States is so high that we literaly CAN'T AFFORD (monitarily speaking) to compete with off-shore jobs. One of the main reasons an Indian tech support company can pay thier workers the equivalent of $2 an hour is that the cost of living in India is so low that $2 an hour is actualy a COMPETEIVE WAGE! Maybe if healthcare, housing (especialy housing), education, and food were cheaper in the US we could compete, but the fact is you're lucky if you can even find a nearly condemned hole in the wall to live in for $320 a month, let alone pay for food, transportation and medical costs.
Unfortunately we really have no one to blame but our selves, the American economy has driven these costs up. Perhaps when half the US is unemployed due to out-sourcing prices will drop and then we'll be competetive again. Until then it's gonna be rough, and I don't fault anyone for complaining.
A Call For A New Slashdot Moderation Level!
This whole "your job" concept is invalid. You don't own your job (unless you own your own company). Jobs are mutually beneficial opportunities for companies to pay people to do things. They are not property. They are a privilege of your current skillset meeting market needs, not a right. They are transient. Get used to it.
Lets do the math! 3% original estimate, multipled by 20 = 60%. So, someone is going to try to claim that 60% of jobs were lost to overseas outsourcing ? I find it so hard to believe that so many slashdot stories always have to include taglines like this that are so impossibly obvious trolling flamebait. I agree with someome else from another topic, SLASHDOT needs a way to MOD stories posted.
Well, i might sound like a troll but...
Americans say they love capitalism (im not suggesting all say that), and America is a capitalistk country (at least compared to many european countries). Everything has its good sides and bad sides.. You can not simply take the good sides of capitalism and think that you won't see any of the bad sides.. Americans need to understand that outsourcing jobs to cheaper labour is a perfect exampel of capitalism.. thats life..
Which is fine with me, as long as they're willing to extend their logic and celebrate Jimmy Carter as the man who brought down Communism, because clearly no president can be responsible for anything that happens during his own term.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
For a good part of the latter half of the last century, MNCs (which are incidentally mostly US owned corporations) have been trying to *market* their goods to third world countries with an aim to get their earnings up (expanding markets = more money). This has often resulted in loss of local jobs and industry and made the countries more dependent on foreign corporations, and local unions/organization have often opposed opening up local economies for this reason - but mostly to no avail.
Lately, we've seen that corporations have figured out that the skill/education levels in these so called developing countries have been increasing, and it's more cost effective to shift their manufacturing/services divisions abroad. This has caused widespread annoyance due to loss of jobs in the developed countries.
But really, is it the people's fault anywhere? Is it fair for people living in developing nations which have been invaded be these megacorps to just serve as profitable markets for the MNCs while being denied economic benefit from them? A bit of pondering may reveal that it's profit minded corporations which have been sucking peoples from both sides for their benefit (and for their parent countries' since the profit trickles down in the form of jobs/cashflow).
I think it's just the completion of a circle. Not flamebait - sincere concerns.
Some quotes:
Multinational corporations (MNCs) engage in very useful and morally defensible activities in Third World countries for which they frequently have received little credit. Significant among these activities are their extension of opportunities for earning higher incomes as well as the consumption of improved quality goods and services to people in poorer regions of the world. Instead, these firms have been misrepresented by ugly or fearful images by Marxists and "dependency theory" advocates. Because many of these firms originate in the industrialized countries, including the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Germany, France, and Italy, they have been viewed as instruments for the imposition of Western cultural values on Third World countries, rather than allies in their economic development. Thus, some proponents of these views urge the expulsion of these firms, while others less hostile have argued for their close supervision or regulation by Third World governments.
Incidents such as the improper use in the Third World of baby milk formula manufactured by Nestle, the gas leak from a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, and the alleged involvement of foreign firms in the overthrow of President Allende of Chile have been used to perpetuate the ugly image of MNCs. The fact that some MNCs command assets worth more than the national income of their host countries also reinforces their fearful image. And indeed, there is evidence that some MNCs have paid bribes to government officials in order to get around obstacles erected against profitable operations of their enterprises.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Compared to what they make a year, that low cost of living (for an American viewpoint) is extremely high.
You can't feed a family of 10 with 10k a year, and even if you could, not many people are as lucky as to have a job that pays that much.
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
Has no-one thought of the possibility that Goldman Sachs might be wrong ? I don't know how trusted they are (I'd assume at least a bit, as they're used as a reference,) but even the most trusted firms/whatever can be wrong.
/prefers to be an optimistic pessimist: Plan for the worst, try/hope for the best.
I'm not saying the Labor Department is right, but there's a chance that Goldman Sachs is wrong. I mean, they are estimates. I could do some quick researching, round to the nearest hundereds places, and report that as an estimate.
You're all pessimists.
> An economy where no jobs are going overseas or
> coming back is a lifeless, growthless economy.
Not quite. Such an economy simply has a lower cost of living than that in other countries. If it didn't cost so much to obtain shelter and food ($700-$900/month in any place close to a good job), people would have been happy to accept lower wages.
Job Growth Chart
oh.
Globalization. The same idea behind the offshore tech jobs problem in USA, the piracy-driven companies in China, the low-cost humanforce in South America.
Here, in Brazil, we have seen those topics since mid-90's.
Is that bad? Is that good? I don't know.
But I'm sure we can't look only to OUR problems.
Think it worldwide: you'll see a lot of new losers and winners.
Not only do they incorrectly calculate the numbers, but they also don't use the correct numbers in the rest of the article.
It says we lost 3 million jobs since 2001.
But then it says we've gained back 1.4 million of those jobs recently.
But our population has been growing since 2001. What about the jobs that are needed to employ the new workers entering the workforce in 2001, 2002, 2003 and early 2004?
And what is the total pay for those segments of the population?
If I get outsourced as a sysadmin, and I take a job flipping burgers, then that's still ONE job. But the pay rate is very different.
It isn't just a matter of adding X jobs. They have to be in similar or better fields at similar or better pay.
The report is hogwash. Hear me out.
Look, the Bush Administration has done something that has never been done by any previous administration: they're actively distorting truth in the reports that low-level non-appointed staffers put out. Sure, in the past political appointees could always be counted on to put spin on things (and even bury information, like Reagan did with AIDS and the CDC), but actively creating misleading information was not done by the career service government workers.
Until Bush, that is. For example, recently the State Department put out a study claiming that world terrorism incidence were down in 2003 (even if you include Iraq). This bolstered Bush's claim that he's winning the War on Terrorism. But thanks to Rep. Henry Waxman, this report was shown to be false and misleading. The State Department then issued a statement admitting the mistake. (Read here).
As another example, recently a government study pointed out that children who had breast milk has 30% fewer incidents of ear infections, allergies and Downs syndrome, compared to infants who used formula. So, the FDA decided to launch a commercial campaign to promote the use of breast milk. Well, the infant formula companies saw the commercials (which included the statistic), and were allowed to intervene, and this vital data was cut out. So, the campaign promoted breast milk, but did not say that compared to formula use, babies suffer fewer maladies. This outrageous intervention by industry had never been done on a matter of public health before. But Bush's FDA let it take place. The same thing has happened with other government studies on the safety of abortion, women's health issues, etc.
So, now we have another report in an election year that outsourcing is not costing the US jobs (at the same time education cuts are not replacing them with better-skilled positions...) Do we believe this? No. The Goldman Sachs report states that there were 20x as many jobs moved over seas.
Now, I'm what you'd call a Reagan Democrat. I even voted for Bush (but probably won't a second time--still need to see about Kerry.) But what Bush has done is simply this: he's squandered the public trust we used to have in government research and studies. Whether there was a Democrat or Republican in charge, we used to trust the staff would do the best job they could to study a problem. (Sure, sure, in the end it was a government study, and perhaps not the best, but it was at least an honest effort). Now, that trust is gone.
So, the Government claims outsourcing is not costing jobs? And this comes right after a huge wave of press articles about outsourcing... I don't believe the study for a second. I'll stick with the Goldman Sachs study. They have a financial incentive to get things right, not a political incentive.
I know that's where a big percentage of our company's labor-related jobs have been shipped to within the last two years.
When discussing off-shoring, whether it's tech jobs or manufacturing, keep in mind World War II. A lot of industry in the United States at that time retooled their manufacturing facilities to produce goods for the war effort. Now that most manufacturing happens outside the U.S., what will happen in the event of another world war? The U.S. won't be able to produce the goods it needs at scale. Furthermore, think about a "technological war" fought over the internet. If all of the techs are siding with or in another country, we're hosed.
SiO2
I'll save this as a typical example of how sentiment and lack of knowledge overtakes pragmatism and better sense when people have their butts pinched. Once you have made it so fucking unattractive for companies, you will also realize that living in this country has also become so fucking unattractive due to prohibitive cost. Every protectionist country in this world has payed the price.
Science as a way of life.
> when they can feed a family of 10 on 10K a year and have housing
You might survive just fine on 10K a year as long as you don't have children. Just let them outbreed you and see how they like a world where nobody knows how a computer works, how to make steel, or refine oil.
Why? Because white Americans have an inalienable right to easy overpaid desk jobs while the rest of the world starves to death?
I have a novel idea. Lets try this thing called "competition". Let US workers compete with foreign workers, and let the best get the jobs.
Xenophobia (or racism or whatever is motivating these opinions of yours) aside, your argument suffers from the fact that you are unable to look at the big picture. Many companies offshored jobs to cut their budgets after the dot-com economy tanked. Had they been forced to keep those jobs in the U.S., they would have gone bankrupt and then instead of a couple dozen overpaid programmers having to find new work, the entire company would have gone bankrupt and everyone would have been out of work. Add to that, think of all the jobs we get selling American products overseas. What happens when they implement similar protectionist laws in response to your little plan?
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
1. Tax US companies that move jobs overseas
2. Watch while U.S. companies go under because they're unable to compete on cost
3. See tax revenues fall as the US economy tanks.
Economics isn't as straighforward as the parent seems to imply. Capital has always been mobile. Now labor is, too.
US companies move jobs overseas for a number of reasons - one of which is the need to compete in both the US and world markets against foreign companies that use cheap labor to reduce their price-point. If the gov't taxes these companies for moving the jobs overseas, where do you think the money to pay those taxes is going to come from... thin air? Nope - higher prices. And when the US companies raise prices, what will consumers buy at the local Stuff-Mart? Non-US products. That's rather counter-productive if you're looking to keep US jobs.
Think about past situations that are (somewhat) analogous to the current one... Say textile manufacturing. When non-US textile companies started competing against US companies in the US market, prices fell and yes, some US companies went out of business. But that's because those companies couldn't compete on cost (or apparently, quality). That "inefficient" portion of the US economy shrank and there are very few US-based textile manufacturers left. But our economy moved on to focus on different strengths - manufacturing and then "technology."
I'm afraid that I'm not willing to conceed economic planning to the government. We all know where that leads For now, despite the fact that I've been laid off twice in three years, I'm still more confident in allowing the economy to be directed by market forces (within reason, of course) than by the inteligence of our elected officials.
Capitalism (of the laisse fair type) succeeds because it's based on a solid reality - human greed, and the necessity of restraining it.
Offshoring is a sensitive topic, I know. But the solution isn't necessarily government intervention to prevent it. IMO, it makes more sense to try and ease the impact on laid off workers than to prevent economic forces from making the market more efficient.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Did you ever think that perhaps those jobs are being outsourced because it can be done better *and* cheaper? That means that even if it weren't cheaper, it could still be done better.
Don't like the job market is going? Get better or change skillsets. When I vote with my dollars, I want value, not the warm fuzzy feeling that comes behind paying more money for something just because it was "Made in the USA".
A slightly related (and interesting) article on the social ramifications of the BPO (Biz jargon for Business process outsourcing) can be read here.
The article is an example of how reprehensible activities are turned around to sound like a Good Thing(TM).
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Ship 100,000 jobs overseas - It's a free market and a free country
Drive to Canada to buy medicine for your grandma - you're un-patriotic
*DrugCheese rants*
The report claims that less than 3% of Q1 2004 jobs were lost to offshoring.
/.ers - If you really believe in personal freedoms - you gotta side with Bush on this one. Companies ought to be able to do what they please within the law. All the local (MN, but it's everywhere) no smoking legislation lately is driving me nuts. Lets get the government out of business - yes that means that some companies will outsource some of their labor. Nothing new here!
It's not 3% of all jobs - it's 3% of the jobs that have been lost. Quit with the mindless troll attitude. Don't blow the outsourcing thing out of proportion.
Oh, and by the way - all you ACLU loving
The number I'm seeing is 4,633 jobs lost to offshoring in the first quarter. Okay. So assuming a 6:1 US to offshore salary ration, then we should have seen only a 27,798 increase in offshore positions. If the increase was more then the US has had a net loss of jobs. And we definitely have not see enough of an increase in the US job level to maintain current emmployment levels in light of new workers entering the workforce. I'm talking about tech jobs mainly. So this may be good for the US economy but the economy and the workforce are not the same thing. It's sort of like saying that putting your children up for adoption is good. It may be good for your family's budget but it's definitely not good for your family.
If an overseas worker is considerably cheaper than an American one, if we eliminate the savings through taxation, overseas companies will simply form that capture the difference. Then the US company will evenutally go bankrupt (and wipe out even more jobs). Imagine how expensive a cheap Ford would be if all car parts were required to be made in America.
Realize that many technology jobs have been replaced by automation that lets a few people do work that many would have been required to do years ago. That's a much bigger factor than offshoring. If you want to protect yourself learn as much as you can about what others use your products to accomplish, even if you are no more efficent than an indian programmer in lines per hour, you have a tremendous advantage over him in making software that will do more for your company (because you can see how it is used).
A fable that I am stealing from an Econ prof goes as follows. Imagine a bright engineer announces a development that allows him to covert grain into cars. He buys tons and tons of grain, which goes into one end of his factory, and out the other end roll cars (at considerably less cost than Detroit can produce them). The machine is rather automatic, so while he doesn't hire too many people, there are a few jobs created in his machine. Everyone is amazed at his prowess, even Detroit who has to adjust to compete with this new competitor, they vow to become more efficent producers.
A few years after he begins operation a bright, hungry investigative reporter gets the scoop of his (or her) lifetime, the factory does not convert grain into cars, it's a cover on a large boat dock (grain is exported and cars are imported). After he blows the lid of the story his cars are taxed, protested, and disliked. Why would it be alright to convert grain into cars through an industrial process, but not alright to trade for it? That's why I'm a free trader.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
3% of all jobs doesn't begin to describe the impact to the IT sector specifically.
most employers do nto lsit jobs as replaced to avoid paying unemployment claims especially amoung middle to low employee count companies..
talk about gov report obfuscation
Don't Tread on OpenSource
"And we'd like to welcome the technology workers of America to the global economy. Please, have a seat and make yourself comfortable. If you fight it you'll only waste time you should be spending upgrading your skills."
There are two scenarios here, let's play with them a little bit:
1:
We tax local companies who offshore to make offshoring less palatable. We tariff products coming into the US from companies who are offshoring but use certian tax shelters and place their corporation offices outside the US so the taxes don't affect them.
Outcome:
Other countries raise tariffs in response. Companies here in America lose customers because their products are so expensive compared to solutions and products purchased elsewhere by independant companies outside the US. American companies close shop unless they are 'saved' by tax breaks/loans/subsidies - the same companies that were taxed into not outsourcing.
2
We recognize the fallacy of America as an independant microeconomy. We allow companies to outsource labor which can be performed more cheaply elswhere. Displaced workers are forced to upgrade skills or accept a lower sallary.
Outcome:
Those who upgrade their skills earn more money, increasing the economic power of the US Labor force. National GDP increases, companies become more profitable, etc.
There is no realistic way to stop outsourcing the tech worker. All one can do is try to stay ahead of the curve. Get your MBA and manage outsourced projects. Move to a smaller company where outsourcing IT doesn't make sense. Start your own company.
Eventually the global economy will level out, and half of the tech work done here will be done there. This will happen regardless of the measures we are taking to slow it down. In the end our products are still competitive on the global market, and we still carry 1/3 of the international GDP. Fighting it is only going to slow down our economy and speed up the rest of the world's economy.
If you really want to keep your current life style, you'll learn to roll with the punches, pick yourself up and get back in the game.
-Adam
Excuse me but zero jobs should be lost to overseas workers. You know why? Because companies that do this should be taxed to hell and back for doing it. Make it so fucking unattractive that the companies will NEVER even consider a foreign worker cheaper than a US native.
What kind of shoes do you wear? What kind of electronics do you buy? Do you currently own anything that is considerably cheaper because it was made overseas?
I'll bet you just sat there quietly not saying a word, enjoying your cheap foreign manufactured goods. Enjoyed it, that is, until they came for your job...
I was discussing this issue the other day with some coworkers. I pointed out that this kind of thing has always gone on, just on a smaller scale. But if a plant or an office closes, does it really matter to the people laid off if the jobs move to Kentucky or to Bangalore? This isn't a new story. It just involves nations now instead of cities and states.
The economic realities are that we can either be isolationist and lose our economy - because you can't ignored the realities of comparative advantage - or we can learn to swim with the tide.
Jobs are always going to be lost. The important thing is to work hard to create more jobs than we're losing.
You know why? Because companies that do this should be taxed to hell and back for doing it.
Unfortunately, he can't. That would kill those companies.
The root you are looking for is the World Trade Organization(WTO). If Mr. Bush taxed those companies, then he would be obliged to balance that with tarrifs on their competitions imports. But the WTO ensures that he can not place those tarrifs.
The WTO ensures that the richest multinational corporations will have access to the poorest laborers. Or your nation will face economic sanctions.
What Mr. Bush can do is insist that all workers globally are treated humanely, and paid fair market wages. What were getting in this regard though is purely lip service.
Vote Bush/Cheney in '84 and you too can be optimistic and believe in the people of America!
He does not believe in the people of America, he believes in America! His policies still favor the US, and as a nation we will continue to grow richer. But as individuals, that wealth will go into fewer and fewer hands at the top. Its the Republican party's philosophy.
It also turns out that offshoring is a complicated business. I have participated as tech lead in three offshored projects. Only one of these ended up "profitable", costing us less than domestic talent would. Even though offshore workers earn a much lower salary than their US counterparts, the markup on their services is not small. We were paying $35/hour for talent that we could get for about $55/hour domestically. I think a lot of companies will experiment with offshoring and quickly discover that there are many sharp rocks under those inviting waters. The companies that are seeing biggest gains are those that set up offices in the offshore countries and hire the locals as employees, rather than consultants.
From a larger view, the baby boomers are starting to retire. If you check your census statistics, that is a huge skill deficit that we just don't have the population to replace in a growing ecomony. Therefore, if we wish to continue similar growth rates to what has happened over the past 50 years, we will need to:
- Immigrate
- Automate
- Offshore
Remember 1999? Companies were recruiting waiters and putting them through IT training, just to make up the shortfall. If you knew where the power switch on your computer was, you could get an IT job. Well, back then, we had a shortfall of 4.7 million skilled workers. If similar growth is projected forward and the baby boomers are subtracted from the labor pool, we're looking at a shortage of over 20 million skilled workers by 2010. This will make the shortage of 1999 look like a picnic. Some predictions even show us using up all the available offshore talent by 2012 or so.So whine all you like about offshoring. Soon, it'll be the only thing that keeps our economy growing.
* Do you want to work from home?
Then your job can be done overseas.
* Do you feel your employer owes you "a fair wage", a forty-hour work week, health benefits, a pension and a safe workplace?
