What Do You Do When Outsourcing Goes Bad?

Xphox wonders: "Recently we have been referred to an outsourcing company to finish customization on a script that the author had no time to complete. Everything was going fine until recently. At what point do you consider they may have just ripped you off, and how do you know when to file complaints and withhold payment?" "I have been working with what I thought was a reputable outsourcing company, referred to me by the author of the software package. We agreed that payment would be made once everything was completed. After a few missed deadlines, the project finally seemed to be finished. The only thing left was a small bug fix, and an install script which needed to be completed. As agreed, he delivered the install script, and we made the final payment. Upon testing the new install script we noticed things did not work as intended, and all attempts to contact the outsourcing company has resulted in the following answer:

'My guys are still working on it.'

My fear is that if I don't act now, I will not be able to recover any funds, and will be stuck with a product that is useless. It has been 9 days since I've received an email from them, and I'm starting to think I've just been taken advantage of. Since the script is protected with Source Guardian, I am unable to finish the modifications myself."

Comments

Simple test here:

[Skyshadow]

I can usually tell when outsourcing has gone bad. It's about the time my boss calls me into his office on a Friday afternoon and explains that the company needs to right-size their domestic staff and that, unfortunately, my position has become redundant.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

Before the inevitable avalanche of anti outsourcing and anti india comments, let me point out that the author hasn't made it at all clear which country their firm is located in, and wether or not the outsourcing firm in question is located in the same country.

Re:Simple test here:

[WebCrapper]

Been there, done that. Didn't even get offered the damn T-Shirt.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate it when people don't take losing their livelyhoods like good little sheep, too.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

let me point out that the author hasn't made it at all clear which country their firm is located in

And with a name like Xphox...

Re:Simple test here:

[RWerp]

I hate it when people don't take losing their livelyhoods like good little sheep, too.

And I hate it when people accept the notion of free market and competition only when they are on the winning side.

Re:Simple test here:

[AndroidCat]

No problem. Contact the Martian Embassy.

Re:Simple test here:

[WillAdams]

IME it's more like the boss calls you in, states that you were correct in your complaints about the company they tried to outsource the latest project to, that it's a miserable failure and hopeless unless you can salvage it.

Six weeks of sixty to eighty-hour work-weeks later the project was back on track.

It wouldn't be so bad if I'd not accepted a salaried position...

William

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, God Forbid people work to make things turn out in a way consistant with their own self interest. If you don't want to see your good-paying skilled job shipped overseas, you're a goddamn socialist!

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you don't want to see your good-paying skilled job shipped overseas, you're a goddamn socialist!"

A better description is someone who is lazy and greedy and demands a divine right to a certain job even though others can do it better. Why not just "move on" and find some other job, now that you basically gave away your former job by letting someone do it better than you?

Re:Simple test here:

[tbase]

Your comment and your sig may be somehow related... I just can't put by finger on it.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

I apologize for being so greedy and lazy as to live in a place with a higher cost of living than the third world.

I've yet to see any foreign company turn out code better than an American development team. They're cheaper, not better.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

' apologize for being so greedy and lazy as to live in a place with a higher cost of living than the third world '

That is not the problem. The problem is whining when someone else can do a better job (instead of moving on to a job you can do better, or striving to do this job better yourself).

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

Before the inevitable avalanche of anti outsourcing and anti india comments

Damn Indians....Oh, and I hate outsourcing, too.

Re:Simple test here:

[thomas.galvin]

And I hate it when people accept the notion of free market and competition only when they are on the winning side.

The Free Market is only a good idea when it is also a Fair Market. In the case of outsourcing to India, this is simply not true. American coders are faced with competition from people with access to equal education (fair so far), and a far, far lower average cost of living (unfair). So, it costs far more to support an American coder than an Indian one. This would be like forcing Joe's Hombrew Electronics to compete with Dell when Dell gets their components at a 75% discount, and Windows for free.

Re:Simple test here:

[DrCode]

I hate it when people who are on the winning side assume it's purely because of their own talents, and not due to luck or connections.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

"That is not the problem. The problem is whining when someone else can do a better job (instead of moving on to a job you can do better, or striving to do this job better yourself)."

Woohoo, AC flame war. Anyway, I'm new to this war, but I wanted to point out that your comment is directly refuted by the second half of the previous comment that you apparently didn't feel like quoting. The whole issue is that the job isn't being done better, its being done cheaper. Even a PHB isn't sitting there thinking, "I bet we could get better code if we shipped this project to India and dealt with a huge language and timezone gap" No, the PHB is thinking "$$$$$".

Re:Simple test here:

[greenhide]

I remember being on a trans-pacific flight with this manager for a major corporation. He had been in China overseeing some project.

He said they're moving out of China soon.

Why?

Because the labor (these are specialized workers) is too expensive. That's right, China is too expensive.

It's true that the wage that the Chinese engineers are asking for has gone up. But that's a natural factor of supply and demand. Eventually, they are going to actual start demanding to be paid what they're worth to the company. However, their wage is still significantly lower than the one that the US engineers received way before the outsourcing occurred. So assuming that all other parts of the equation are the same, the company is still making more profit after *salary* (excluding other expenses) than it did when it wasn't outsourcing at all.

Nonetheless, this company is going to move to another country where the workers can be paid significantly less, thus maintaining their huge post-salary profit margin (again, discounting expenses in other areas).

Why are the doing this?

Because globalization has made it significantly easier to do so.

Because of globalization, it's now possible to start up a working factory, shop, or headquarters pretty much anywhere in the world. This means that you can specifically target the most impoverished countries, countries where the average person makes a 10th, 100th, or 1000th of what an American might, and set those people to work.

Now, in a non-growth system, where companies maintained their size and scope, companies would be able to hop back and forth between countries at whim. Whenever country A became too expensive, they'd simply move to country B until it became too expensive, then hop back to country A (now desperate for work).

However, capitalism cannot exist without constant growth. So, one side effect of this global offsourcing behavior is that as the salaries grow for the workers, so do their spending habits. They then, in turn, cause growth in their country's economy and increase demand for supplies and services, forcing the businesses to hire more workers to supply this demand.

As a result, eventually there will be no country where the workers haven't gone through this process, so there will be no place to turn to for "cheaper" labor. This, of course, assumes consistent growth.

Of course, this does pose a problem: currently, we're using up resources on a grand scale. And if our population growth continues as the average consumption of individuals go up, we may end up seeing a problem with a shortage of resources. This will cause prices for items to go up, which means that the increased salaries will have decreased worth (this is pretty much the case now in the US: you can live like a king in Beijing on $20,000 but in New York you'd barely be scraping by).

Therefore, only those with salaries at a higher order of magnetude will still live comfortably. In other words, CEOs and other financial elite. So, the gap between the wealthy and non-wealthy will continue to grow.

So, I do think that people who point to offshoring as being a tool to benefit those at the top are pretty much dead on.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

...and it's much cheaper to run a call center in Bumfuck, Alabama than in New York City. What's your point? Should we punitively tax Alabama businesses to make up for the fact that it's unfair that the cost of living is so much lower there?

Re:Simple test here:

[sbrown123]

Yes, we shouldnt come up with the generally assumption that all bad outsourcing comes from India. I'm sure theres other countries that outsource jobs that have the capability to be just as bad as India. But I think India will still be considered #1 culprit due to the sheer number of problems.

Re:Simple test here:

[Grishnakh]

You could just refuse to work the extra overtime, citing that you warned them about this beforehand.

If it's really that critical, they can either pay you extra for the overtime, or come to some other agreement. If they fire you, they're just going to be in a deeper hole. Of course, I'd start looking for a new job right away; a company like this is not one you want to stay with long-term.

Re:Simple test here:

[timeOday]

And I hate it when people accept the notion of free market and competition only when they are on the winning side.

Explain to me, why should a government be more devoted to ideological purity than to benefitting the people who formed the govornment to serve them?

Re:Simple test here:

[CmdrGravy]

I see nothing unfair here, if Americans downsized to a smaller house ( or tent perhaps ), sold your cars, didn't go on holidays and ate only rice and some vegetables you could probably compete with the Indians. The fact is you choose not you, you enjoy a higher standard of living and expect your wages will cover that choice.

Ultimately things will even out, Indian taxes will go up and they will expect much the same lifestyle as you enjoy at which point everyones jobs will outsourced to the middle of africa.