Then someone else overseas will do it for one-tenth of the money and none of the other benefits.
* Do you love the Internet and its power to eliminate borders, its ability to share information and data quickly and reliably and allow persons from around the world to collaborate in a fair and equal environment?
Then your job can be done by someone else accessing the same network overseas.
* Do you feel the US "owns" the IT industry, invented the Internet and therefore "owns" all future growth and progress created therein?
Then you have another thing coming.
No president, union, law or protest can change the inevitable.
Only those willing to adapt, grow and willing to take advantage of a situation will survive.
Intelligent people? Slashdot?
You slay me!
It's like sex, except I'm having it!
The problem is that there is no way to make sure that companies that oursource actually pass those savings on to customers in the form of cheaper goods, or instead just give their ceos larger bonuses.
There must be something done to level the playing field, otherwise American labor will never be able to compete with countries that have much lower standards of living and little or no workers rights.
dude... that's a chart from 2000... I do believe Clinton was still in office then.
It -is- a level playing field
Not quite. Because of market collusion its possible to lower the quality of goods across the board and pay no price for it in the marketplace. THAT's why outsourcing to India works. If you are one of five widget makers, and you all subtly agree not to compete on quality, then it's easy to fire 90% of your customer service center, hire shoddy brute-force armies of programmers and end up paying far less than you would need to if your customers actually got a real choice of widget to buy. If one of your competitors hired real programmers who were worth thier salt (and paid them for it) they would eat you alive as droves of customers left you for them. But as long as you all agree to keep the status quo or less, then caring about your customers doesn't really matter.
Don't believe me, go do some comparison shopping on cell phone in the US and Japan. When the market colludes, and competition is scarce, the playing field is not level.
I live in rural North Carolina and I have seen this long before the outsourcing of IT jobs with the textile mills and the farmers who are going bankrupt. I agree that this sucks for the people who lose their jobs.
The big picture is that because of this overall outsourcing of jobs, each and everyone of us can go to Walmart and buy whatever we want for a cheap price.
Due to the constant pressure on companies to not only make it better, but make it cheaper, companies are always looking for a cheaper labor source. As my boss says all the time, my company made over 30 Billion last year and my department made exactly 0 dollars of that. So as long as we are an expense, we as an IT industry have to learn to adapt to the ever changing environment. I know it sucks, but it's a fact of life....I see it all the time with the textile ghost towns in my backyard.
http://jayceecorder.blogspot.com
I pretty much agree.
The job loss numbers also don't seem to tell the whole story, I think for those quarters quoted there was a net job gain overall.
Despite the harping, the last Labor department figure I've seen, I think for Q1 2004, was that unemployment was about 5.9% with other figures being favorable as well. I thought that figure is very nice, especially considering we were comming out of an overheated economy in the 90's where those considered completely unemployable were given a second look. I think unemployment was only slightly under 5% at some points in the 90s.
I remember a time when 7% was considered an acceptable compromise between inflation and unemployment, so the hand-wringing may be overblown. Sadly, the alarmists like to take the figures that fit their case best and play chicken little. Let's try a balanced approach, shall we?
Communism fell during Bush Sr, not Reagan, so I fail to see your point here...
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
There are so many reasons why the price you see on the tag is not the cost you pay in the long run.
What do you think is the neteffect on the nation of paying twice for computer goods but having a factory full of tax paying, house buying, food consuming, vacation taking, product buying workers?
Similarly, if you pay 2% of your $40K income ($200) in taxes and the next year you pay 1% of your $90K income ($900), you've just had a tax cut!
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
If you pass laws against offshoring then companies will simply avoid them. If they can't offshore they can outsource (as many already do). If they can't outsource they can move their executive out of the USA too.
If you want to take jobs back from other parts of the world you have to be better at it than they are. Software is currently mostly labour costs so that makes it very very hard indeed. Other jobs can be done many ways - even heavy industry has fought back by things like mechanisation. If you want the callcenter jobs back - automate it, get machine voice handling to the point it doesn't need many people.
I understand your feelings, and I feel the pain myself, but I think this is going too far. What would probably be a better idea is to level the playing field a bit. In many cases, the workers to whom the jobs have gone are forced to work unreasonable hours in very unhealthy conditions. This happens some in India, more so in China. Instead of taxing companies that outsource, we should make sure that the people receiving the jobs have at least similar protection that our own workers have. Complying with OSHA and other regulatory agencies costs companies money, but it protects the workers. The same should be offered to the receivers of the jobs that went overseas.
Also, it should be required that each company make public all shifts of labor to overseas. This allows consumers who really care about the situation to become informed and make decisions on their own, and helps keep the government out of the market.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
A family member is currently a project manager for a new software product being created in India. As such, I have some insights into the situation -- and I don't think the current offshoring craze will last too long.
The basic problem is because there is approximately a 12 hour time difference between the US and India. This makes business communications quite slow. For example, at 6 AM in the US, it's 6 PM in India.
What happens is that the normal project related problems pop up during the day -- and if you need input from "the other side" then you have to wait up to 8 hours. Or make your best guess and verify it with "the other side" at a later time.
As developers, we all know this happens a lot during product development. What used to take a few minutes with a call or a quick meeting can take a day or more. This dramatically slows down the development cycle.
Of course, management is excited about the fact that the labor cost is about a third as expensive. They are now starting to realize that this benefit is offset by the cost of lost revenue (products that are late can't be sold!)
So long term, I don't see offshore development being used for new product development. It's likely that it will continue to be useful for product maintenance and support since they have a lesser need for constant communication.
-ch
... is that they assume that all jobs are equal.
If we're to believe the industry "analysts", Senior C developer with 10 years experience == MCSE straight out of Microsoft "boot camp" == "Would you like fries with that?".
If in doubt, remember where the word "analyst" comes from:
"anal" - bumhole.
"lystere" - to pull numbers from.
All this regressive protectionism is a throwback to the nativist movement and the failed policies of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.
Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
I agree with what you are saying (especially the bit about a knee-jerk reaction). We cannot isolate ourselves and create an environment that stifles competition. And certainly attacking the high health costs and the sue-happy will help.
However, the problem I have with outsourcing and international competition is that it is not a level playing field. We have many requirements on companies that run in the US -- environmental standards, insurance requirements, minimum wage, etc. (I am sure that others can come up with even better examples) -- that many of the countries we are dealing with do not have. I agree with the parent poster in that I think there should be a tax to compensate for the differences in requirements for employees. How can we expect an American firm who has to spend millions to be environmentally friendly to be able to compete with an Indonesian firm with absolutely no attempts to be good stewards with the land?
This is not an easy problem, but I think attention needs to be given to the requirements on our companies. I do not propose that we lower our standards. Rather, perhaps we should require companies working in foreign countries to either meet our standards or apply a financial penalty for failing to do so.
Our countries companies cannot hope to compete with other countries given the current environment in America. Maybe this means that America itself needs to change to keep up.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
"Companies were asked if workers had been replaced and taken at their word."
Because a statistically significant number of companies are scared to reveal the truth they will lie to the gov't about how many people they are offshoring?
The bureau has always taken companies at their word. Are you going to pay for them to audit american companies for labor statistics? It's stupid to assume that you'll get better numbers by holding a gun to someone's head. They'll lie if they want to lie just to see what you'll do. You'll be forced to implement laws and consequences for lies, and if you discover a company was lying then you get to prove it in court.
It isn't worth it.
The BLS has always surveyed a number of companies and a number of households for their information. These surveys produce unemployment numbers and a ton of other interesting statistics about the job economy.
If this bothers you then you'll really go wild when you learn that they only survey a small number of companies instead of all the companies in the US.
I love a good cynic in the morning. No wonder some people are so unhappy about outsourcing - they're never happy about anything.
-Adam
The adoption analogy doesn't quite correspond to being unemployed. That should have been, put your children out on the street rather than with another family.
As another example, recently a government study pointed out that children who had breast milk has 30% fewer incidents of ear infections, allergies and Downs syndrome, compared to infants who used formula.
Wait a second there. Downs Syndrome is a chromosomal disease--the battle is lost the moment the ovum starts developing. How on earth can breast feeding help?
One thing I have to point out, however. It has been my experience that most companies to not outsource their leading edge, business advantage software. They outsource the routine maintenance and standard operations software. For these systems, "creativity" is not as important as process, so the outsourcing process works well.
The thing western software developers need to recognize is this: there will always be jobs for great programmers. What you have to ask yourself is "am I a great programmer?". If the answer is yes, you having nothing to fear from outsourcing. If the answer is no, you need to develop other skills (system design, customer liaison, etc) or maybe change careers.
The writing is on the wall. If you are a mediocre programmer and have no ambition to move up the technical ladder, you job will disappear.
Thats true, but I'm not talking about the price of consumer goods, I'm talking about the cost of "just getting by". What i mean by that is:
a) Having enough food that you aren't starving
b) Having a (heated) roof over your head when you sleep
c) Affording to get to and from your place of employment.
This is completely setting aside "luxuries" like owning your own car, going out to eat, owning a TV or computer, or watching a movie every once in a while.
A Call For A New Slashdot Moderation Level!
Strong IP protection is for the incumbents, not future generations. :-\
If you don't already have a patent, you don't get to vote.
I guess not all mods are racist assholes whose sole knowledge of economics comes from reading a Ralph Nader pamphlet.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Be sure you note that over the last two years the rupee has begun to strenghten vs the dollar (it's up 10% from 2 years ago). Also wage inflation in India was mentioned in a recent economist at 10%-12% (and the majority of the contribution was from tech jobs (other jobs were nearly flat). Assuming the offshoring continues it will continue to drive up the cost of hiring qualified Indian technology workers (phone support is probably hosed as it doesn't require a ton of specialized training most of the people calling you have degrees in a field other than technology, they just make more working in call centers).
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
This report is a bit more optimistic - the glass is half full.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
If a company sends 1000 people offshore, saves an average of $30K/person - then that's a total savings of 30 million dollars. Market forces and competition, though, ensure that this kind of money most likely goes into the consumer's pocket as prices go down. So 30 Million divided by a population of 250 million is about 12 cents for every person. Make it 10 cents to account for inefficiencies.
If companies send a million, $100 for every person - if they send 120 million (the approx labor force), it's about $12000 savings for every person in every family.
just a thought.
Free Markets are like black holes, no one has ever seen one, but theoretical academics will argue to the death about what they are like. Economics is a soft science based on assumptions about human behavior.
If US companies want to ousource, fine, just quit giving them taxpayer dollars (corporate welfare) and access to government R&D.
Labor Department Downplays Offshoring??? WHAT? How dare they downplay such a serious number like 3%, and that being of lost jobs! Why, that's not as big as 3% of all jobs, but that's not the point. Three percent is huge and they dare to talk down to us like we aren't doing so bad when THREE-PERCENT of our lost jobs were lost over seas!!! This is epedemic and only shows that we should have gone to the UN and George Bush knew about 9/11 all so that Cheney could get tons of oil for his new Yacht when poor John Kerry has to put up with all this lying and scandal orchestrated by the right wing attack machine. Why I just can't believe this! How DARE they tell us this isn't the end of the civilized world as we know it!!!
[Takes a deep breath]
But what do you expect from our friends at the fair-and-balanced NY Times?
Sam
Uh, Downs syndrome is not something you develop after being born, it is a genetic defect.
Downs FAQ
If you really want to keep your current life style, you'll learn to roll with the punches, pick yourself up and get back in the game.
You can't keep your current standard of living. You won't have your parents standard of living, it just isn't going to happen for the masses.
Wages for the same work will become equal everywhere. There will be geographic imbalances but as transportation improves these will become smaller.
Two options for higher standards of living
1. Everyone gains this new standard. This means huge increases in output to bring the majority of the world to our level. This isn't likely in the next few years. It is possible, even likely to occur in a few generations.
2. Do unequal work, be more skilled more valuable, and do higher end work. This is how celebrities make millions doing what others do for free, they convince us that their work is "premium". This also goes for other products and services. People want the better car, nicer restaurant, classy strippers, instead of the crappy car, poor restaurant, and dieseased crack whore.
OK. So why don't we give them all greencards and let them move to the US. Then the playing field is level by default AND we can tax them!
Oh wait, I forgot we are supposed to be against all those damn foreigners with their H1s taking our jobs...
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
The problem is that there is no way to make sure that companies that oursource actually pass those savings on to customers in the form of cheaper goods, or instead just give their ceos larger bonuses.
Sure there is. Its called competition. When a company finds a way to reduce costs, their first urge probably isn't to lower prices. But when a competitor who wants some of their market share sees that they can make money while selling the same thing cheaper, that's what they will do. The first company will then lower prices or watch the new competitor eat their lunch. That's the beauty of capitalism.
Free market may not be fun, but it's the only game that consistently wins,
Yes, but over what term? How long have we REALLY been a globalized economy? The truth is not even the Keynsian fanboys know what the future holds.
There must be something done to level the playing field, otherwise American labor will never be able to compete with countries that have much lower standards of living and little or no workers rights.
It seems from my perspective the US Government and corporations are doing fairly well at forcing the "little people" into the same kind of living conditions that you speak. It's my subjective opinion of course and probably wrong in fact I suppose but it definitely "appears" that is were things are heading.
BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
Because companies that do this should be taxed to hell and back for doing it.
Let's think about the effect this policy would have:
1. Company A is forced to retain US employees over internation employees, thus increasing the cost of the service/product delivered by Company A.
2. Company A is therefore less profitable.
3. Due to a lagging economy, Company A must lay off workers to reduce costs.
4. Due to a reduced workforce, Company A is less productive.
5. Due to lost productivity, Company A loses business to an international competitor.
6. Due to lost business, Company A goes bankrupt.
Now, this is a bit tongue-in-cheek, because no business cycle can be reduced to six lines. However, the principle holds true. Taxing companies to prevent off-shoring only makes it more difficult for US-based companies to compete in an international market.
What we should be doing is looking at the reasons for off-shoring. Companies off-shore jobs for a single purpose: to reduce costs. Companies reduce costs for a single purpose: to improve profitability. Therefore, we can negate the need for off-shoring by providing incentives that improve company profitability. Some may argue that companies would still off-shore their jobs to enrich those that control the company. However, I do not believe this is true. Contrary to what many believe, off-shoring is not an attractive option for most companies. It reduces employee moral, is typically bad for customer service, and is not well received by the public. For these reasons, companies will tend to keep jobs here when it is economically feasible.
If you would like to be a leader with a large following...drive slowly down a windy two-lane road
The owner started hearing that the projects in fact didn't get cancelled, but instead were being farmed to offshore programmers in India. The owner turned his division into a group of project managers instead, writing specs and doing code audits for recruited offshore programmers. Alakazam - now that the work is going offshore (although we're back to billing as many hours as before) we magically get all the projects back. So long as the programming is done offshore, the clients were happy.
So... lessee... how does that add up... we're charging them the same number of hours to write specs, debug and audit code, fix mistakes they make, manage employees on the other side of the Earth plus we're subcontracting work to offshore programmers we've hired. And it takes them twice as long to write the code in the first place, considering their a) awake while we're asleep and b) they don't have as much experience in the industry.
All in all... I'm guessing that the invoices are now probably 50%-90% more than they were before, but since they're being "offshored" they think they're getting a bargain.
I can cope with free and global, evolution and progress and stuff.
I can take the fact that I may be too expensive when compared to someone with same skills as well as face the fact that someone may deliver better quality for the same paycheck.
We all have chance to change a job if our supervisors want too much while give too little.
There's one situation though I can't cope with:
1. Management offshores and outsources a good product away from a godd crew to a bunch of Hrundi V. Bakshi types never before proven in battle
2. The new N times cheaper crew transforms the good product into crapware, customers lose their temper, sales start going down
3. ???
4. Profit! Managing board gets their bonuses for good yearly figures and moves on to ruin another product while we give each other the infamous "My job went to India, and all I got was this lousy T-" shirts.
We are paying for the advanced management lessons - might as well have them watch Hrundi V. Bakshi on video - even that's probably slightly above their intellectual level...
that if these are American companies offloading jobs to the cheap labor markets (India, Sudan, etc.) perhaps the best way to limit that is to have a federal law passed that says, in essence, if you are a company operating on American soil all employees and contracted workers (including off-shore centers) must be paid as if the site and employee was within the U.S. This would mean that then all those Indian workers would be subject to taxes and federal minimum wage.... Then the union can step in and start rabble rousing "Your American brothers and sisters are making 10 times the money for the job you now do!" Eventually, they'll see that dealing with that whole mess is a pain and they'll just keep the jobs here. If Indians or Sudanis want jobs from American companies perhaps it would be wiser for them to move to the U.S., and instantly improve their lives in the process.
Call me crazy and a freak, but it's just a thought.
I think we should not allow women to work. That will open up a lot of jobs. After all, zero jobs should be lost to women. I'll send a letter to Bush with my proposal. [/facetious] [/what your post sounds like]
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Assuming of course we actually have a free market. We don't. A free market assumes many buyers and sellers of the same product and perfect information; when you have just a few sellers of a product and disinformation in the form of advertising, you have something that does not at all resemble a free market.
The problem is that there is no way to make sure that companies that oursource actually pass those savings on to customers in the form of cheaper goods, or instead just give their ceos larger bonuses [usatoday.com].
Other than the certainty that competing firms will pass the savings on to customers and reap the benefits of offering a lower-priced product, no, there is no way to "make sure." You know what will solve the problem? A federal Department of Assessing Corporate Savings To Make Sure Those Savings Are Passed On To Consumers.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
The first company will then lower prices or watch the new competitor eat their lunch. That's the beauty of capitalism.
Your argument is nice in theory, but with all the outsourcing that has happened lately, shouldn't we be seeing a lot of decreases in prices? I haven't.
Offshoring creates a much larger problem that none of these articles have touched on. I call it the "Bob Factor." Here's how it works-
Bob worked for CitiGroup in Chicago. Bob was earning $80,000/yr for his database programming position in a light supervisory position with a few other coders under him. Bob had fifteen years experience and has worked on numerous mission-critical multimillion dollar projects.
Bob lost his job a year ago to offshoring.
Bob is now in his late 30's or 40's. Bob has a mortgage, car payment, spouse and kids to support. Bob cannot afford to quickly change careers. Starting over gets a lot harder with age for financial reasons.
Bob is now willing to relocate to smaller midwestern markets like.. South Bend, Akron, Indianapolis, etc. etc. Bob will now be competing with you for the $48,000/yr job that you had your eye on.
These displaced IT workers with gobs of experience and resumes 3x thicker than yours are out there competing for the same jobs that new graduates and guys with a few years and a couple certifications were hoping to get. They are the ones making new positions in IT harder and harder to find.
Ph33r the Bobs, people. They are making it harder to GET jobs or CHANGE jobs. And worse yet, they are destroying the IT salary horizon by bringing superior job skills to the table for entry and mid-level positions out of need, creating an environment where the average REAL-LIFE starting salary for IT is DECLINING.
In the area I live in, people with Masters' degrees and a handful of certifications are showing up for entry-level programming positions advertised at ~ $25,000/yr in the paper.
Offshoring is doing precisely the same thing to the IT market that the Japanese did to big steel in the U.S. in the 70's and 80's. The U.S. government did absolutely nothing to level the playing field then - What makes you think they will now? Who has more lobbyists buttonholing congressmen in the hallway on their into work? You, Joe Schmoe Slashdot reader, or Tata?
Signed,
Frustrated former IT shmuck changing careers
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
It's an election year, everything is downplayed or out right ignored until some one is elected. This is the main flaw with democracy. The candidates are too concerned with getting the job to be honest.
It does not follow that as the nation becomes more prosperous (due to your free trade support) all of its citizens will too. In todays world, this is even moreso.
I have no interest in making the US corporations more profitable if it does not benefit the US workers.
Hardly anyone understands the nuanced connections of the economy. Folks think you can pull this out or plug that in without regard to the consequences. Start seeing the broader picture, folks.
loyalty above all, save honor
Your argument makes it sound like "As long as we all band together and make cheap, crappy products, nobody can complain because they won't have any alternatives". Very few industries actually have NO alternatives, and quality products are always in demand.
It's like saying Ikea, Target and Walmart and going to run the woodmakers of America out of business because you can buy such cheap, albeity low quality, furniture from them. Quality furniture will always be in demand, but low quality furniture may in be in higher demand because people will accept lower quality for the price differential.
--trb
You forgot the side effects.
If everyone has to pay twice as much for product from company A, they are also uncompetative.
Lets say company A makes computer CPU's in Taiwan. Every company in the world pays $100 for a new faster CPU, well except the US companies who have to pay $200 due to protectionism.
Now repeat for everything a US company needs, foreign oil vs US oil, steel, textiles, glass, paper, office furniture, call center costs.
Suddenly you've doubled the basic cost of doing business in the US.
This will make the entire country internationally uncompetative. If the US was an isolated country this would be okay, but the way such a high standard of living is supported is through importing goods from cheap countries. Go through a store, be it Pier 1 imports (I wonder if it is imported) or Walmart.
What would happen to your standard of living if even half the stuff you bought at Walmart doubled in price? You'd need a substantial raise to maintain your current standard of living. Congrats you're now part of the high cost death spiral.
These types of solutions are a huge threat to the US economy, and most people don't seem to realize it.
Oh, I'm not American.
Bull. They charge no less than they would the DVD players were made in the states--they just pocket the profits. What I look forward to is these third world countries figuring this out, then cutting the "American" companies that just buy stuff and market it out and sell it themselves.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Only problem - this isn't a free market. I've got restrictions on what kinds of services I can offer that Joe Brain-Damaged in India doesn't have. I have no choice about whether to comply with these restrictions or not.
Ergo it is not, by default, a free market. Not until India enacts labour laws offering the same degree of protection to its workers as the US does.
You know what's really interesting? India's new government is already doing that. And despite the fact that it has only raised the cost of workers there a little, companies are already abandoning India for China. Why? Because now, when they abuse their "employees" (read: slaves, and if you've spent any time at all talking to upper management, you know that's how they think of them), they can be held responsible.
Asian Loghorn beatles are eating many trees in many American states. Should we let the beatles eat all the trees because they can compete better? How about dandylions, do you let them take over your yard because that are more hardy than grass? I bet your paying a low payed illegal to do it for you. Try highing your neighbors kid next time.
I enjoy the lifestyle of what non-third world contries give. I don't want 1st world contries to salary norm to 3rd world contries. Then I'll have to move to India and make $8,000 a year but avoid sharp things given the lower benifits provided.
Point is that not all change is good for us. We should protect our way of life as long as we can.
I bet you would not be on this soap box if you were training your replacement.
- Just because you can't, doesn't mean you shouldn't
I live in Brazil, where workers have many more "rights", or rather, entitlements, than in the USA. For instance, women have four months childbirth leave with full pay. Every worker has 30 days vacations each year, with full pay. Depending on the activity, some can retire with full pay after working for 20 years, it was only recently that a minimum age for retirement has been legislated. I know several engineers who retired in their early 40's. This list could go on and on, there are thousands of laws regulating labor in Brazil, starting from the Federal Constitution downward.
But this does not translate into a high standard of living. For one thing, it encourages illegality, if the alternatives are working outside the law or being unemployed, what would you do? Also, so many benefits do have a high cost. Taxes are sky-high in Brazil, and still rising. The minimum wage is equivalent to about US$80 / month, raising it would cost too much for the government to pay all the benefits to retired workers.
OTOH, even if there was a way to legislate against importing from countries with low standards of living, it wouldn't resolve the problem of outsourcing. Exchange rates still make a difference. If countries like China, India, or Brazil seem to have such low wages, part of it comes from depressed exchange rates. In Brazil a typical restaurant meal, for instance, will cost about US$4. You can buy a new car for less than US$5000, or a man's shirt for US$5.
"Your job and 830,000 others are gone."
Stop crying, Slashdot! I'm already full of hearing this. USA (using IMF and other tools) has imposed market openness in every country they could control, telling it was the solution for all of our problems.
Now you are feeling just a glympse of what means free market when you have a HUGE competitor. Now shutup, and start learning to grow potatoes, because we already did that to survive when there is no job.
yadda yadda
Downs syndrome
Downs syndrome is genetic. It can't possibly have anything to do with what you consume.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
I had this idea a while back.
Require all goods (perhaps with a certain cash flow minimum, to ignore small fish) sold in the US to be produced in conditions that comply with our labor laws, or else be placed under a tariff. This would prevent the exploitation of sweat shop labor, while still allowing the market to determine who should be producing the good.
An international border should not be an excuse for corporations to exploit workers.
ex. If you own a clothing factory overseas where employees are payed 50% of US minimum wage (adjusted to local cost of living near the factory), and forced to work 16 hour days, you would then pay a 200% tariff to sell that good in the united states. If you owned a different factory, and paid the employees well (again, relative to local cost of living) and did not over work them, you should be allowed unhindered sales of the goods produced there in this country. Also, enviromental effects should be considered as well (polute more than you would be allowed to here->tariff).
My proposed solution would greatly reduce the exploitation of workers world wide, and also bring jobs back to this country.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
I agree with your response - the "greed" of individuals is _not_ negative. Totally, 100% spot on.
But I'd also argue that corporations are not "greedy" in the anthropomorphic sense you're indicating. Corporations are that way because they're started and run by people with that motivation... The CEO, VP's, venture capitalists, shareholders, and employees are all driven by (for want of a better term) the profit motive.
I know there's no easy solution to the problems we're facing as globalization impacts the US economy. I hope my post didn't sound like laisse fair captialism was some magic bullet that would solve all our ills. Certainly there's a need for a "safety net" while the economy is undergoing this change.
As I said, I'm just not convinced that a "5-year plan" or "Great leap forward" is going to resolve the problems more quickly than letting market forces work.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Good stewarts with the land, huh? Like refusing to accept any limits on CO2 emission, or even to admit that there is something like a greenhouse effect?
I work for a small start up company right now that makes outsourcing an important part of our overall business plan. From the beginning, hiring foreign labor to do the bulk of the grunt work was part of the plan.
The upside to all this is from the company there have been at least 20 American jobs created, along with 25 or so jobs in India (right now, this is growing all the time).
Our end users may end up laying off an employee or two of theirs, but I doubt it. Instead, those employees will just have more time to do other things that will help the end user's overall business. Pretty much everyone wins, and it's all from outsourcing.
Yes, we could hire Americans to do the same job, but they're over twice as expensive, we have to hire managers to deal with them, and there's a whole lot of overhead for something that makes more sense to ship overseas.
Adaptation is one of the most important traits of a successful person, and those who cannot adapt are going to get set by the wayside.
--Less Thinkin', More Drinkin'...
At least at the state level. Wasn't it Indiana that had offshored a computer system/call center associated with the unemployed?
Also, state governments often LIKE to outsource stuff to the private sector. The bureaucracy associated with a state run project is huge -- everything from labor rules to material acquisition, and with more states needing to do more work with less tax revenue, these projects often get pushed into the private sector.
Once in the hands of the private sector, there's often multiple layers of subcontracting that can involve offshoring. Somtimes it just seems like a giant shell game -- local business (with figurehead female minority ownership for easy contract grabs), pitches for state contract and then just subcontracts all the work out, skimming profits off the top and not really doing any work.
In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if some consultancies have won business by equating offshoring with minority hiring, which should REALLY piss off the people the minority hiring laws were supposed to help.
What are you talking about? American companies are around for one reason, and one reason only: to make money. They hire GOOD programmers in India CHEAPLY. They save money. Simple as that. There is no 'conspiracy' for a group of companies to not compete over quality: as soon as this happens, a new player will come in not following these rules and take over the market. It's how free trade works.
reported that terrorist activity had gone down in 2003 (supporting the thesis that W's war on terror was working) when in fact it had gone up? I'm shocked at such a suggestion! Shocked!
"if people overseas can do it cheaper, and maybe even better, WE HAVE TO LET THEM. If we don't, then some day they'll come along and simply overpower us"
So we should outsource all of our work to other countries because it's cheaper? I don't know if you've noticed but the U.S. isn't exactly held in high regard around the world. What happens when we depend too much on other countries and they decide they don't like dealing with us any more?
Here's another example of why this can be bad. I'll use food since we kind of need food to live.
Say we import lettuce from Mexico because it's cheaper. Farmers in the U.S. eventually stop growing lettuce because it's not profitable. You seem to think we should just go along with that and let Mexico supply all of our lettuce because it's cheaper for them to do so. What you don't realize is that one of the reasons its cheaper is that they dump pesticides on the food that are illegal to use in the U.S. because of their negative effects on people. But that's ok. Since Mexico can do it cheaper, we should just let them.
How very true. Not everyone needs to know about or understand economics. But people who spew venom about the government or corporations who engage in intelligent business practices should at least understand the fundamentals of the topic before ranting about it.
That's not what the Indian gov. thinks. Ever hearl of the Bhopal chemical disaster? It happened because the Indian Gov. forced Union Carbide to use insufficiently trained Indian workers rather than Carbide's own, better trained employees. http://www.bhopal.com/facts.htm
The purpose of this globalization of labor resources is to pit one labor market against another, forcing wages down. NAFTA actually decreased Mexican wages. It increased profits for American companies using Mexican rather than American labor. The justification polititians use for this is 'we need to keep down inflation' which is just another way of saying 'we need to keep down worker's wages.
Nothing is inevitable. It is in the best interests of 70% of the population to not trade with countries with inadequate labor standards. If you compete with slaves, you become one.
The American middle class, vital for democracy, is disappearing. We're becoming like other third world nations with a lot of poor, a few rich, and nothing in between. This isn't isolationist. It's recognizing the consequences of our actions rather than simply bowing to 'inevitability.'
Heck, countries like China don't even recognize American intellectual property. If they won't pay us for our work, why should we pay them for theirs? Shouldn't the American Government represent more than just American corporations?
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
As the manager of an independent electronics retailer I can attest to this fact better than many. We sell quality brands at competetive prices (for those brands) but what do people do? They head to Walmart and buy a Fung-gua-dang-crap DVD player that has crappy build quality, crappier interface, and WILL break in a year. Why? 'cuz it only costs $35. The 80/20 rule is a killer. And if you think the "rich" provide a market for quality goods, think again, my store is located in Stowe Vermont (a VERY rich town for those who aren't familure with it) and the number of Chang-Junk TVs and Crap-Fu VCRs that you fing in 10 million dollar homes is truely unbelievable.
A Call For A New Slashdot Moderation Level!
Does anyone remember that the US chose capitalism? It wasn't forced on us, we chose it. And you know what, we've done pretty darn well with it so far. You know, being the worlds only superpower & all.
So here's an idea, stop complaining about capitalism working like it is supposed to, and start working your tail off to make something of yourself like the previous 2 centuries of Americans have done.
US corporations (with a few exeptions) are largely owned (directly or indirectly) by US workers through pension funds. There are a few recent startups that are still owned by capitalists, but by and large they are owned by funds (which means indirectly you and me). Also neither labor nor capital's share of income in the US has moved out pretty narrow bands, labor is around 55%, capital is around 15% (taxes and government is the remainder) (this is over the last century). It was in a chart in Hunt's column a week ago, Thursday in the WSJ. Given that labor can exert more political pressure (votes) than capital (cash only) don't expect this to change in the future either.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
I can't agree more. Its seems to me that there is something wrong w/ the way currencies are valued.
The "big" costs, medical care, housing costs are much, much higher in america than they are in china and india, which doesn't make any sense. Why should housing cost $10->$20k in india but $100->$500 in America? Why should education cost $10k->$40k per year in america and $1k->$2k in india and china? It is impossible for us to compete at those prices, but what it really means (at least to me) that china and india's currencies are way undervalued. I'm guessing currency is based on import/exportable goods but labor/services depend on internal infrastructure goods (i.e. housing, education food costs) and huge disparities need to work themselves out, there is no way to "adapt or die" w/ any sort of services as long as internal goods that are needed to survive are an order of magnitude cheaper in one country as opposed to another.
-bloo
On Lou Dobbs' show (who is decidedly on the right side of the issues as far as I am concerned) had a guest who did some of this research and insists that shipping jobs overseas actually CREATES more jobs here in America, because it means American companies grow and more mid-level managers, accountants, and so on are needed.
The problem with this perverse rationale is that a blue-collar factory worker, who goes to work to feed a family, will lose a job. And do you think that blue-collar worker will be re-hired as a Vice President of International Sales? No. Of course not.
Hopefully John Edwards knocked some sense into Kerry when they debated over NAFTA.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
I live in Guatemala, and currently have 1500 operators doing outsourcing to the US. All of it is Data Entry for different Insurance companies. Due to the fact that our average wage is $1.50 an hour we are helping keep Insurance rates low. We arent taking IT jobs.
We have to be carefull because there is Offshoring that is very beneficial for the US.
--
Offshore Jabber
(Ducking) It's the most positive thing the U.S. has done for the developing world in decades.
Please pay very careful attention to the phrase "What about the jobs that are needed to employ the new workers entering the workforce in 2001, 2002, 2003 and early 2004?"
Was that too difficult for you?
Here's a newsflash for you, so far, the number of people leaving the workforce each year (retirement / death / disability) has been less than the number of new workers entering the workforce.
Therefore, even if we managed to recover all 3 million of those lost jobs, we'd still be below the number of jobs needed to employ the new workers.
I wrote it.
You even quoted it.
But you still didn't understand it.
The report claims that less than 3% of Q1 2004 jobs were lost to offshoring.
Explicit increases in the count of offshoring of manufacturing jobs doesn't show up, for example, when Walmart suddenly decides to buy from a supplier in China rather than the United States.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
The only thing that really bothers me about offshore outsourcing is that a signifcant portion of the savings comes from US Companies dodging hard won labor rights/laws and payroll taxes. Remove all tax benefits from outsourcing and require US companies that offshore jobs to obey a core subset of the most fundamental US Labor laws. This wouldn't be an unprecedented extension of jurisdiction, the "Corrupt Foreign Practices Act" already extends us bribery/corruption laws to overseas operations of US companies.
To be honest my views on this are partially influenced by self interest and morality. Self interest because I don't want to lose my job to an outsource provider that has an unfair tax and working conditions advantage. From a moral point of view, laborers in the West suffered greatly during the Industrial Revolution and the rights and protections we enjoy today are the direct result of the (often bloody) battles they fought and I don't think it's right for workers in the third world to have to fight those same battles when working for Western companies.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
I don't get insurance.
A Call For A New Slashdot Moderation Level!
My boss used that word in a meeting just the other day. After she paused, I asked her, "Did you say 'rightsource?". And she said, yes, that means outsourcing, when it is the right thing to do.
I can't stand it. I feel like I'm living in a fucking Dilbert cartoon. It drives me up a wall, how people try to change words to make things 'feel better'. That is one of the many reasons I'll never be in corporate management, because I don't deal in bullshit, and could never say 'rightsource' with a straight face.
Mod me down, please. I have too much karma, and I just needed to ventilate. I just found that funny, and disgusting, at the same time.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
You got it nearly right, only the conspiracy theory is a little off. Why invent a conspiracy, when a few simple observations explain it also:
If the customers don't care about quality, saving there is a sensible measure. The goal isn't to produce the best, it's to produce just good enough. Anything above that is wasted. If customers wan't better quality, there's a business oppurtunity by making them pay for it.
The other assumption was, that the service from american is better than what poor starved indians provide. More often than not, the so called better service from americans was limited to read the brain-dead script with an american dialect instead of an indian one.
As always, WikiPedia comes to the rescue...
It was a highly protectionist measure designed to save American jobs that ended up making the Great Depression even worse and dramatically slowing international trade. Thankfully after World War II the trend towards protectionism was reversed in favor of more international cooperation.
This trend is as old as politics. It is used by both governments and business alike.
Don't like the numbers, then change them.
As for press articles, go read The Economist and leave the liberal Bush-bashing papers in the US out of it. I found that during the Clinton years that the only fair reporting came from OUTSIDE this country. (yeah, some papers were unfairly bashing Clinton too...)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
"If we don't, then some day they'll come along and simply overpower us"
And if we do someday they will overpower us. China in particular will most likely pass the U.S. economically in at most 20 years. You simply can't run a half trillion dollar trade deficit and a half trillion dollar budget deficit, and growing, indefinitely without eventually destroying your economy. The multinationals may not be destroyed since they are just moving to China, but everyone living in the U.S.and Western Europe, and not working for a multinational, is going to be in a world of hurt.
China is the most sinister threat because they are intentionally pegging their currency at an artificially low level which means they are not indulging in fair trade, its dramatically stacked in their favor, along with rages rates in the 21 to 35 cent range. Their cheap currency also makes it extremely attractive for multinationals to move all their capital investment there. Its good for those companies initially since China's a bargain but one day they may rue the day they moved the substance of their business to a country not particularly friendly to the West.
The problem here is that China, in particular, is devastating one industry after another in the rest of the world, steel production, machine tool manufacturing, manufacturing in general and there isn't much stopping them from doing the same to semiconductors and software, especially when U.S. companies are turning their IP over to them wholesale either through partnerships or by putting technology centers there so the Chinese will learn everything they need to know to form their own companies some day and bury their former U.S. masters.
Once the U.S. loses its manufacturing and industrial base it will be interesting to see if it also loses its ability to build the weapons it needs to defend itself. The only saving grace is most modern weapons are small in number so they don't require the huge manufacturing base they did in World War II. But, in another 10 years if China turns openly hostile, the U.S. may suddenly discover its totally dependent on China for EVERYTHING, it may not be able to sustain a prolonged war and then the U.S. will be overpowered.
I wager China deduced they couldn't win against the U.S. militarily so they opted to do it economically and appear poised to be successful. Its kind of ironic since, if you believe the revisionist history about Reagan saturating the air waves today, he beat the U.S.S.R economically by forcing them to destroy their economy with an arms race they couldn't win. Will the U.S. see the same fate, by pouring all its resources in to its military and letting the rest of its economy crater and move off shore.
@de_machina
Next in line: Investing in companies normally working national defense contracts that cant offshore(resistant jobs/technologies for the offshoring victims), as well as providing them access to solutions/technologies to the offshoring problem.
Some might figure this might be a primitive answer, but if things dont fall in place to get these kind of people back to normal work faster, it might become a tactic for some to use their remaining money.
As for those who think this is protectionist, and that change must happen, fine. Dont be surprised when the lack of planning for more than short term profits and perceived "efficiency" bites you back through decisive investments made by the talent you disposed of. No means is too extreme when your life was played with some exec who doesnt mind if your life is fucked.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
After all no one had much to say when it became clear that UAW workers who barely made it out of high school and who working 6 hrs a day for $80,000/yr really weren't making quality cars that you wanted to buy. In fact what happened is not that those jobs went overseas instead what happened is that those jobs evaporated so that labor now acounts for no more than 8 or 9% of the total cost of building a car.