Free markets and fair markets are really the only way for the entire worlds population to reach a comparable standard of living but it's not going to happen overnight and changes can be hard to adapt to.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

You got what you paid for. Penny wise but pound foolish. Next time, dont outsource...

Re:Simple test here:

[bert.cl]

I am right with you right up to the point where you say:

"Of course, this does pose a problem: currently, we're using up resources on a grand scale. And if our population growth continues as the average consumption of individuals go up, we may end up seeing a problem with a shortage of resources. This will cause prices for items to go up, which means that the increased salaries will have decreased worth (this is pretty much the case now in the US: you can live like a king in Beijing on $20,000 but in New York you'd barely be scraping by)."

I have heard of a bet about fossil fuel shortages: one person stated that fuel would run out somewhere in the nineties and prices would be really high and to expensive for normal people to buy. The other said it wouldn't be like that. Now, the first person was pretty sure of himself and his calculations and they placed a bet.

Turns out, prices didn't change so the first person lost the bet to which he replied "Yeah, but there were some advances in the use of fuel and technology. To which the winner replied: yeah, that was my point all along.

So, while you may be correct (I wouldn't know for a fact that what you are telling is actually correct, although I do find it a plausible explanation). The assumption you make is faulty. Because of technological advances and new processes (and shifts in type of labor, and inputs in general) companies will be able to produce at a (relatively) lower cost than under your assumption. Furthermore, people will work in new industries, which requires labor-intensive processes as well and in those new industries, the same scenario you described will occur.

In this way, constant growth (which you say is needed for "capitalism") is stil assured.

Please excuse me for any spelling and other errors, since it's pretty late overhere and I am dead tired

Re:Simple test here:

[ChrisMaple]

However, capitalism cannot exist without constant growth.

There is nothing in theory or in practice that says capitalism requires constant growth. Capitalism is the protection of rights, particularly property rights. Growth results from this because people's efforts provide secure returns, protected from government and private thieves. Other systems don't provide this protection, so people have less motivation to try to improve their condition.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

US MANAGER: We have a very discriminating hiring process... we conduct a nationwide search to make sure we have only qualified applicants who are exceptionally skilled, with a track record of success, with impeccable references, and who are a "good fit" with our team. Because after all, *people* are our most important asset!

OUTSOURCER: I have offshore coders for $8/hour.

US MANAGER: I'll take a dozen. When can they start?

Re:Simple test here:

[Dr. Descartes]

There is a time and a place to outsource. I work for a small business (8 employees) doing web application development work. We also provide shared hosting environments for customers that don't have the infrastructure for dedicated hosting or don't care to pay the recurring costs colocating. Once these companies are in place, there is residual support that needs to take place. New employees need help with their mail client, et cetera. It's perfectly reasonable for a business such as ours to find outsourced technical support. We did do so (the company wasn't in India).

The results have been mixed; the outsourced employees fail to correctly troubleshoot symptoms and pass them along sometimes, et cetera. One can say that is true for most tech support deparments. What was gained was more than an increased bottom line. The two system administrators (myself and someone else) are now able to perform true systems work without getting nickel dimed by every Outlook user. Going to work is much more rewarding than it was in the past.

Could we have hired our own support technicians? No. Shared hosting is a marginal business and we lacked the critical mass to make it more than nominally profitable. It was the best possible solution for our needs and business model.

Is this story all fluff and happiness? Absolutely not. Our outsourced representatives are hard to manage. The managers and owners are sometimes hard to get a hold of. Furthermore, we sometimes feel that support is escalated expressly for the purpose of keeping time on the phones minimized. When the honeymoon effect wore off between our two companies and the situation began to turn dire, we made a veiled statement at having to look elsewhere and things improve immediately. For a situation where final payment has been made, the options are few. Perhaps a statement that if this work isn't completed fully then further business from your company is unlikely as are referrals. Appeal to their bottom line. Sometimes it's the only language a company will speak.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

good comment, but there is still a lot of debate about whether or not the worlds population is going to boom like that. YES, the worlds consumption of resources will boom, but demographically when a country becomes more modernized its population becomes more urbanized, which means that they are going to have fewer babies. Families in rural areas need more people for labor while in urban areas children are for the most part a luxory.