What we're seeing in IT is not really that jobs are moving overseas, though some jobs are - mostly the jobs you don't want to do now and are occupied by H1B visa workers who probably ARE Indian to begin with. No what's happening is that in "IT" which is a service business where typically 85% of the total lifecycle costs were labor, service providers are finding ways to do nearly as much with fewer and fewer people outright. Whereas the server to person admin ratio might have been 50:1 7 years ago it's probably almost twice that today.
You haven't been replaced by Bengali rice farmers. You've been replaced by machines. So the challenge to you my wonks and wonkettes is to become the people who administer the care and feeding of those machines, as it were.
Very few industries actually have NO alternatives, and quality products are always in demand.
Then where are my quality cellphones? You can pay $400 for a top-of-the-line cellphone in the US that is still nowhere near the capabilities of a run-of-the-mill Japanese phone from a year ago, much less their current top of the line.
In Tokyo you can get fiber to your place of living for less than you can get a T1 with a fraction of the bandwidth in the US. And yet our communications companies threaten to hold hostage development and expansion in order to blackmail the government over regulation. Fiber to the home? Not for ANY amount of money in most of the US, unless you're lucky to live in a place where the government saw that captialism had failed in this particular venture, and did the work itself.
When it comes to manufactured goods, yes, there is always a group of people who are willing to pay more and a group of people who are willing to offer more quality for that money. When it comes to technology and communications however, I don't see this happening.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
if people overseas can do it cheaper, and maybe even better, WE HAVE TO LET THEM. If we don't, then some day they'll come along and simply overpower us, because they -aren't- stagnant.
You know what? This is absolutely not true. There are literally millions of software developers in India having their income coming entirely from US. If offshoring stops, they will change their profession. Because India itself needs only a small fraction of those millions, and this small fraction will work on some proprietory systems. And the rest of them will have to change they profession, because they won't be able to find software jobs anymore.
So the bottom line is: they may overpower us only if we don't stop outsourcing. They have no chance on their own. We are feeding our foe, which seems to become a habit already.
Thank you, sir. A little reason amongst the shrieking masses...
This outrageous intervention by industry had never been done on a matter of public health before.
Can you say "The Four Food Groups"? Knew ya could.
I'm sure there are plenty of great examples before 1950's, when the 4 food groups "public education" was written to cater to the politically important food producers, expecially the meat and dairy farmers. It's only been in the last 10 years or so that the myth of the 4 food groups has been replaced with the "food pyramid", despite decades of studies showing the emphasis on meet and diary to be unsound.
Here's an article about the numerous problems with the 4 food groups, and here's a quote from it:
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Many of the call centers were built in poor regions of the US precisly so that Americans with only high school diplomas would have access to jobs after manufacturing industries folded.
So, you are proud that people in India who hold masters degrees have the grand opportunity to work 3rd shift to handle calls from the West? You are excited that people in India have to assume a different identity, to pretend to be Americans just to do their jobs?
It's a good thing that food stamp and welfare recipients must deal with haughty Indians (per your comments) when they need the most help?
Here's more fuel to your argument:
http://www.nypost.com/business/23936.htm
WHAT ARE THEY SMOKING AT THE LABOR DEPT.? By JOHN CRUDELE
May 11, 2004 -- DON'T get too excited about all those new jobs that were supposed to have been created in April.
I'm not going to waste a lot of my precious space on this, but the bottom line is that most of the 288,000 jobs that the Labor Department says were created last month may not really exist.
They could be figments of statisticians' optimism.
Anyone who plodded through my column last Thursday knows I predicted that job growth in April would be better than the 160,000 to 170,000 jobs that the "pros" were anticipating.
But I also said, quite emphatically I hope, that the stronger growth would be an illusion - the result of the Labor Department's computers making happy predictions about seasonal job creation that could neither be verified nor justified.
I'll explain one aspect.
Back in the March employment report, the government added 153,000 positions to its revised total of 337,000 new jobs because it thought (but couldn't prove) loads of new companies were being created in this economy.
That estimate comes from the Labor Department's "birth/death model." You can look up these numbers on the Department's Web site.
As staggering as the assumption about new companies was in March, the Labor Department got even more brazen in April.
Last Friday, it was disclosed that these imaginary jobs had been increased by 117,000 to 270,000 for the latest month - because, I guess, the stat jockeys got a vision from the gods of spring.
Without those extra 117,000 make-believe jobs, the total growth for April would have been just 171,000 - sub-par for an economy that's supposed to be growing at more than 4 percent a year, but right on the pros' targets.
Take away all 270,000 make-believe jobs and, well, you have the sort of pessimism that the political pollsters are seeing.
If I was the suspicious type (and if I thought Washington was smart enough), I'd suspect a nasty motive behind the sudden surge in these mystery jobs. But for now, let's just acknowledge their existence.
Also keep in mind that the government doesn't distinguish between good companies being created and, say, a guy doing consulting work out of his basement because he can't find real work.
What does this new job announcement mean in the real world?
It means there will be more pressure on the financial markets, as we've seen for a while but especially since last Thursday.
It also means that the Federal Reserve now has the excuse it needs to raise interest rates in June (as I've said before would happen) and will probably start regretting that move by the end of the summer.
And President Bush will probably give in to temptation and start crowing about the economy, going against the mood, as captured by pollsters.
This will make him look as out of touch with reality as his father did.
Please give details on this civil service IT related job that is offering $60k as a hiring bonus(a vacancy announcement number would be great). I suspect that this is not accurate as the only jobs that I find with hiring bonuses are FP-5 and FP-6 grade levels(ie part of SOFIA - Support Our Friends in Iraq & Afghanastan program). This is from http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/
Skip ------ See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columni sts/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_2939654,00.html
Interesting because it covers more than just the simplistic "jobs lost" part of the story.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Wikipedia didn't catch the IMDB page that lent more meaning to what I was getting at.
;)
I agree, it's just that I don't often hear people talking about the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
I read the same article and I have to wonder if the author and the government are talking about the United States. I am so sick and tired of the lies! My company constantly offers sound bites to the media that " we only offshore 40 jobs ". Everyone who works with me knows this is a complete lie, it's more like 4000+ jobs if not more. Our IT area went from 1000 people to 640 within the last two years and the makeup of that 640 is 450 Indian (Cognizant and Tata) offshore consultants and 190 employees, seems like more than 3%. My own development area went from 17 developers and 1 manager to 3 developers and 1 manager. Is the company getting its money's worth? Does it get good service? Depends on who you talk to because almost everyone lies since no one wants to tell upper management, for fear of losing their jobs, that it isn't working because upper management have so deluded themselves that it is. What are the benefits of using Indian offshore consultants? It currently keeps me employed because the other remaining developers and I are constantly rewriting their code. I have to create specs for them to work from that have to be so detailed that I could create the program faster myself. Also no matter what you define for them to do they are always adding " coding enhancements " for our " best interests ", sort of like saying " look how smart I am courtesy of IIT ", of course this goes back into doing the rewrites. It's pathetic because they are learning at our expense, of all the offshore developers I have dealt with they are really no better than junior programmers, you get what you pay for. Do you really want to have fun?, try a Knowledge Transfer Session. This is where you have to take everything you know and have done for the duration of your employment and condense it down into documentation in order to give a presentation to your Indian replacements, then have a Q&A with them about it until your last day of employment. Of course it's also perfectly okay that what you did before you could do alone but now they need four people to do the same job since you've been terminated. I've had to painfully watch many of my colleagues go through this experience; these were good, intelligent people whose lives were ruined by greed. That's the bottom line of offshoring, greed. I would like to know who is going to purchase the goods and services when the U.S. starts looking like India and we're all making 25 cents a day? If offshoring is such a great thing then why do companies lie and try to hide it like my employer does and most others do? These surveys and reports simply play with the numbers, if it wasn't so sad it would be a joke!
"Tort reform" as I've seen it presented would make the U.S. more "attractive to investors", true, but it would do so at the expense of making it more dangerous for consumers. Most tort-reform initiatives I've seen revolve around one of two concepts:
1) Limiting damages for all "malpractice" and liability (negligence, even wanton or blatant that maims or kills)
or/and
2) Severely limiting when complaintants can be put into a "class" for a class-action lawsuit.
Perhaps in simple cases that don't represent a blatant disregard for public safety there should be a cap on damages. In cases of blatant breach of professional ethics, there should be no limit. I'm talking about a surgeon performing surgery drunk or hungover, not "slip and fall" or "crotch full o' hot coffee" incidents. So far, none of the bills I've seen have been anything but plumbs for large corporate interests.
True, these bills would've prevented "crotch full o' coffee" from reaching trial and resulting in a multi-million dollar damage award, but they also would protect that drunk surgeon, because all of the proposed bills I've seen have been blanket changes to all liability law, making no provision for malicious intent, and blatantly unsafe behavior.
Tort reform, unless re-written in a way that limits frivolous claims while allowing litigation of dangerous corporate malfeasance should never be passed. Without a safety-valve to allow legitimate lawsuits to pursue large claims (where a blatant disregard for public safety can be demonstrated,) tort reform is really a license to kill. It sets a dollar amount that a corporation can pay to settle a wrongful death, and at some point, that death and attached dollar amount will seem more palatable than eating six months profits while they redesign their car with the fatal flaws.
You can't motivate a corporation the same way you can a person. You can not, for instance, appeal to a corporation's sense of decency, for it is an entity on paper, and has no conscience to call upon. It doesn't care that dozens or hundreds of customers will die because of those faulty tire treads, or weak weld points on heart valves. It has no moral compass to consult because it isn't a person. Certainly, many individuals in a corporation would object, but the laws in this country require officers of public corporations to do everything possible to ensure a profit. Many corporate managers interpret this to mean win at all costs, which in some cases might include your life (or the life of your children.) No, the only way to motivate a corporation to change its broken ways is the threat of impending loss of a significant sum of money.
Change the tort system? Maybe. But scrapping it completely is not an option either, and most of the proposed bills I've seen would do just that: gut our tort system to the benefit of corporate interests, and the detriment of public safety.
Who did what now?
Your job and 830,000 others are gone.
This is very dodgy stiatistics. The fact that 830,000 jobs havce been sourced overseas doies not mean that 830,000 jobs have disappeared: that would be to assume no growth at all.
I don't have figures for softw3are developers, but The Economist reckons that the number employed in the US in call centers (one of the other major outsourcing scapegoats) has been essentially constant for about 5 years. Which suggests that one of the major drivers for outsorurcing is not so much cheapness as availability: the US has used up all the people able and willing to do that sort of work. Outsourcers have already found the hard way that the savings are way smaller than expected - even negative. But if you cannot get the people at home, overseas looks good.
Which is not to say that nobody has ever lost their job to overseas outsourcing - of course they have. But it is to suggest that there are still jobs somewhere in the onshore US for all those displaced - though maybe not where they currently live. But this is the US way - make firing easy so peopel will hire easy. The alternative is the European way: make it so difficult to fire someone that you don't dare set up a risky venture because the downsizing costs will double your losses.
Historically, the upside of the US attitude to jobs has worked very well. Why is Silicon valley in Californai, not England? Because the US has a risk-friendly, failure tolerant attitude. Losing out to outsources is the downside of the same coin.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Look, the Bush Administration has done something that has never been done by any previous administration: they're actively distorting truth in the reports that low-level non-appointed staffers put out. Sure, in the past political appointees could always be counted on to put spin on things (and even bury information, like Reagan did with AIDS and the CDC), but actively creating misleading information was not done by the career service government workers.
If you actually believe this you are seriously naive about some of the crap past administrations have pulled.
As a few readers have pointed out so far - The Bobs are earning less money, so consequently they are injecting much less back into the tax base and are not purchasing the same amount of goods and services.
How much less?
If 830,000 people are forced to take jobs elsewhere for 50% less pay, that's 33.2 billion dollars/yr in lost income. That's assuming they are able to find jobs AT ALL.
This is using the "$80,000/yr" figure from my first post. Obviously not everyone that has lost their job to offshoring earns $80k. Some earned less, some earned more. One interesting factor is that most of the lost jobs are from fortune 1000 companies, which tends to suggest that the average salary of the affected positions IS much higher than the average salary at a 50-1500 employee company in the Midwest.
Needless to say, regardless of the actual figures, the amount of lost income is in the tens of billions of dollars. If those people have not been able to find replacement IT jobs at all, it's
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
The problem with this attitude is that there are ways that first world nations should not have to compete. While cheaper cost of living is a sensible reason to outsource, loose labour laws are other reasons they outsource.
I mean, its one thing to outsource coders to India where its just like a programmer here - its another to outsource labour jobs to countries like Indonesia where they can treat child workers as abusable slave labour.
I figure there should be tariffs on outsourcing and importing - free trade is good economic sense, but not necessarily good social sense. However, it shouldn't be applied based on "they're stealing our jobs" so much as "we should not allow American companies and American products to be made by oppressed labour". Tax oppression. Simple. If they don't oppress their labour pool and they still steal our jobs, then you're right - they actually are more competative. But if the US has to start abusing its own workers in order to compete, then something's wrong.
Or would you rather go back to the days of Edison, locking the scientists in the lab until they invent something new.
Perhaps we should renegotiate our trade agreements to include these things. Maybe withdraw from the WTO and NAFTA until these are worked out. (For example, require that Mexican trucks meet US emissions standards in order to operate within the border. Sounds reasonable to me!)
As for financial penalties, they should be greater than the profit achieved by doing things against the morals or ethics of the United States. If a company saves $50 million by using near-slave-labor and they get fined $25 million, they're still making $25 million of profit, and therefore have little incentive to stop.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
I really don't think people get the concept of cost of living. You can say "The cost of living is so low! Its OK to give them 12 cents an hour! Thats incredibly high for the region!"
Sure, you can get land and basic food for cheap, but its not like a car is $17.95 and a computer is $8.75. Yes, that 12 cents keeps them fed and sheltered, but still leaves them poor, with no chance of getting out of it.
Do you really think that people are just incredibly happy to be paid that amount of money? Like they walk to work everyday in their homemade clothes, ready to work their 14 hour days making products which they can NEVER OWN, hoping that their son doesn't get sick because the cheapest medicine is still two months worth of pay... yet think "Damn, I make SO much money! Hooray for America!"
Its great for us though. They don't have enough money to afford to educate and better themselves, insuring us cheap labor for several more years! Its hard to worry about learning math when you can barely afford to survive.
People should be paid enough to buy the products that they manufacture.
If making goods abroad cuts costs, why does a pair of sneakers that cost 50c to make still cost me about $50?
Why is it that the most expensive people in my organisation and the easiest to offshore (middle-management) get paid more than me?
I think yours is a very simplistic view of the World.
Charlie Munger (Warren Buffet's second in command) argues against over-simplifying economics (follow the links to his transcript at the Motley Fool) and the dangers that it brings.
Sure, the first order effects of offshoring look good, but second, third and fourth order effects could be devastating (including your friendly offshore nation builds a better atomic bomb than you because you have been paying him to increase his intellectual capital).
--- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
What do you think the alternative is to off-shoring? If US companies don't off-shore to India, do you think Indians will just sit around, twiddle their thumbs, and keep buying expensive US-made products? Not on your life: they'll build highly competitive domestic industries, with their entire staff based in India, using cheap labor, completely beyond US regulations, taxation, or control. They'll import less from the US and export more to the US and offer cut-throat competition to US companies in other markets. The consequence will be many US companies going out of business entirely. Numerous examples show that countries can go from wastelands to economic powerhouses in a few decades, and India is ahead of the pack already.
Besides, I also don't see any justification for calling these jobs "American jobs" in the first place. Just because the US happens to have been able to build a large industrial base when other nations were in shambles doesn't mean that that kind of extraordinary situation is a God-given right. Postwar US economic success was a lucky, but temporary, windfall. Americans, like the rest of the world, have to learn to live with real, tough competition from other nations and the real possibility of economic disaster--the US has no more found a "magic formula" for wealth than any other nation, even though many US politicians arrogantly proclaim otherwise.
Furthermore, it was primarily the US that dragged other nations kicking and screaming into the current system of globalization and the US has benefitted, and continues to benefit, handsomely from that system. Outsourcing is, in effect, at the very core of why the US wanted globalization in the first place: you get economic efficiencies from comparative advantage. It makes no sense to come back and complain about that the system is doing what it was designed to do now that it is actually starting to work as desired and as expected.
It used to be that CEO/COOs would brag about how huge their IT department is. Now it is just another line item on the balance sheet.
The tech boom of the '90s which included dozens of companies bleeding red ink had to bust some time. The run couldn't last, and people must adapt to current times or be unemployed.
Get used to the fact that a BSCS is not worth a starting salary of 80,000/yr. Most of the companies who paid that are gone.
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
Well, duh! If you ask the company, nobody is "replaced"-- departments just get downsized, and new divisions open up overseas doing the exact same job, but there is absolutely no corelation between the two... no sir!
About a year ago I was working as a contractor for a certain very large hardware/chip company. My immediate manager (an engineer) and über good guy wasn't "replaced" -- he was just sent to India to train somebody how to do his job, and then was send to the "redeployment pool" (laid off) a few weeks later as part of a massive downsizing of the department... nope, no replacement going on here!
Such and insightful and well thought out post from an AC.
The problem doesn't come from lack of innovation, but rather lower end tech-related jobs like tech-support and code monkeys. If you take a look, design jobs are much less likely to be outsourced. I'd like to know how in the world you think that the US is on it's way to third-world status and how WE MADE IT THAT WAY?
Comparing automaking & computing misses out on one thing...
Compared to an automobile factory, there is virually no capital involved in moving shop overseas; compare the cost of setting up a supermarket to selling fruit out of the back of a truck. It's the presence of this expensive capital that gives the workers any power to raise wages & the standard of living.
To make things worse, it takes very little in the way of resources to produce a new army of coder monkeys in some other country, given that they have basic math/science training. So, unlike the auto industry moving to Japan, there is no reason to assume that outsourcing of software production is really going to have a long term positive effect on the Indian ecconomy; in 10 years it's probably going to shift to some other nation.
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
Downs syndrome is caused by a chromosomal abnormality detectable prior to birth.
Seastead this.
CEO's are doing what is in their immediate self-intrest, cutting short term cost, pumping up share price and cashing out. Quality doesn't enter the equation.
Outsourcing is BAD!
No, if you could see clearly, you'd see that oursourcing is really GOOD!
Just upgrade your skills.
Overqualified for available jobs now, before upgrading.
Hey folks, it isn't a black-and-white issue. Trying to cram it into being one is the biggest disservice of all - on both sides.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
And it's not a level playing field. Take, for example, Mexican truckers driving in the US. They are not required to adhere to the same environmental or safety standards as US truckers, so their operating costs are lower. The courts have ruled they don't have to be held to the same levels. This puts US companies at a disadvantage.
It also puts the American people at risk of greater pollution and traffic fatalities. Isn't it logical that those doing business with us ON OUR OWN SOIL adhere to our laws?
Same thing with China. We claim to love freedom, but if we can get our little plastic dinosaurs or laptops cheaper from a place that is essentially a giant slave labor camp, we do it. So we don't really love freedom; we love that we have freedom and that we can get stuff cheap from other countries. It's hypocrisy.
We should withdraw from the WTO and NAFTA until they adhere to the same standards of human rights and environmental protection as the rest of the industrialized world. Or is the life of a Chinese person worth less than that of an American or European?
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
I empathize with technology workers in the US who are afraid of losing or have already lost their job to a third-world country. But it's important to realize that this process of outsourcing is a natural consequence of the enormous gap between the wealth of Americans versus those overseas.
Offshoring creates opportunities for millions of otherwise disadvantaged individuals in countries where incomes are lower than they are in the US. Offshoring boosts their incomes and helps these poor countries become rich countries by funding improvements in their infrastructure and allowing them to access external resources through increased foreign currency reserves.
Also, it is not the case that a job outsourced is a job lost to an American. Oursourcing creates capacity which allows more production of goods and services and therefore supports a larger workforce -- in the US and abroad. Certainly there will be a period of adjustment where some US jobs are lost and seemingly not recreated, but look at what happened throughout the 1990s when manufacturing jobs were lost to cheaper countries. Jobs were created in other areas of the economy and Americans ended up far wealthier than before.
There are six billion people on earth and the vast majority of them are clamoring in the depths of poverty for any kind of upgrade. It's only fair that we share the wealth with them -- or suffer the consequences of a downtrodden, well armed opponent...
Not to sound like a raving protectionist, but I seriously think we'll need to cut back on the number of student visas for this reason -- not "terrorism" (whatever that means).
It used to be that the US was more than happy to import top research talent. America provided the incentives for foreign professionals to stay, to innovate, to accrue wealth, and to contribute to the tax base. (Ironically, one of Ronald Reagan's greatest contributions was a program of government spending -- on scientific and technological research during the Cold War. Quite a bit of technology was developed in academia and consequently spun off into the private sector.)
But lately, in US science and engineering schools, I not only see more foreign-born students, but also more who are headed back to their home countries once their education is complete. Essentially, the US is giving away scientific and technological prowess, which may very well be its most valuable asset. (And you can bet that the recent plunge into deficit spending will hobble America further in this regard as budget cutbacks for education kick in.)
On top of that, the number of premiere non-US universities is growing. The Indian Institute of Technology is one of the top educational facilities on the globe for technology and business management; it rivals MIT and Stanford these days. China, Russia, and Eastern Europe are not far behind either; business schools are proliferating in Poland like mad, for example.
In short, we don't understand the value of what we have at home, and the rest of the world no longer needs it as much anyway. Should we still bother?
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
As anyone who has looked into this issue can tell you, there is not in most cases a one-to-one correlation between an American losing their job, and the job going offshore.
For instance, Microsoft is shutting down a major facility in the US. They are also hiring in India. Will the Microsoft jobs lost in the US be counted as jobs lost to outsourcing? Probably not. That is why the new buzz words are "global sourcing" and "insourcing".
Also, how many jobs are being lost to "American" companys like Cognizant, who do not hire permanant US residents or citizens to work for them, only people on H-1B visas? 30% of Cognizant's 9K headcount work in the US (per the June 7th issue of Newsweek), and according to the Dept of Labor's LCA database the company has 2719 immigrants here on H1-B visas (you do the math).
This issue is not simply them bad us good. American IT workers are getting shut out of the IT labor market, even in our own country. This is not good for anyone. We are wasting our own intellectual capital, which we should be sharing with other countries so IT can be used to bridge cultural and economic divides. People should not have to pretend to be from another country as part of their job requirement. People should not be brought here on temporary visas and be paid less and worked harder than the Americans that work in the next cubicle.
This black and white thinking about this issue is pitting the workers on both sides against each other. The only people who win in that situation are the big guys making millions and millions of dollars to come up with these schemes. We (all IT workers worldwide) created these technologies, and historically we have openly shared and taught everyone so that the technology would thrive. That cooperative spirit needs to come through when thinking about this issue.
www.displacedtechies.com
Now, I'm what you'd call a Reagan Democrat. I even voted for Bush (but probably won't a second time--still need to see about Kerry.)
Well it's time for my soapbox. Instead of considering one corrupt politcal party or the OTHER corrupt politcal party, might I suggest looking at other parties? This country is f'ed up because we have one choice or the other and they BOTH suck. People vote for the lesser of two evils instead of actually thinking about voting for someone they believe in. This country is not going to change as long as Republicans and Democrats have control of our system. If you truly believe in a republican or democrat, then vote for them, but if you feel such indifference towards them that you are that indecisive, then look into some alternatives. They may not win the election, but you at least voted for who you wanted to, not because you were herded into voting for a party.
Coming from the man that has HIV does not cause AIDS - Manto & Thabo in his signature I don't see how the fuck you can get modded up for anything you say.
I'm pretty sure his sig is not there to claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
Surely it's there to criticize President Thabo Mbeki and Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang of South Africa for hiding their heads in the sand and claiming that AIDS is not caused by HIV, while their countrymen are dying around them. (AIDS causes about 40% of deaths in S. Africa!)
I am a recent graduate who found himself in a toilet when it came to getting a job. I have been working in the industry since my freshman year in college. By the time I graduated I had experiences with almost everything: from kernel development, to Java to PHP and system administration. Yet it took me forever to find a job. Now that I am gainfully employed I constantly wach out and see how I remain employed in the coastal United States. Here are my survival tips.
Look for a job where you can get into business-to-business relationships. When you deal with large companies, your job has a higher chance of staying in the States because companies like quality service. Dell was forced to bring its business customer support because managers did not enjoy talking to people who could not assit them in a reasonable manner. Moreover, once you get into B2B, you get to meet a lot of people; if you leave a good impression, some of them could help you out in the future.
If you are stuck with a job that involves receiving specifications over e-mail and then sending the code somewhere else, RUN. Unless you code something that is used for military of the government (meaning you have at least one level of clearance), you job is done. You must get out and do more things. I do not know what things you should do, but you must do something besides being a code monkey.
Learn how to do business; learn how to benefit your current employer or start your own shop. People do not create companies in order to employ more people. Businesses are here to make money. If you show your employers that you can benefit the company, they are likely to keep you closer.
Learn languages, cultures, and traditions. Improve your communication skills and presentability. Being flexible in the global economy is very important. I got my first job only becuase I was the only applicant who spoke fluent foreign language. I could talk and relate to our development team, something that other candidates could not offer. Based on my previous experience, I am going for one more foreign language, my fourth. Staying neatly groomed and socializing with your co-workers helps as well. I would not want to employ a person who is not welcome by the rest of my crew.
I followed these rules and, fortunately, I was able to find different jobs even during the recession. Also, remember whatever does not kill you, makes you stronger. Learn from other peoples' mistakes and do not forget to do so from yours.
Why do you think that poor Americans are less deserving than people in India?
For the record, I was one of those poor moms on foodstamps who believed the lie that you could go to college and learn IT as a trade as way to support your family. I know what poverty is, because I have lived it. It isn't right for anyone anywhere to have to live without electricity, heat and water because they can't afford it, to not know how they will be able to get food for thier babies because they have no money (yes, I have done all of those!) but it is absolutely evil (imo) to say that it is ok for corporations to continue to reap huge rewards by exploiting labor.
I have one question. How are you planning to retire?
- We don't need expensive people who capture requirements.
- We don't need expensive managers to oversee our relationships with the offshored team.
- We can turn on a dime as the market changes.
Bottom line: outsourcing is expensive!
A salesman in a shiny suit came to talk to us about offshoring. The total costs (when you consider the fees he and his chums were charging) were higher than using on-shore programmers.
This is why all the jobs won't go abroad. Just those that were trivial.
I have a couple of friends in investment banks that tell me offshore work is coming back to the UK and that the managers now considered sending it half way around the World an expensive mistake.
You guys in America are stuffed in the short-term, though, 'cos your bosses love management trends (anybody remember downsizing in the early 90s...?). Management in Europe is more circumspect about jumping on the latest band-wagon.
--- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
Why do people fail to understand the "Law of Comparitive Advantage" when the thing being traded is a service instead of a good? Offshoring is trade just like buying lamb from New Nealand and oil from Iraq. In this case we're buying a variety of services from India. Politicians (Bush, Kerry) know this. Yet they tell the people what they want to hear, that offshoring is bad, and wilfully damage the economy in the process. It makes my blood boil.
Yeah, sure. I have seena lot of 'american' code of the 'good quality' programming but full of bugs, and 'good programs' but of very poor quality. What about that, eh? A programmer is a programmer - no matter if he is Indian or not.
OK, the nytimes article says that 182,456 people were laid off in the 1st 4 months of this year. That amounts to 45,614 people a month. This graph shows that the total number of unemployed people in the US at any given time for the past 10 years has been between 6,000 and 9,000 people.
Of the 182,456 people laid off, 4,633 (2.5%) of them lost thier jobs because the job was moved overseas. 4,633 people over four months is 1,158 a month.
According to these numbers, getting laid off is no big deal because most of them get another job immediately. I've been laid off once. It took me 6 months to start working again, and I was laid off in May, read the advertisement for my current job in June. Applied in August, and started working in October.
I should have studied gorilla math in college.
My experience, in Canada, has been that immigrants learn the language of the country they move to, and their children invariably become fluent in the language of the country the move to. Always keep in mind that any new immigrant uprooted their life, left the country, language, culture, environment - in short, everything - they were accustomed to, in order to make a better life. They have proven themselves willing and able to adapt and change. It behooves those already living in the US, or Canada, to accept the cosmetic changes they bring to our society.
As a footnote, you might find learning a few words of another language quite interesting, more than offsetting any malaise you feel about your situation.
The word you were grappling for was COST not COSTED. Something COST you something it did not COSTED you anything.
Got it?
A level playing field would be if the people in India were as free to seek higher-paying jobs in the US as corporations are free to send capital to India.
*That* would be a level playing field.
Don't believe me? Read _Wealth of Nations_ again (what, you haven't read it?)-- Smith *specifically* predicates his theory on the free movement of *both* capital and labor.
We have the former, not the latter; therefore the field isn't level.
-- Cerebus
If you think Goldman Sachs is more reliable than the US Department of Labor, you're completely naive, woefully misinformed, or government conspiracy minded (the 'or' is inclusive).
The Department of Labor, and its Bureau of Labor Statistics is *the* source for employment data in the US. No respectable academic economist would be caught dead quoting a Goldman Sachs 'report', but they'd use (and do use) BLS data without the least hesitation.
The statisticians and econometricians at the BLS are career, non-partisan employees. Their only mandate is to produce accurate data, not sell reports, which *is* Goldman Sachs' only real goal. The White House could influence what a Goldman Sachs report says infinitely more easily than they could with a BLS or DOL report.
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
less than 3% of Q1 2004 jobs were lost to offshoring
So, 3% of all jobs were lost in one quarter, for a 12% annual rate (Yeouch!), or 3% of the jobs that were lost were to overseas (no biggee).
Most reporting of statistics is a waste of time. "Inflation grew by 2% last month". So what's the annual rate? 2%? 24%? Better to ignore it.
People who disagree with you are not automatically evil, greedy, or stupid.
Kerry's plans do not involve banning outsourcing and or constricting the "free market".
Kerry's plan involves taking away tax breaks that make it profitable for US corporations to send jobs.......and other money.....overseas.
This sounds fairly "free market" to me.
Why should the government subsidze US corporations?
Double that point by considering it will be the tax money of outsourced workers paying in part for that corporate subsidy.
I have my doubts about whether Kerry can or will follow through.
However, Kerry has a plan, a plan that doesn't interfere with the free market ideal, and he has promised to try.
The Bush administration has gone on public record via the Washington Post that they have no intention of trying to change anything having to do with outsourcing.
If you vote for Kerry, you/America at least has a chance.
If you vote for Bush you have a guarantee given by Bush that he will not do anything to help you with this issue.
Better make it pay current prices for stuff and have no hope of getting some jobs, or pay twice as much and have no hope of getting any job at all. Ever heard of Cuba? North Korea? That's what happens when a country ignores economic reality and tries to live independently of the rest of the world. There are such things as natural aptitudes. The USA and EU have lots of tariffs and duties to subsidize economic activities for which they have no natural inclination, such as agricutlure, for instance. Why try to produce oranges or sugar, which can be produced at a far lower cost in tropical countries? Why keep the obsolete steel mills in the "rust belt"? Every dollar spent in subsidies is a dollar removed from another, more efficient, activity.
Of course, these arguments are more or less accepted by many
... of the R party is what we used to call the eastern establishment rockefeller liberal wing of the party, back in the 60's and 70's. There was a huge power struggle then, and the traditionalists, who included a lot of the classical non interventionists and business ethics-matter types, lost, bigtime. That eastern establishment wing (your basic military - industrial complex-banking establishment sorts, now roughly classed as the globalists) took over in the 64 election, then re-concentrated their power when they forced bush 1 onto the ticket with reagan. The current occupiers in DC have little, I mean VERY little, in common with the traditionalists, although I will admit they have a lot of misguided fundies sucked into supporting them, based on "endtimes" prophecy and being israel-firsters, but that's actually a low number and they don't have as much influence as they think they do, but the R party will keep their votes anyway, just "because" they can.
At the top, the strings are pulled (speaking of both the D and R party now) by a few large banks and conglomerates, same as it always has been, and the various subgroupings/constituenceies are still being preached to in the exact words they want to hear, to keep up this generational-long congame.
Same old- same old stuff, just this eras version of "ohhh-new shiny so it MUST be improved.." tacked on top.
I'm personally so disgusted with the R party I don't even call myself conservative any more, they even ruined that word, turned it into something bad and noxious, when it used to just stand for honest, decency, small and efficient government, and more basic freedoms. Now I don't know what the heck it stands for other than it's "patriotic" to become a looter nation, and that lying is a commendable lifestyle choice.
As to the word "liberal", that was abused even further, what passes for a defintion now as liberal has nothing to do with a classical liberal from the olden daza. It certainly never meant just wholesale wealth transference to pick up votes, like it means now.
I consider myself now just a traditional Constitutionalist,an independent, with a strict interpretation based on the english words and defintions that were used at the time of the writing of the Constitution. For a very common example, the state of Vermont has the only true implementation of the second amendment, IMO. The federal government sure doesn't, that's for sure.
I would say there's handful left of high ranking pols in both parties who are actual patriots and constitutionalists, but they are a severe minority. Most of the rest are all various flavors of garden variety crooks, IMO.
The good news is, we have developed a huge number of people who have gotten over voting for criminal gang A or B,or have stopped voting entirely, which means there exists a base of *potential* voters and activists who could conceivably take back government from the gangs who run it-some time anyway. It would take quite the grassroots effort to be sure. And there's also a growing number of what are called disaffected voters who used to classify themselves as R or D but are now neutral and looking harder at reality. This is good, and the net sure helps to break the programming and brainwashing that has gone on for years.
... it's worth repeating: Offshoring jobs is no different from importing goods. There is *no* difference between offshoring a call center job to India and buying the computers and phones for a US call center from Hong Kong. In the latter case, you're 'offshoring' manufacturing jobs to Hong Kong. This *is* how international trade works.
You can't be both for free trade and against offshoring.
Oh, and all the arguments about 'level playing fields' and 'fair trade' are recycled protectionist talking points. They've been answered a million times over in all serious discussions about trade issues.
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
You make it sound like programmers from India are automatically less qualified than American programmers. Xenophobic much?
... "Ok, let's see how it looks." ... "Oh, er, um, honestly, we never actually started on it, it was quite complex and, and and, don't worry, we'll get it done next week, we promise."), completely misunderstood specifications ("Why, exactly, did you think a web browser needed to be put into the voice-print engine, but hooks to the actual voice-recognition technology were left out?" ... "We couldn't understand the spec so we thought this would be ok."), or wrote the code for a completely innapropriate platform, despite assurances from thier own managers that they are following our clearly stated platform goals (again, flat out lies).
Honestly it's just experience. I used to assume that Indian programmers were good. I mean we always hear about how truly excellent thier engineering schools are, right? But, In the past three years I've seen three mid-sized companies decide to move thier programming force overseas and watched the quality decline, deadlines stretch further and further away, and massive, MASSIVE failures.
Finally the company finds out that it's sales have shrunk so much due to the loss of clients when things are delivered unfinished, buggy, or, in some cases, built completely on bizarro world where the spec changed magically to a completely different spec in a completely different industry of software that it can't possibly get itself back on track. And I have heard a couple similar stories from co-workers as well.
I have yet to hear or see a case where an Indian programming group isn't vastly underqualified or simply inept, and unable to deliver what it promises to. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I have yet to see it.
What I HAVE seen are flat-out lies ("We finished that part of the code last week."
It clearly isn't Indian people, all of the Indians who were born here or are on H1-B visas that I have met are on the ball and very good programmers. But there is something about the big code-monkey shops that inherently produces inexcusably poor work.
The purpose of an American company is not to make money. Their purpose is to create jobs. That's it. That's the reason the government protects their interests. To make jobs for Americans. Welcome to America, the soon to be Service Industry of the world. Where the rich get richer and everyone else continues to clean their toilets and serve them Slurpees.
To back up your point:
Many economists agree that unemployment consists of three primary types:
Frictional - typical daily layoffs, company closings, etc. Short term, expected and accepted unemployment.
Structural - Skill set is no longer adequate, replaced by a machine, etc. Long term (re-training), expected and accepted unemployment.
Cyclical - Unemployment due to economic business cycles. During a recession this number is positive, during a recovery and boom it may actually go negative (stealing from frictional and structural). This can be long term depending on the recession, but it is not expected nor accepted.
Adding frictional and structural unemployment together many economists argue we should have 5% unemployment that's based alone on two expected and accepted circustances. It's the cyclical unemployment that's bad.
By this measure, 5.6% is actually not bad. Further, inflation is low so the total economic picture is doing well. Add the unemployment and inflation together to get a pain level. Right now we're at under 8% between the two. In some parts of the 1970s we had unemployment and inflation together reach 20%. You don't even want to know what this was at during the depression.
So the economy is doing well. It's not as nice as it was in the 90s, but it's certianly not as bad as it's been in the past century.
Oh, and if you think unemployment is bad, you'd better hope you don't experience high inflation. If inflation goes up to 5% and your bank account only earns 2% then you're losing 3% of you purchasing power every year. If your raises are less than inflation you again are losing money.
We're getting a whole crop of people who see this tiny recession and are acting like chicken little. Study some economics, study history, and perhaps you'll be given a different (more correct) perspective.
-Adam
think of it this way; in germany and japan their people are pissed off at the US for taking all the automotive manufacturing plants away. the US is cheap labor compared to the traditional japanese or german laborer.
examples include honda and bmw and mercedes benz. none of which i would buy if i knew it was made in an american plant.
It's June, 2004, and I can't believe we're STILL arguing the BASICS of this complicated issue on Slashdot. Go to the archives and re-read all the previous threads on outsourcing. We've discussed these issues to death. It's offtopic.
The TOPIC here, is that the Bush Administration produced a report, which includes demonstrably false, and intentionally misleading information, which distorts the magnatude of the problem that this poses for America and our economy. Gee, Bush has never done anything like that before, has he?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Yeah, yeah. Its ok to send a job overseas to take advantage of lower prices, its bound to happen, bla, bla bla. Its their job to do with as they will. Fair enough.
Funny though how its a genuine pain in the ass to open a foreign bank account, or a foreign trading account, or get insurance from a company overseas. Then, its like running into a brick wall. Its ok when its your job, but when its the "little people's" money, look out. Then it becomes a problem.
"First you get the Linux, then you get the power, THEN you get the women"
or the civil service (government). They are so strung for computer-minded people
I did not find that to be the case. Many state governments (at least in the West) have severe budget shortages and hiring freezes. And, I have not gotten much action on federal applications. Insiders say the govmt HR departments get flooded with a jillion IT resumes just like anyone else.
And, the government has weird, arbitrary rules that can drive a lot of slashdotters insane. They have codified many Dilbertian actions into their processes. It is a different world.