Re:Simple test here:

[elefantstn]

Aha, so the Free Market is only a good idea when you're the one who benefits from it. Objection noted!

Re:Simple test here:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I see nothing unfair here, if Americans downsized to a smaller house ( or tent perhaps ), sold your cars, didn't go on holidays and ate only rice and some vegetables you could probably compete with the Indians.

No, because the property taxes and sales taxes on the rice, vegetables, and even the smaller house/tent exceeds what an Indian pays for the same area of land- so no, there is no way to live in America for the same price as the Hindus live in India for.

Re:Simple test here:

[greenhide]

Fuel, shmuel. People have been arguing about oil for the past 60 years or so.

Water is the new hotness.

The average Westerner uses something on the order of 100-1000 times the water that someone in a developing country does. Now, imagine everyone in the world using water at developed-nation levels.

Since water is necessary for nearly every business practice, as the use of water skyrockets, it will force a chain reaction to other prices.

Sure, water recycles, but not that fast. Not thousands of gallons a day for billions of people fast.

Food is another biggie. Sure, there's plenty to feed the world now, but that's because few countries eat meat at the level that developed nations do. Doubling the amount of meat consumption worldwide would multiply world grain needs by a much larger factor (I think the equation is something like 1 pound of beef = 10 pounds of grain).

Unfortunately, consumerism has boosted demand, particularly "brand" demand, to the point where people are willing to pay fairly inflated prices for goods (most people are still pretty cheap when it comes to services, though). Consider a pair of jeans. In the past 20 years, the cost for producing a jean has gone down (or at worst remained the same), because none of them are made in the US anymore and textile labor is cheaper than air. A pair of jeans might cost as little as a few bucks to make in a sweatshop-type factory. But you're now paying much more for a pair of jeans. If clothing companies had to compete with one another on price (competing on quality is general a non-issue; these clothes are pretty much all made from similar materials by similar workers), the price for jeans would be maybe $15. In truth, most jeans are the same except for small differences in style. However, most people identify with specific brands and are willing to pay a premium. This is all due to advertising; most of the real expense of the average Nike shoe or Levi jean is advertising, not manufacture.

What about soda? The average cost for a 2-liter bottle is now $1.50-$2.00. That $2 for water, some carbonation, and a little bit of sugar. Oh, and lots and lots of advertising.

What does this mean? It means that advances in technology (except when they actually improve the quality or features of a product) always benefit the company, not the consumer, because most companies aren't pressured to keep prices low unless they have to.

And they don't have to, because even people who don't have money have "plenty" of money, thanks to credit cards.

Man, I could go on (obviously), but I have to get back to, uh, work. :)

Re:Simple test here:

[ReTay]

"The Free Market is only a good idea when it is also a Fair Market."

Bull. A free market is just that free.
You must think that it is unfair that Linux is coded for free but Bill Gates has to pay people to create Windows.

Re:Simple test here:

[RickHunter]

There's another problem with this. You assume that the consistent growth continues to take place in County A after the outsourcing moves on. That's not necessarily true... Especially not if, responding to pressure from big corporations and the Republican government in Washington, the country's economy has become almost entirely dependent on outsourcing.

Globalization's a scam.

Re:Simple test here:

[Schnapple]

I would imagine that the outsourcing isn't offshoring (if he's in Canada and the firm is in the US, I think that's called "nearshoring" believe it or not) because who in their right mind would post to Slashdot of all places to say "my outsourcing didn't work out - any advice?"

Plus if we take this at face value this wasn't a "fire someone to offshore their job", this was literally "we don't have time to do this could you make one for us real quick" kind of things.

Then again if we're to take this at face value then he arranged to pay before the program was evaluated, so who knows.

Re:Simple test here:

[greenhide]

There is nothing in theory or in practice that says capitalism requires constant growth.

In practice, when growth slows, there's a recession. Not negative growth, mind you, just less growth than usual.

Unless you sell a good or service that is used up (such as food, shampoo, or phone cards), the good or service you provide is semi-permanent. That is, if someone goes to a website company and purchases a website, they won't need another website from them next week or the week after.