As far as the 3% figure, they should also study the growth of outsourcing places overseas, not just local company surveys.
Table-ized A.I.
If someone else can do it cheaper, and you don't let them, YOU WILL LOSE: that's the only sure bet. Check history if you don't believe me; gov't instituted remedies in situations like this just don't work,
Farmers have been getting protection and subsidies for a long time. Why do farmers deserve it more than IT people???
Table-ized A.I.
You can buy and sell IT JOB futures here:
http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=IT
Includes a lot of links to BLS statistics and gives you some idea of whether you will have a job in a few years. If this claim trades above $0.50 then market participants expect the job market to expand; below $0.50 and it is expected to shrink.
Put your (play) money where your mouth is: You can get a high score in this game by predicting the future. If you really think all the jobs are going overseas sell sell sell.
It's kind of an experiment, and a non-profit/academicy/free thing so give it a whirl.
Ummm...yes it is. Ask any small business owner/starter. They don't start a business thinking, "Hopefully someday I'll be able to provide someone else a nice job." They think, "I want to provide MYSELF a nice job. If other people get nice jobs here, that's great too."
Whats next, place tariffs on companies that don't have wide screen TVs and foosball tables in the break room? The standards we are used to cannot be appropriately applied across the globe.
Check out Nicholas Kristof's editorial from earlier this year, "Inviting All Democrats" (free registration required, one of the reasons I currently hate the Times). It is rather insightful.
The link to that article is http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/14/opinion/14KRIS.h tml?ex=1087099200&en=2930bf0207c8f710&ei=5 070 in case slashdot screws up the link again.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
American companies are around for one reason, and one reason only: to make money.
Think harder, if that were true then the Ideal American Company would be duty bound to create a super-flu to kill off the rest of humanity so it can get thier money for no cost. That would net the the MAXIMUM amount of money possible.
Is it really necessary for me to specify "to make money within legal and moral bounds?" Consider it specified.
Companies lobby the government for favorable treatment. Hell, Microsoft pays no federal taxes and it's the most profitable company and yet your mom and pop don't get tax breaks or incentives or abatements. Our conservatives believe in taxing workers, not businesses. In fact, handing them money through sweetheart deals. You're kidding yourself if you don't think businesses don't create "protectionist" policies to help themselves (but not workers, oh, no...)
If corporations have lobbyists, why shouldn't the average joe?
People that believe that protectionist is garbage should revoke all local tax abatements and government research money to corporations. It's a hypocrite that believes in "helping corporations" is okay, but helping people is "protectionist."
Ironically, many of the companies that are willing to exploit the free market to suit thier own purposes and hurt the American economy would scream to high heaven if a rich country were to try and use the free market buy thier goods in the U.S. to save money (Instead of buying thier own local versions of the same thing for twice the price.... region encoding, et al.)
- Because, typically, CEOs sit on the remuneration committee of the execs (or their friends) who sit on his.
- Because the marketing and management bods know that supply and demand curves aren't as the text book shows them (see the myth of the "perfect market" that Munger talks about).
- Because managers earn, say 30% more than their immediate subbordinates. And 30% more than a guy in India doesn't sound appealing. Ergo, there is a human factor that defies economics.
--- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
Oh, so Microsoft outsourced to India when they started working on Windows?
futures market on the impact of offshore outsourcing.
If you think there will be more jobs then buy! if you think there will be less then sell! The current value of the futures market is the market prediction: there will be a net increase of jobs in America, according to the market.
If you think that's wrong sell.
It's play money, for free, all you have to lose or gain is your reputation--your score in the game shows how good you are at predicting the future.
A vote for Nader is a vote for America's Robespierre -- another rigidly uncompromising, righteous man, known for his uncorruptibility and simple living. Such people are far worst than those who are willing to compromise with their opponents.
As one who rather likes open source, but whose job can potentially be offshored, I am having trouble making up my mind about this offshore outsourcing thing. I know there are other differences and complexities. The "free software" advocates want code to be free-as-in-speech, but the momentum is really behind the free-as-in-beer motive. Also, there are some who argue that offshore outsourcing will be detrimental to the US economy as a whole, but those who argue otherwise -- and back their arguments with data -- seem to have the better argument. So the above paragraphs distill the state of my reasoning at the moment. I have trouble seeing how I can favor one and oppose the other.
Please, argue with me.
If I buy components from China or India instead of your company, and your company loses business and you get layed off, I have outsourced your job as part of the global economy. However since I am getting lower cost components and become more profitable, I can hire more people to assemble my product. Then as I realize that other local companies are eating into my business by selling at a very slightly lower price, I now start looking for offshore manufacturing and shift my workers to other jobs required by the additional volume. I become more competitive and profitable, but my local competition loses business and has a layoff. So far I have outsourced your job and the jobs of another local company. Both of these companies had layoffs that were not due to outsourcing.
So far I have outsourced your job and the your company's manufacturing by putting you out of business.
When the Bureau of Labor Statistics asks mine and the two other companies about outsourcing, two of them have lost jobs but not due to outsourcing. I have done outsourcing but have hired some people to help with the additional volume.
Net result of the survey? Few or no jobs have been outsourced, and the jobs that were outsourced did not result in a layoff. So much for government statistics!
In Germany: "GERMANY has been the sick man of Europe for some time, with high unemployment and a stagnating economy. The diagnosis of German economists is unanimous: the labour market is unable to balance supply and demand because of high social welfare benefits and excessive trade union power." Link
Well, the article tries to dispell that "myth", but regardless of the reasons, unemployment in Germany is nearly twice that of the USA (10.3% vs. 5.6%).
Denmark does pretty well (2002) at 5.1%, which is generally considered optimal. Link.
And Canada?, 7.2%
So let's rank:
Stupid sexy Flanders.
What are you talking about? American companies are around for one reason, and one reason only: to make money. They hire GOOD programmers in India CHEAPLY. They save money. Simple as that.
Unfortunately, that is the same attitude that killed so many companies that ended up "Wal-Mart Exclusive" brands.
Not advancing is stagnation. Stagnation is death. ANYONE NEEDING ANY BLACKSMITH WORK THESE DAYS?
I'll read it. Let's slashdot geocities.
;)
Wish I had kept mine I wrote back in junior high, this was just before the beatles by a couple of years IIRC, where I predicted the collapse of the social security system. what a hoot. I think I still type just as bad, too
big companies have the money to pay representatives to enact laws on their behalf, and the muscle to underprice competitors or make the barrier to entry high enough to keep others out. (Collusion is also a possibility, as in vitamins and carbon black). Antitrust law is supposed to address this, but if it isn't enforced, then it really isn't there.
The relation between money in high concentration and law is one problem. The ability to drive your competitors out of business without consequence is another. Both put a wrinkle in the ability of competition to better serve customers.
If men are selling their own shirts for $5.
How much would it take to get a woman to sell her shirt?
paintball
You know, you're right. If we don't outsource, we'll just curl up and die. We can't be competetive that way.
Just like Japan. Remember when they didn't outsource, and instead kept their businesses and focused on quality? It was the downfall of their society. Just look at them now.
Those poor Japanese and their isolationist ideas. When they didn't outsource, their society went into a tailspin. They couldn't get cheap unintelligeable services from India or cheap crap from China! What were they thinking? How were they supposed to survive? No innovation! No advancement! No chance to be a world leader in anything! Nothing. Now all that is left of that large island is just burned out neo-cities where clowns fight neo-samurai bike gangs, and the walking starving beg for the tiniest husks of dried bread and water (If only a young child could lead them out of ruin, say, by becoming the next emperor, bah, it is just a dream). If they had only opened the markets and seen what cheap worldwide labor could have done for their society, they wouldn't be the poor, pitiful, Third-World nation that only produces rice and shower flip-flops. If they only advanced their ideas to include crappy, out-of-touch world labor that can't be understood over the phone, they would have advanced robot dogs, cell phones that look like aquarium fishm, and shiny cities to live in.
But no. They isolated themselves. Even did a naval blockade. That starved em out.
I think we can all learn a lesson from Japan. This is what you get for not outsourcing.
>> to open a foreign bank account, or a foreign trading account, or get insurance from a company overseas
Blame this on money laundering and other patriot act related federal laws that foreign banks and insurance companies do not want to deal with.
Have you been to Wal-Mart lately?
Life in Orange County
You're right - we should get all our news from the non-partison Fox News Network. IN-Sourcing is nothing more than crap sold by the right-wing and corporations to make you believe that everything is OK. IN-Sourced jobs do NOT make up for the type/income level of the jobs being out-sourced.
No, my point is that by enforcing tariffs as a strict policy on countries that have opressive labour systems, we encourage the countries to treat their labour forces better. If indecent working conditions are not good enough for Americans, then Americans should not be profiting off of such conditions. All I'm saying is that basic human rights should be expected of nations who wish to profit off of Western capitalism.
We pay a buncha people in India and China a little bit of money to do all our work, and we all sit around and watch bad TV.
paintball
They probably said "How many people were replaced?" without seeing "How many hires did you have?" "How many were offshore?" .. that would give you a better idea of the numbers.
meh
"Excuse me but zero jobs should be lost to overseas workers. You know why? Because companies that do this should be taxed to hell and back for doing it. Make it so fucking unattractive that the companies will NEVER even consider a foreign worker cheaper than a US native. I have a feeling that the person currently running the show wouldn't ever think of THAT. Remember he's optimistic about furthering his "base" of the "have mores".
"
What right do you or the govt have to tell someone how to run their business, and who they can hire. As well as attacking a fundamental freedom of people, in practice what you suggest will make American businesses less competitve, and therefore instead of only losing jobs to overseas workers, we'll lose whole companies to overseas companies. We need a flat tax system so the government can't shove social policies down our throats by manipulating taxes.
Vote for Pedro
--that is pretty accurate, I'll accept it for the most part. I have a scosh more nationalism and states-rights in me though, but it's close enough. For example, I don't see a little saner protectionism policy to be all that bad, as well as restricting immigration to only the legals. I am aware that a more global economy is here and coming more, I think we should mitigate it's effects on the US middle class more, ie, giving tax breaks to corps to offshore is kinda ill advised, and not insisiting on quid quo pro tariffs at the border is just plain nuts. Stuff like that.
I feel for people who've lost jobs -- my wife lost hers, twice, and several of my friends did as well. But you know what? It keeps the labor market dynamic. "Well, if this is dynamic, I want none of it!" Sorry, but that's a kneejerk reaction: if people overseas can do it cheaper, and maybe even better, WE HAVE TO LET THEM. If we don't, then some day they'll come along and simply overpower us, because they -aren't- stagnant. Look at what happened (say) to American automakers when they were dismissive of Japan! How about textile workers? It's part of being in a global economy. Unless we wish to become entirely self-sufficient and isolationist, we HAVE to learn to do well what we do well: innovate, create jobs, create wealth and opportunity. But don't try to bail out a tepid economy with finger pointing and a leaky pot.
Thats fine to say when you have 15 years of experience in the industry and a lot of contacts btu for the generations below you. We hate you so much words cannot express it. IT seems very obvious to us you all sold us out to keep yourselves going. All the "entry level" jobs have evaporated. We're stuck in dead in end low payign jobs so that you can have a "dynamic" job market.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
In Tokyo you can get fiber to your place of living for less than you can get a T1 with a fraction of the bandwidth in the US. And yet our communications companies threaten to hold hostage development and expansion in order to blackmail the government over regulation. Fiber to the home? Not for ANY amount of money in most of the US, unless you're lucky to live in a place where the government saw that captialism had failed in this particular venture, and did the work itself.
This is density fo subscriber issue. For them it's just 1 extra 10m line for 40 subscribers in the same floor of the appartment complex. To the American firm it's runnign 1km of cabel from the nearest node to support 1 subscriber.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
can you explain what makes "rational" self interest more "rational" than something like "rational group interest"? Rand's philosophy is nothing more than a (horrible) value system presented in the guise of logic.
Unfortunately, that is the same attitude that killed so many companies that ended up "Wal-Mart Exclusive" brands.
Not advancing is stagnation. Stagnation is death. ANYONE NEEDING ANY BLACKSMITH WORK THESE DAYS?
The economy and companies will try to get away with as much as they can, once they push us past certain spots we will react they will have to come back. The whole GM foods thing is that sort of deal. I don't think GM foods are bad but the market reacted negativly to them so it shrunk back from open adoption of somethign that woudl have savd money. As a tech worker I believe protectionist policies woudl be great. BEcause we can still grab allt he talented peopel from india but now they have sowrn allegence ot America, pay taxes and contribute code here and not in india.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
IT's language barriers and inept management. Thats always been the issue. but these things tend to get smoothed over in time. As their culture grows to mroe resemble the target markets and langauge skills come up to par.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
We know you're kooky, but could you tone it down some. Just focus on winning the election for Pres. Bush.
cheers,
RNC
--
This is a joke not a real memo for the clue impaired on google, so I better not see this on your blog
Of course corporations aren't people; I never said they were! They are, however, groups of people. If you attempt to restrict the manner in which groups can operate, you are limiting the freedoms of the individuals in said groups. Are not CEOs and shareholders american citizens as well? If you have the right to switch purchasing one product to a cheaper one, shouldn't a group of people have the same right?
Any jerk can stand up for his own freedom, but it takes a real American to stand up for the freedoms of the men he despises. By shouting 'Corporations aren't people,' you're simply refuting a statement I never made, and ignoring the fact that corporations are run by and for shareholders, who are most definately people.
If the idea out outsourcing really bothers you, instead of using the government to force your beleifs on others, why don't you and a bunch of your buddies either start your own outsourcing-free company, or just buy up all the stock in a company and appoint your own people to the board of directors? I'll tell you why - it's much easier to criticize others for a perceived problem than it is to take matters into your own hands.
My blog
If you compare Tokyo to the ten or so most densely populated US metros, it wouldn't be that much of a cost difference. Obviously he isn't implying that a guy in Alfred Kansas or something should be able to get fiber to the home, but a guy in Manhattan or Lincoln Park should be able to.
Smith was a hack lik Marx. Read Keynes.
What would a 16th/17th centry philosopher know about 21st centry economics. Keynes was more on the ball about economic systems. Smith only represents an idealogy and was a teacher while Keynes got filthy rich on his and was a investor.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
How prevalent is offshoring? To listen to the anecdotes, it much be the number one practice in the US. But I suspect the reality is different. We did have a huge downturn at the dot.bomb crash, and we did have a lot of companies look at drastic cost cutting measures. But is it still going on?
This study cites 3%. When you think about it in reference to the unemployment figures, that's a HUGE number. It isn't downplaying the impact of offshoring. But it's still rather small on the whole.
Have we become so addicted to bad news that we favor anecdotes over research? Do we hate Bush so much that we cannot accept that our lot is not so dismal as the media portrays it? I don't want to downplay the impact of offshoring, but the past four years were NOT a replay of the Great Depression.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Did you ever think to ask how US companies got to the level they are? US industry did not grow up with these standards; rather, the economy grew to the point where the US could afford them. Look back at the Industrial Revolution, the child labor, the lack of workers' rights, the robber barons, etc.
Give these countries time to catch up. Eventually, the standard of living will rise to where they can afford these standards as well. Expecting them to immediately meet our standards is denying our own history.
Yes, we may lose some companies and jobs. The producers are "harmed". But the consumer benefits from the lower prices (whether the "consumer" is an individual or a company). We lose track of these benefits because of their distributed nature. Remember your basic economics.
A good example of this can be seen in the steel consumers in the US under our recent protective steel tarrifs. They argued that their losses due to having to use more expensive steel were much greater (see this study by the Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition), and that their job losses from the protectionism were higher than the jobs saved for the steel industry.
U.S. isn't exactly held in high regard around the world
This is often related to out sourcing. If a western factory beat you and made you work 18h a day to make shoes for an american market. I'm sure you'd hate them and America too.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
This post will probably get lost in the chatter in this thread. But I feel compelled to try anyway.
The fact of the matter is, we haven't had a true "Free Market" in the USA for nearly a century. IMO, I'm fine with allowing for outsourcing in the name of free markets, so long as we make the market free again. That means, no more subsidies/bailouts/protectionism for ANY industries. If a "Free Market" is good for the economy and it's okay to send IT/IS/Programming jobs overseas, I say it's fine for everyone else too.
That means:
No more airline bailouts.
No more railroad bailouts.
No more S&L bailouts.
No more farming subsidies.
No more unions dictating wages/conditions/whatever with the force of law.
No more requirement that tradesmen do the apprentice thing.
No more tarrifs protecting steel/auto/sugar/whatever industries.
No more perpetual copyrights.
No more laws protecting ANY industry or ANY business model, WITH NO EXCEPTIONS.
Do that, and I'll have no trouble whatsoever with offshoring. In the current "market", I don't think it's unreasonable for people to complain when thier jobs get sent overseas. They look around and fully half of the people they see work in protected industries. Equal protection and all that....
Being libertarian-minded, I would actually preffer going back to a free market. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime though. Too many people with too much money are fighting tooth and nail to make sure that doesn't happen.
This is only flamebait to an ultra-conservative ASS.
The poster is correct and on topic.
Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
I Hate \.
Remember, these kids aren't starving because these societies have no conception of human rights. They are starving because they are poor. Shaking our fingers at them won't fix that problem.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
It isn't just the number of jobs.
It isn't just the total income.
It is whether there are enough jobs at a sufficient payrate for enough people.
When jobs get "off-shored" the job is gone and the income is gone BUT the opening has been filled.
So, corporate profits go up, but the wealth ends up concentrated in a few individuals. This is BAD for the country.
One person with $1 million does NOT support the economy the same as one thousand people with $100,000 each.
I wouldn't call it "treason", but it is working against the common US citizen.
real as in for losers and whiners.
9 years of college down the drain and I'm a whiner and loser. Well, your a prick.
If you are stuck with a job that involves receiving specifications over e-mail and then sending the code somewhere else, RUN.
Oddly porn web dev meets this specification. But oddly the work is still pretty stable. I guess porn site owners don't liek to speak to Indians.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
No sarcasm here: this is brilliant. Mod this guy up.
The problem is that none of us know all the facts. We all argue, bash this guy and bash that guy without knowing all the facts. We are merely reacting to articles being posted and the sad truth is that we will NEVER learn all the facts. However my opinion generally speaking is that companies outsource for many reasons: 1) To save on overhead 2) To save on taxes 2) To make money 3) To generate more profits Even if the healthcare system were to improve, do you really think that those companies are not going to outsource. They will outsource even if their pofits jump 200% year after year. The goal behing every company is to make money and NOT to create jobs, if you don't believe that, you live in wonderland. Stop nagging and if you want to create more jobs, established a small company, spend about $100,000 in office space, salaries, etc. etc. and create more jobs. Outsourcing has exsited for years and years, it is only now that we are waking up to it and why? Because of the bad economy. The economy isn't doing bad because of outsourcing, the economy (and thus jobs) isn't doing well because of the fear instated by the media. The fear of everything, war, terrorism, gangs, deseases, vaccines, the colored alert system and the list goes on and on and on... You want to improve the economy, quit being afraid, go about your life, smile and be happy.
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
The best way of saving American jobs isn't by shutting our borders and going back to the 1920's, it's by reducing the cost of health care and enacting tort reform to prevent frivolous lawsuits, both of which would decrease the regulator burdens that make it very hard to add new employees and be able to pay them well.
The best way to save america is to kill all the baby boomers so they won't drain the GNP. This slump is entirly yoru fault for not having enough babies and gettign old. So I think you should die.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Ok, let's extend that to it's logical conclusion. The idea is that we convert something abundant into products, thus negating the need for workers, but at the same time, only someone rich enough to buy a factory can do this. So, lets say we got rid of all jobs and simply converted air into the products we needed. The problem is, that no one can afford the products because they no longer have jobs. So, they all starve. What's wrong with that?
Of course, it will probably never get that bad, but it's going in that direction. In fact, what I just described is similar to the 3rd world, where there are a bunch of rich people, and a lot of porr people who can't afford anything, and are unemployed.
... there was a country which valued progress and efficiency above all else. They organized their social structure to permit as much or more freedom to produce and innovate as anyone on the planet.
Wave after wave of new technologies were born there, exploited to the fullness of their possibilities, and then displaced by Something Better.
They were the envy of the world.
Inevitably, other countries took the lesson to heart and tried to become more competitive -- some with slaves, some with forced standardization, some with automation. The little world's productivity increased by leaps and bounds.
But eventually, inexorably, the world's needs were met by smaller and smaller numbers of individual producers, due to the ever-increasing advances in productivity and efficiency. In many industries, actual human labor was completely eliminated.
And the little world's socio-economic system, which depended upon the exchange of human labor for the essentials of life, became very unstable.
As the pool of available jobs shrank, countries began to compete for jobs instead of competing to produce more with less, because they had come to equate jobs with riches. This was in stark contrast to the wide availability of riches and the scarcity of jobs to produce those riches.
Under the system that allowed people to procure riches by exchanging their labor, the shrinkage of the jobs pool meant that people lacked money to maintain their socio-economic class, and large numbers drifted into poverty. The social structure was reshaped as everyone in the family acquired menial low-paying jobs in order to try and hang on to their positions in the scheme of things.
This happened because the changes did not take place smoothly and gradually, but rather with increasing rapidity and severity. People became selfish and mean, in the midst of plenty.
Eventually tensions became high enough that the disgruntled people sought war as a means of venting their frustrations at things being different than they once were.
And indeed, things were different. Countries that once had a thriving middle class were turned into banana republics as the wealth aggregated among the upper classes and the redistribution of wealth slowed and then stopped.
And in the end, when nobody really needed to work anymore, poor amidst a cornucopia of production, the disgruntled factions made war against each other with WMD and everybody died.
And no one lived happily ever after...
Hmmmmmmm... Good deal.
What this overlooks is the power your company has over you when you sign NDAs and other IP rape agreements. What are you left with when you have given GE your all and trained your successors better than anyone else in the world? They own your body of work and will prevent you from competing against it with a gang of lawyers. Just the mention of impending legal action is enough to ruin your business.
Free software takes care of this problem nicely.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Not advancing is stagnation. Stagnation is death. ANYONE NEEDING ANY BLACKSMITH WORK THESE DAYS?
:)
I know a couple of blacksmiths. I'm an apprentice as a hobby, actually. In the right market, they do very well. My master was a specialty shoer out west. He was actually able to make almost lame horses walk again. The other one is nationally acclaimed and has pieces in the Smithsonian.
Point being, watch what you say.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Oh, cry me a river. I got my start during a recession, with no college diploma. I'm sorry, but I worked five years in a bakery, and did contracting jobs for another five, slowly, arduously working my way up the IT ladder. I don't begrudge people who do it the "right" way by going to school and starting out with contacts, but I sure didn't do it that way, and I don't want to hear it when people whine about how hard it was for them. If you don't like IT: GET OUT. Others will be glad to fill your shoes.
Wrong, the majority of profits are not handed back to workers, in fact, many stocks give no dividends back to stock holders at all. Only those who are rich enough to own a majority share get to dip into profits, many times through highly illegal or unethical means. Shareholders typically make money off growth. But, there's a catch, while free trade is highly profitable, it's NEGATIVE growth. If people lose their jobs, then eventually the value of a stock goes down, since the consumer base goes down as more jobs are eliminated.
Votes mean more than cash? You do know that Clinton started free trade, and that the decision for NAFTA was passed 99-0 in the senate? Ok, now we're talking about 99 to 0, who the hell am I supposed to vote for? Cash reigns supreme, and has essentially bought all of our candidates. That's "democracy".
I haven't seen Hunt's column. Eventually I'll get around to getting a subscription to the WSJ. However, there is one hidden fallacy that I can think of in your argument. And that is, you are assumnig that the same amount of people fit into the labor and capital categories. My dad was a store owner, that was eventually put out of business by Walmart, Kmart, and other "marts". He would have been classified under "capital". Today, all of those storem owners that were classified under "capital" don't exist, and instead, all of that capital income goes straight to the top of the Walmart food chain. That's just one example. So, there are fewer and fewer getting that 15%, while more and more scrape for the 55%. That's one possible fallacy. The other is that capital is spending less than ever, since many jobs are offshore, and at the same time, labor is spending more, due to things like the housing bubble, inflated car prices, etc. So, while expenses are getting cheaper for the rich, they are going up for the poor and middle class. This mechanism has resulted in a 15% transfer the nations total assets to the top 1% in the last 20 years. But, according to Hunt and his chart, it all looks great.
Thats fine that you worked to get there, I did too. I also spent a fortune to educate myself. theres no garentee of return but I can bitch all I like about it. and I can also throw my support behind policies that might change this.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Legal bounds matter for sure, but "moral bounds" don't seem to affect any company after its IPO. Even legal bounds are incorporated into the equation by estimating the penalty and the probability of getting caught. :)
Theres also a personal note. My Gf was unable to find a IT job and got shipped back to her home country. Thats been a source of heart ache for me as well.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
That being said, a nice business owner will of course try to ensure that all of his employees are happy. It is, as a you said, what a moral person would do. However, starting a business with the goal of providing a place where you employ happy, well-paid workers isn't gonna get you far...soon those happy, well-paid workers will be unhappy, formerly well-paid unemployment recipients if your business isn't making money.
It's fine for you to support whatever policies -- whether you've thought them out or not -- that you feel so inclined to support. Go for it. But hating me for taking your entry-level job? That's just plain stupid. My entry level job was at a f***ing BAKERY. Might as well blame everyone who ever got a job before you. Sounds like you've got a fine, fully-developed case of "blame-itis." As for selling out, I'm not sure what you mean: I currently work at a startup, where my future is anything but certain, all in the hope that a) I make some money, and b) that we grow a company that -- gasp -- can employ people and make cool product! I've also worked HARD to get people hired (both here and elsewhere), and have had some degree of success. Now, if you are still anxious to blame someone you've never met for all your life's ills, I suggest taking up religion, too: the devil's a real baddy, he is!
Of course that happens, there are 'bad' people in control of companies as well as 'good' people. Of course I wouldn't condone a company shipping toxic waste to a front company in a 3rd world country, where it is then dumped into the ocean.
Actually, I recommend avoiding NDAs. Got any ideas yourself? I doubt it, seeing as you don't make your living in Engineering and are still wet behind the ears.
For self improvement, I've headed back to graduate school in an area that no one else wants anything to do with, Nuclear. My last job with a fortune 500 company was a real eye opener, however, and I'm afraid that I've wasted my time.
Fortune 500 companies, especially technical ones, have not hired people for decades. The last place I worked was filled with people over 50 in entry level positions who were routinly working 60 hour weeks. I've heard and seen this is true in other areas such as aerospace. I fear that these companies are dumb enough to think they can put their IP into place like India and have everything work out for them.
Current anti-competitive technology laws, such as DMCA, have the ability to reach back into all forms of engineering and design. Jobs lost to consolidation and outsourcing will never come back if people are not allowed to compete.
Someone who graduated with a BS last year should not be so cock sure about the future. That goes double for a Mac programmer who's tools and toys could be sent to Hyperbad tomorrow. Seeing that you are, in real life, an English teacher in France for a living, I wonder what you think you have to offer engineers on this subject. Do you have a real interest in this or do you just have fun trolling Slashdot with flames?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Remove what entries from what table? There's just a checkbox or radio buttons in their web interface (in the newest firmware) which disables NAT. That's it. I don't remember the exact model number we tried.
We did, actually. we tried three different pieces of crap routers, all of which had some limitation that made them unusable in this situation. We tried a 3com office connect, which if you disabled NAT would cease to do any packet filtering (like the linksys), and a Netgear, which had no way to disable NAT. Netgear's tech support (also in India), said it was not possible to disable NAT on this particular model we tried but it was possible to disable NAT on a higher model router of theirs, one which was more expensive and not sold in any nearby retail stores. I could have ordered one and installed it later, but given my prior experiences with routers of this type there's a good chance we'd run into some limitation that made the thing unusable. Or maybe their tech support is just flat out wrong.
Because that's the option the customer chose (for cost and time constraint reasons). I told them of a much costlier 3com box that I knew would do everything they needed, but it was beyond their price range.
Of course I charge for my time. And I charge whether I'm setting up a linux machine or a linksys embedded box.
No. But if only we chose the Netgear box, then I would have gotten to come back to fix that backdoor password Netgear left in. And then I would have gotten to come back again a week later after it was discovered that the "fix" was simply to change the backdoor password to something else.
Some companies will "double-dip" -- save time by launching a project with a half-baked specification, then save money by using offshore IT development. Senior managers love to congratulate themselves for innovative cost-cutting ideas like this. Ironically, we NEED this to happen every once in a while, just to create a market for solving the problem. If there were no fires, who would hire a firefighter? Here we have senior management playing the role of a kid who has just discovered the thrill of playing with matches. Let 'em play.
Whenever there is a problem, there is also opportunity. The opportunity for local IT is to:
By the same idea, my entry level job was filling order at a fucking warehouse. or Working at a theatre. the bakery was a job. not your entry level job into IT. Just as my Warehouse job wasn't either. On a dumb note, the Warehouse paid exactly the same as what I make now. Although I took a pay cut to take this job at first.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Due to loss of farming jobs. Current models predict that while currently %70 of jobs in America are based on farming. Millions and millions of jobs will be lost to automation.
:P
So isn't that a shame? Shouldn't we saved all those jobs and shutdown the industrial revolution?
So for a more modern day example, people were whining bitterly when the last Levi's plant went over seas. How many people here at Slashdot want to work in a Levi's plant? How many people here want their kids to work in a Levi's plant?
Yeah, I didn't think so. We'll find other better things to work on. Don't worry people, the market dynamics guarantee that offshoring will make us richer.
Have you visited an engineering department in a fortune 500 company lately? All you will see is grey hair. The average age of engineers in sectors like aerospace is 55 years old. They have not been hiring people for decades. When these people retire without replacement, they won't be counted as lost to offshoring but the job will be gone.
Offshoring research, development and engineering coupled with strict anti-competitive IP laws is an evil solution the greedheads are contemplating. For decades, these companies have been using graduate level slave labor from foreign countries to get their research done. Been to graduate school lately? You will live off less than 8k a year. Training the same talent abroad is the next step. The DMCA and similar laws and red tape will keep everyone but big dumb companies out of the market.
It's also a dissaster for the US. With all our know how abroad, what will the US have left but a big military? How long do the greedheads think that military will be able to keep it's edge while GE, Lockheed, Boeing and other contractors are getting research done somewhere else? Anti-competitive laws will enslave us, force us to enslave others and ultimately ruin us. It's all very unAmerican and companies that go this way have already destroyed what the US stands for.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Yes, that's true. It's also what I meant and I'm sorry what I wrote could be read both ways.
I wish that the Labor Department were trying to inflate the figures instead of ignore them. They are, like you denying that a problem exists.
Lets get the government out of business - yes that means that some companies will outsource some of their labor.
I'm all for getting government out of business. We can start with reforming copyright law, the DMCA and other anti-competitive crap that keeps free men from working and makes it possible for big, inefficient companies to exist and use slave labor in China. "Consolidation" and "Downsizing" are not accidents, they are a direct result of government interference in the economy.
Keep smoking, DRue. People as smart, well mannered and helpful as yourself deserve all the benefits cigarettes bring.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Why the distinction between dividends and share repurchases (a signficant reason for the growth). As long as you can sell (and realize the capital gains) it doesn't matter (except in relation to taxes which favored the share repurchases until recently). I highly doubt that any 401k holder cares if they get 10% capital gains, or 8% cap gains and 2% dividens or 2% cap gains and 8% dividends. They are mostly concerned with the overall return.
In matters of sufficent severity (ie the share of labor dropped to 40% or something similar, there would be a tremendous voter turn out and assuming voting mechanisms continued to function there would be huge turnover in Washington.
I'm sorry that your dad lost his store, that really stinks.
But my basic premise is that the vast majority of owners of most companies are folks like you and me (through pensions and retirement savings). You made a good choice in bringing up Walmart as they are one of the few companies that maintains a large individual owner (the Walton children). Most companies are almost entirely owned by companies like mutal funds, life insurance companies, or banks (asset management banks) who are all really just holding the money for their wealthy and not so wealthy clients.
Incidentally, you would probably agree with most of what he has to say (he's the token liberal on the Journal's op ed page like Safire on the NYT op-ed).
Please note that I was refering to income. Of course the wealthy will become wealthier (they usually got that way by living below their income level) and compound returns are pretty impressive no matter how wealthy you are. Also most of labor benefits from higher home prices, as they own a home.
Labor benefits from lower priced goods and services that are imported, and companies wouldn't import cheap crap if customers placed any value on quality (believe me WalMart knows more about what sells than any other bricks and mortar retailer) and they found that there was a smaller than 10% premium that people would pay for a good to be made in the US (presumably at higher quality). Some of the blame for imports must lie on customers shoulders as well.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
The bureau has always taken companies at their word. Are you going to pay for them to audit American companies for labor statistics? ... It isn't worth it.
With several easily found private studies already done, you could say the BLS should not have done anything. The least you should demand, if they do decide to waste your money, is that they live up to the standards set by those private firms.
How are the basic studdies at the local Community College going? Got your EE or CE yet? I'd recommend CE because state government has not figured out outsourcing yet and it's tough to do that kind of work without visiting the site.
Because a statistically significant number of companies are scared to reveal the truth they will lie to the gov't about how many people they are offshoring?
No, because the issue is a political football punted by Kerry. It's probable that the Bush administration wants to lower the numbers to protect itself from the attack, regardless of situation. You can read my other posts to see what I think of the issue, but I doubt either parties has a clue.
Yes, you will find deep, deep cynicism from a man who's been out of work for more than 18 months.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If you really believe in personal freedoms - you gotta side with Bush on this one. Companies ought to be able to do what they please within the law. [my emphasis] Personal freedoms for companies? Sorry, you mean free trade. (Yes, I'm aware that corporations are "legal persons" in the USA. But that's a contingent legal fact.)
Are you adequate?
An American invented the VCR.
Key word here is An: "one". How many thousands of people are losing their jobs? And you think they'll all have some profound invention to sell?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I don't understand why people are complaining about offshoring now. We've been offshoring for a very long time. We have always brought intelligent people from other places in the world to Silicon Valley. Why do you think there are so many Indian people in the Bay Area?
We should be celebrating now because we have learned how to do it more efficiently. Instead of paying an expensive wage to bring Indians to the US, now we cheaply bring the office to India. This saves companies a lot of money, which can be used to create new jobs.
I think it's funny that people complain about sending "American jobs" overseas. Wake up. Those jobs were never yours. They would have been filled by Indians anyway.
Note: I used Indians only as a popularly understood example. Please do not intrepret this as a post for or against Indian workers.
What about when you look at places like the US? US Heatwaves, specifically:
And as for jumping into bed with dictators! Christ, who do you think puts them in power before France or anybody else has a chance to get into bed with them?
Do yourself (and us) a favour by reading about the 1963 coup in Iraq, when the CIA backed Saddam against Abd-al Karim Qasim, the then nationalist leader of Iraq.
Your ignorance shames you.
T&K.
Political language
He'll be running against Emmanuel Goldstein. The major topic with be the war against East Asia. No wait, the war against Eurasia.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
If you don't like globalization, quit complaining and do something about it.
1. Support PACs that support your views. I hate this idea, however, it is how the system works. It is easier to change a system from within than it is to go against it.
2. Vote with your wallet. In the end, companies have to support shareholders and consumers. If consumers stop buying cheap imported goods, companies will stop producing them. Shareholders do not like supporting companies that do not sell goods that they produce, no matter how efficiently they produce them. There was a great article in Business 2.0 about Wallmart and Masterlock. Masterlock employees were buying goods at the local Wallmart. Wallmart sold more expensive Masterlocks, and cheaper locks made in China. In order for Mastlock to remain a vendor at Wallmart, they had to bring their prices down. Masterlock moved their manufacturing operations off shore to cut costs, and laid off their employees. It is a cycle. Stop it.
3. You are a shareholder, VOTE! I am tired of hearing the "lets unionize garbage". Most companies that I know of state that they are doing things for "shareholder value". Heck, your retirement fund (if you have one), is probably a major stakeholder in the company. Get organized, exercise your shareholder rights; they have more power than any union ever did.
4. Vote in your government elections. In the end, officials get into office due to how many votes they get.
Personally, I think that globalization is a good thing, and I am using my shareholder rights to promote it.
Fine screw the whole stick thing and lets go with the carrot.
What can Americans provide as an incentive to corporations to convince them to not sell things overseas? And please, don't say "innovation" or "skill", its not like many of the people getting jobs there weren't trained at American universities. Not everyone in the US is Thomas Edison (or one of the many people he "outsourced" much of his inventiveness to).
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Outsourcing is merely a product of freedom. If you want to stop outsourcing, make employees in the United States more competitive on the world market. We can do this by:
(1) Lowering or eliminating employer taxes. That's right, companies have the pay the government for the right to hire someont to work for them.
(2) Lowering or eliminating employee taxes. With lower taxes, employees will be willing to work for less.
(3) Reducing regulations surrounding employment. While employers are spending money scrambling to find ways to immunize themselves from RSI injury lawsuits, they are spending untold billions to consultants and for expensive products. This is one example of many thousands.
(4) Reducing the cost of living by reducing the cost of goods. The only way government can do this is by lowering taxes and by reducing regulations.
(5) Increase the value of our employees. Make reading a requirement for elementary school graduation. Make generally useful skills in the workplace (ethics, responsibility, hard-work, good attitude) requirements for high school graduation. Encourage studies in colleges, trade schools, and universities in math, science, engineering, and other profitable areas. Discourage the politicization of our college campuses and keep the focus on teaching and training. Make the cost of obtaining an education cheaper with less regulation and lower taxes.
When hiring someone in the United States is cheaper and more profitable than hiring someone in India, then we will stop outsourcing. President Bush is no more responsible for this phenomena than the Tooth Fairy is responsible for the bombs being dropped in Hiroshima.
In short, instead of complaining, compete!
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
(For others - This is the Best Practice analysis - the rest of you morons can drown in your "Outsourcing isn't as bad as that rhetoric"
To further this discussion.
What happens when there are negative externalities inflicted into the production system.
For example in the US - we inflict the cost of healthcare, retirement, clean air, worker safety, paternal leave, and the bulk of taxation on those who Produce goods whether they are sold here or not - while we inflict importers with little more than the obligation to say a few nice words about the environment and they are free to sell into a "hands off" consumption market.
If the United State would merely shift the external social costs (tax, retirement, healthcare) to forms of taxation which impacted foriegn goods as well as domestic production - then much of the rest of these comments would bear out - we could benefit by trade, and compete in those global markets in which we excel.
AIK
The report claims that less than 3% of Q1 2004 jobs were lost to offshoring.
Oddly enough, the number of mass layoffs in '03 where no reason for the layoff was reported, a continually growing portion of the mass layoff data, has more than doubled in 2003 over 2002. And the 2003 numbers are not complete yet.
The number itself more than doubled in the five years between 1997 and 2002. It is the only continually increasing annual number in the available range of data. For 2003, this mysteriously unexplained portion accounts for 12.1% of the layoff data set; 2.5 times the portion it represented in the 2002 data and 3.5 the portion it represented in the 2001 data.
So why are corporations suddenly so much less willing to indicate why they are laying off workers? Could it be because the reasons are unsavory?
And don't forget, BLS data does not include layoff events of less than 50 people. Which itself is larger than some of the companies that I've worked for.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
If nothing else, votes moving to another party will finally force the two major parties to begin taking sides again. It's pretty silly to watch elections boil down to mud-slinging because the only other option is making vague statements on policy -- it seems like some politicians just don't want to take up the issues and instead appear "smarter" or "friendlier" and smear mud on the other guy. This isn't a popularity contest, this is a contest of policy, if you ask me.
Cheers
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
You solve problems of dishonest reporting by asking more than one interested party. Some obvious flaws of the reporting method were listed in the NYT article, the most important one being creation of an overseas job that did not "directly" lead to a lay off. Private companies may have sampled the recently laid of workers and asked their opinion. I don't really know. Given two or three private studies that agree with personal experience and one, admittedly undercounting government study it's easy to pick one over the other.
Congratulations on your academic progress.
It's the combination of anti-competitive IP laws and outsourcing that has me worried. I'm not really scarred of outsourcing on it's own. I can deal with other people being able to do my job and I don't think big dumb companies that offshore are efficient. Laws that would keep me from competing regardless of what know are what gives me nighmares. I'm afraid that laws like that are what's behind the "consolidation" large US companies and is why whole sectors of the US economy, such as automobiles and steel, are not competitive. There are many forms of "protectionism" and they don't just work against foreign companies.
Things are picking up and even I might get a job soon if the price of oil does not shut everything down. It's predicted that the economy will be back to 2001 employment levels by November. I still don't see US manufacturing recovering.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Japan's auto industry beat us precisely because they did NOT open their markets to US competition. Instead, they let their government subsidize their autos. We could learn something from that.
This my friends is the crux of the matter.
Agreed.
One thing we must understand is that the cost of living in the United States is so high that we literaly CAN'T AFFORD (monitarily speaking) to compete with off-shore jobs.
So buy less stuff. Or live in a smaller house. If the average house in 1950 was 900 sq ft with 5 people living in it, and the average house of today is 2200 sq ft with 2 people living in it, what does that tell you about housing costs? Why does everyone today need what was a mansion to our grandparents?
Maybe if healthcare, housing (especialy housing), education, and food were cheaper in the US we could compete, but the fact is you're lucky if you can even find a nearly condemned hole in the wall to live in for $320 a month, let alone pay for food, transportation and medical costs.
BS. I lived for 12 years in a Midwestern city of over 100K people. Never once did I spend more than $290/mo for housing, and the next-to-last year there lived in a 2-story house with full basement for $500/mo split with my roommate. Seems to me that you need to find a different place to live.
How do we know that someone working for a US company in India isn't actually creating jobs in the US through their work?
If you can't see the convergence of DRM and offshoring, there's not much I can say to help you. It's not that the jobs are going overseas, it's that the jobs are being put overseas by people who intend to prevent competition with bogus "IP" laws. IT is only the start as the DMCA is being applied to everything. Non free economies are terribly inefficient but those who run them could care less as they enjoy their relative wealth.
When Linus was creating Linux in Europe, who knew he would be creating tons of IT jobs doing Linux work in the US? Would it have mattered if Linus lived in Bangalore?
Heh, I'll take my free software from anywhere and I don't mind who uses what I write. I don't have much choice where the other kind comes from and there's the rub. The real injury comes from not being able to chose what software I want to run or do it for myself, friends and clients.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
ANYONE NEEDING ANY BLACKSMITH WORK THESE DAYS?
Sure, there are people needing blacksmiths still. Of course, not as many as 100 years ago. The difference then was that blacksmiths were being replaced my new industries, not having their jobs shipped overseas.
Cars replaced the horse and buggy, so you didn't have the demand for horseshoes to be fitted. Instead you had a huge new group of industry and services to support the automobile. Today, there is no 'next big thing' apparent.
When we blue collar Americans, complain that illegal immigration is affecting our ability to make a living wage, the common response is essentially "Shut up you ignorant racist." Now that it's white collar jobs that are being lost to foreign labor, suddenly it's a major tragedy. Well, 'scuse me if I don't shed a tear for you.
So was slavery, does that make it moral?
The current outsorcing situation is about US companies taking US money from profits of US sales to US customers for labor from US workers over seas...taking engineers, research, AND incidentally JOBS to save a few bucks. It's about YOUR bosses wanting to save a buck, it's never been about US workers not being competitive...Realize that most large US manufacturing companies have had record productivity gains over the last decade! It's not high wages or insurance premiums! it's pure simple greed.
Henry Ford hit on this early on when he started his company. He paid above average wages which shocked the industry at the time. But he did it so HIS workers could afford to buy HIS cars...he realized that he had to grow his own market or he would always be a niche product. The current recession is directly in line with that assumption! It's never been a recession, it just a market correction...sometimes called DEFLATION! Simply put, my employer pays me less in real dollars each year [as is the case for most americans right now!] My standard bills for power and taxes still go up by the average rate of inflation meaning I have less and less money each year to spend on fun stuff. Notice how Walmart and such are always having sales...they can't make money to save their lives! Pertually having stuff "on sale" is deflation.
Actually deflation is fine for you and me...just not for people with lots of money. Depression is runaway INFLATION where the haves charge more and more trying to keep what they got... Deflation is the "graceful" approach but the rich people loose because no matter how good a deal they get they can't ever actually make money...there are other desperate rich people also trying to make money!!! In the meantime it's fun for us because stuff is really cheap!!
Sure there is. Its called competition. When a company finds a way to reduce costs, their first urge probably isn't to lower prices.
So that is why EarthLink and AOL raised their prices to $21.95, from $19.99, a month after outsourcing over 75% of their call center staff to India?
Competition does not solve all problems. When you have a few large companies, all heavily invested by the same people, you get non-written agreements to not compete aggressively. Because, price wars only benefit the consumer. They kill profits for years, sometimes, and can result in investors just simply bailing instead of waiting 2 years for the big returns from the "winner".
Plus, who wants to risk losing and having the shareholders file a lawsuit on you for mishandling their money? Sometimes, it's just best to not rock the boat.
Welcome to real-world capitalism.
"And we'd like to welcome just about every worker in America to the global slave economy. Please, have a seat and make yourself comfortable. If you fight it you'll only waste time you should be spending learning how to shine my shoes."
There are two scenarios here, let's play with them a little bit:
1:
We try to oppose the practice of slavery. Abolitionists and liberal commie pinkos try to foment a civil war between the glorious southern confederacy and the evil, money-grubbing unionist north. Or even just pass laws requiring minimum wage and overtime.
Outcome:
They lose.
2:
We recognize the fallacy of thinking that the lower classes should be "free." We allow innovative companies to enslave labor (as long as they do it in Africa or Asia), which can really cut costs. Displaced workers are forced to find a way to become aristocrats or accept a lower salary - like nothing!
Outcome:
Those innovative aristocrats earn more money, increasing the economic power of themselves. The US Labor force is also better off, since it no longer exists. National GDP increases, companies become more profitable, etc.
There is no realistic way to stop slavery. All one can do is try to stay ahead of the curve. Get your MBA and try to become a house-servant! Move to a smaller plantation where slavery doesn't make sense - well, maybe it makes more sense when you're smaller. But hey, you can always start your own cotton plantation! (It's easy. You just have to inherit land from your daddy!)
Eventually the global economy will level out, and all of you uppity lower classes will get what's coming to you. This will happen regardless of the measures you are taking to slow it down. In the end our products are still competitive on the global market, even though we don't actually make them, and we will still carry 1/3 of the international GDP, which is amazing considering how our economy is based around consumer spending. Anyway, fighting it is only going to slow down our economy and speed up the rest of the world's economy.
Slavery is inevitable - because everything that helps out the bottom line is legal somewhere, and free trade lets us relocate our operations to wherever that is! Laws trying to stop it never work anyway, so why try? Besides, all these pesky commie ideas about tarriffs, labor laws and public schools never worked in the past. Didn't Laissez Faire get us where we are today?
If you really want to keep your current life style... heh. That's funny. In fact, if you want to keep from sleeping in the alley behind my townhouse, you'll learn to roll with the frequent lashings, pick yourself up and get back in the game.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Having recently been hired into the IT industry straight out of college, I can say that it wasn't my programming skills that got me the job, even though I'm excellent at that. During the interview, they asked me all the languages I knew. Then they asked me which one I liked most, and why. I said PHP, because it's web integrated, high level, and easy to link to backend databases. Then they asked me which one I disliked most, and why. I said C++, because it's got all the "codey bits." I ended by saying, "It's more for a CS major," as if it was something I wouldn't do. They agreed. Programming is the monotonous drudgework of the wave that's passing us by - Agriculture, Industry, and now Information. The next level is Knowledge. Understanding the processes, and linking it all together. We've just got to keep climbing the ladder faster than anyone else.
Myth #1: America is losing jobs.
Fact: More Americans are employed than ever before.
The household employment survey of Americans indicates that there are 1.9 million more Americans employed since the recession ended in November 2001. There are 138.3 million workers in the U.S. economy today--more than ever before.[2]
Myth #2: The low unemployment rate excludes many discouraged workers.
Fact: Unemployment is dropping, despite a surging labor force.
Not only is the unemployment rate low in historical terms at 5.6 percent, but the workforce has been growing--there are now 2.03 million more people in the labor force than in late 2001. Without a higher rate of unemployment or a shrinking workforce, there is no evidence of growing discouragement.[3]
Myth #3: Outsourcing will cause a net loss of 3.3 million jobs.
Fact: Outsourcing has little net impact, and represents less than 1 percent of gross job turnover.
Over the past decade, America has lost an average of 7.71 million jobs every quarter.[4] The most alarmist prediction of jobs lost to outsourcing, by Forrester Research, estimates that 3.3 million service jobs will be outsourced between 2000 and 2015--an average of 55,000 jobs outsourced per quarter, or only 0.71 percent of all jobs lost per quarter.
Myth #4: Free trade, free labor, and free capital harm the U.S. economy.
Fact: Economic freedom is necessary for economic growth, new jobs, and higher living standards.
A study conducted for the 2004 Index of Economic Freedom confirms a strong, positive relationship between economic freedom and per capita GDP. Countries that adopt policies antithetical to economic freedom, including trying to protect jobs of a few from outsourcing, tend to retard economic growth, which leads to fewer jobs.
Myth #5: A job outsourced is a job lost.
Fact: Outsourcing means efficiency.
Outsourcing is a means of getting more final output with lower cost inputs, which leads to lower prices for all U.S. firms and families. Lower prices lead directly to higher standards of living and more jobs in a growing economy.
Myth #6: Outsourcing is a one-way street.
Fact: Outsourcing works both ways.
The number of jobs coming from other countries to the U.S. (jobs "insourced") is growing at a faster rate than jobs lost overseas. According to the Organization for International Investment, the numbers of manufacturing jobs insourced to the United States grew by 82 percent, while the number outsourced overseas grew by only 23 percent.[5] Moreover, these insourced jobs are often higher-paying than those outsourced.[6]
Myth #7: American manufacturing jobs are moving to poor nations, especially China.
Fact: Nations are losing manufacturing jobs worldwide, even China.
America is not alone in experiencing declines in manufacturing jobs. U.S. manufacturing employment declined 11 percent between 1995 and 2002, which is identical to the average world decline.[7] China has seen a sharper decline, losing 15 percent of its industrial jobs over the same period.
Myth #8: Only greedy corporations benefit from outsourcing.
Fact: Everyone benefits from outsourcing.
Outsourcing is about efficiency. As costs decline, every consumer benefits, including those who lose their jobs to outsourcing. A 2003 study by Michael W. Klein, Scott Schuh, and Robert K. Triest, which includes dislocation costs in its calculations, shows the benefits of trade outweighing its costs by 100 percent.[8]
Myth #9: The government can protect American workers from outsourcing.
Fact: Protectionism is isolationism and has a history of failure.
Proposals to punish businesses that outsource jobs, institute tariffs, or change tax rules will carry unintended consequences if enacted. Such measures would injure U.S. firms that export goods and services and erode U.S. competitiveness, often in unexpected ways. Recent steel tariffs, for example, cost jobs in doz
Are you telling me that you don't see the connection between government and laughing at people? - Interviewer
Actually, TV was invented in Britain, by John Logie Baird.
What a long, strange trip it's been.
Cut that lying crap, you propagandistic tool.
Everyone knows that GW spends his time clearing brush and riding mountain bikes. Its his dad that's into time wasters like playing golf!
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Oh, and we're supposed to just agree with you because you say "yes". Nice.
[SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
Your argument sounds pretty good but i think it suffers from false analogy. the big difference between the poor countries making our stuff and early 20th century america with the child labor and everything was that the capital for that child labor came from the u.s. and stayed in the u.s. the companies that had the child labor had nowhere to run to so they had to submit to the legislation banning such abhorrent activity.
what i'm getting at is that as soon as some country tries to improve their lot by inacting legislation to raise the standard of living, u.s. companies will pack up and go elsewhere. they couldn't do that at the beginning of the last century.
simply put, a firm's goal is to maximize its profit and when there are cheaper, readily available sources of production out there, it'll take 'em. the firm has to, or its competition will.
i don't really know what the solutions are, but if prices are still going up for the products i purchase and jobs are being lost, it doesn't sound very fair to me as a buyer of products.
Unreal.. only 4633 jobs outsourced? Obviously the definition is highly flexible. Take IBM alone. I mean this is a company who's entire bent ( from a labor perspective ) is to facilitate offshore of IT work through they're global services . Even to the point of getting all companies on there MVC framework -- EAD4J, so that it is easier for them to facilitate. Oh and let's not forget they're zLinux project to move Open System's on to they're mainframes so that they can outsouce administration as well more easily. Luckily it's IBM by the time they get it right it'll be old news. But obviously because they are already "International" the movement of the available labor pool from the US to other countries is not "outsourcing" even though fully quilified IT workers in countries that have to pay $5.00 for lunch can go to workers that only have to pay .25. I can't compete with that and it has nothing to do with my talent or skills.
Some of the blame for imports must lie on customers shoulders as well.
I think you misspelled "all."
Some of us are willing to pay more for quality products and services. Cheap shit always costs more in the long run.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
It sort of makes me wonder where all these anti- protectionist arguments are coming from, since I almost think they're coming from quite well funded or dystopic (view of the economy) sources that exclusively enjoy what "benefits" there might be to offshoring. So far, I've seen no real benefits to this, just a bunch of self-preserving elitists who defend anything that keeps them at the top. Besides, I've seen a drop in quality product in companies such as Dell and HP (where an ironic drop happened in quality when they started) to the point I'll never recommend or purchase from them. What real benefit is that if the product's cheaply made and support's hardly understandable? If there's supposed to be high quality from offshoring, I'm definitely not seeing it - since the people who are on the receiving end of offshoring dont get a real rise in quality of life, and the sending end gets only money for the anointed ones, who have yet to show how the offset people benefit from the "better economy" while being barraged endlessly by the (large and increasing amount of) people who were doublecrossed.
Yes, you can have it both ways - unlike mere goods and services, humans can speak for themselves when it comes to jobs, and that differs from the things being sold that cannot decide whether to be exported. Heck, I could care less where my computer came from, but when it comes down to something critical such as a job, I'll preserve it with whatever I have availible, and invest in companies that actually have the balls to go beyond the definition of a company and preserve jobs.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
Really, you make some decent points. I can give you some more background though on a few topics. the issue of japanese cars versus US cars back in the early 70's was a combination of factors. One was, we had some severe gas pump sticker shock with the OPEC embargo. the japnese were in a much better position to pump out high MPG cars and small trucks then the US companies were, because basically that was about all they were making, so they were a smash hit. The US market at the time was based on sub 25 cents a gallon gasoline, and a culture that had big families and traveled long distances on interstates frequently, hence, larger vehicles with bigger engines, and not much care to gas prices-I know I never even thought much about gas prices at the time, although I was aware of them, even at a normal cheap blue collar job, gas and most everything else was cheap. I was also in the UAW a few years previous to that era, and I, too, saw the japanese cars coming on strong, but I didn't think they would ge5t the market share so soon, because I didn't anticipate the OPEC embargo. I DID argue unsuccessfully in union meetings to not concentrate so much on pay raises, as to concetrate more on trying to force the management to make better qualioty cars, but realistically, that was contrary to both the companies and the unions POV. It's axiomatic, but if you make your product TOO good, you don't sell enough of them year after year to stay in business as much. It's a catch 22. US made cars will last long, but you need to really do the maintenance, I own and drive weekly a 75 chevy van that has well over 300 thousand miles on it, and it runs perfectly fine. But most people don't change their oil often enough, or drive harder than what is prudent, etc, so their cars wear out faster. another factor that was hotly debated at the time was the japanese companies "dumping" their products on the US market in order to get a higher market share. Dumping means they sell for at cost or even below cost for awhile which enough evidence exists to prove was true at the time. they still do it I believe, in the case of the new hybrid vehicles, they are quite a deal. They also had higher tariffs and import inspections on US vehicles entering japan than what we charged. Now WHY we did that, why we went along with it I mean, I do not know.
Another phenomenon that has occurred in the last few decades is the extremely fast rise of upper management salaries as a proportion of their companies employees average pay. It has exactly paralleled outsourcing time-wise. I don't think it's a coincidence, I mean, that new money had to come from somewhere.
here is a reference URL http://www.inequality.org/ceopay2000sklar2.html
small quote from the page, note, this is from year 2000, but it is still close to these figures now:
"CEOs didn't always earn as much as small countries. In 1980, they made 45 times the pay of production and nonsupervisory workers. By 1990, the CEO-worker pay gap had doubled, with CEOs making 96 times as much. By last year, that ratio had reached 458."
Now there's no way in heck some boss from year 2000 was 458 times a better manager than some boss from 1980. It don't compute. Maybe a few exceptions over all, but as a general rule, nope, humansd are humans. what we HAVE gotten is corporate tax break after corporate tax break, all the way to a tax break for US companies to outsource, along with a much higher acceptable level of insourced workers, legal and illegal, blue and white collar. It's another facet of a skewed economy against the middle class primarily, but the top level bosses/pundits/politicians have mostly kept repeating the same lie over and over again to keep the middle class faked out, while they pushed credit instead of pay, the famous phrase from the 80's was it would "trickle down" to joe average paycheck if the ultra rich got mega rich. It was a variation on the jack and the beanstalk magic beans fairy tale, but a lot of people fell for it.
I don't think the ramifications are ov
I wasn't grappling for anything. I find your post unnecessarily rude. "Costed" is acceptable as a past tense or a past participle for the intransitive verb "cost", according to dictionary.com, among others. "Costed" is in widespread use.
Some take it as a personal crusade to chase down split infinitives, 3rd person singular "they"s, and failure to use "whom" in the objective case. I prefer to not to waste everybody's time being so anal, especially not in a forum like this. Face it, language is not a static thing. Ultimately, it is common usage that drives the grammar books, and not the other way around.
I'm a gnu world man.