But the website company still needs to write out a paycheck to each employee every month. To do that, they need to keep making websites in order to get paid. But in a non-growth economy, eventually all companies that wanted them would have websites that were working and up-to-date. The website company couldn't even turn to their former clients for work, because those companies weren't growing, so didn't need any new development on their sites. At which point the website design company would go out of business.

Since it was out of business, it wouldn't need to print up business cards anymore. The company that printed the business cards would go out of business, because there were no new businesses walking in to make business cards.

Also, don't forget population growth. We need growth in the economy to provide jobs for those entering the work force. There aren't as many people retiring as there are entering the workforce.

Re:Simple test here:

[CmdrGravy]

Well maybe so but that's America's choice not an imposition by the Indians so you can't really consider it to be unfair.

Re:Simple test here:

[cavemanf16]

That's not a free market! A free market means you're free to sell your product no matter what your size or "power". If Dell has juicier contracts in the cheap-ass computer market than you as the little guy do, then I guess they're better at getting the juicy contracts. A Free market promotes the ideal that you can compete on features, or price, or service and support, or a myriad other "twists" on the product(s) that the big conglomerate is selling.

In the computer industry, granted, we don't quite have a "fair" market because Microsoft has violated anti-trust laws and not really paid for their inequity, but that says nothing about whether the market is free or not. There are PLENTY of other computer software companies aren't there? There's just not very many software companies making operating systems because Microsoft has stomped that idea like a little tiny bug.

The ultra-liberals on /. seem to forget the distinction between "fair" and "free" too often.

Re:Simple test here:

[operagost]

I don't pay $2 for a bottle of soda. I wait until it's on sale for $.99, or buy "store-brand" if necessary.

I don't wash my car unless it's really dirty or has salt on it in the winter. I also fix leaky faucets and have never watered a lawn. I imagine a lot of the water use is from flush toilets. If someone could design a water efficient toilet that actually worked, I could save more water. Third-world countries don't use a lot of water, but then, they have little good water to use. There's a few huge American companies who could purify these countries' water and make tons of money doing it, but the dictators and warlords who run them don't care and most hate Americans anyway.

Re:Simple test here:

[RWerp]

Water is the new hotness.
We even had a few wars about water.

Re:Simple test here:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Who said that it was India's doing? All they did was subsidise their educational system heavily. The real problem isn't India's- it's that the basic assumptions behind capitalism (really corporatism, the bastard son of capitalism) have become very wrong in recent years. The real problem has NOTHING to do with India- and everything to do with America and what is already wrong here.

Re:Simple test here:

[RWerp]

There aren't as many people retiring as there are entering the workforce.

Man, one of the biggest problems of Western societies is that there more people retiring than starting to work. That's what makes people worry about pension systems blowing up.

Re:Simple test here:

[netdudeuk]

The interesting thing is, I know of one Indian BPO company who is investing in Eastern Europe. I'm not sure of the motive but it does make for interesting reading !

The other interesting thing is that while Bangalore could now have passed the Valley in terms of head-count, I understand that local taxes are increasing rapidly and that it is now very hard to get a decent room there. Of course, the Leela is truly the best option :-)

With this pressure on local expenses, this could well have an impact on the charges that have to be made to their customers !

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a good start, but I don't think it's particularly relevant here as you represent just one person. Or a small handful of people. You certainly aren't representative of the billions of people in the west, though. Plus, you also seem to have missed the point once or twice...

Re:Simple test here:

[CmdrGravy]

Maybe I wasn't very clear, I don't think it's India's problem or that India is a problem. The poster I was originally replying to said that it was unfair that India should be able outsource American jobs and I was pointing out that I didn't think that was unfair but an inevitable consequence of the way the world works at the moment.

Until the global inequalities have balanced themselves out to leave a level playing field these kind of problems are going to continue. Government's should be doing their best to improve poorer countries standard of living to something like a comparable level to our own.

Re:Simple test here:

[greenhide]

I imagine a lot of the water use is from flush toilets. If someone could design a water efficient toilet that actually worked, I could save more water.

In countries that value conserving resources, toilets have two buttons: one for "small flushes" (you know, pee pee) and one for "large flushes." It makes perfect sense, and it isn't difficult to design. Unless it's a drought season, people routinely flush whenever anything goes in the toilet, and it's always the same amount of water, every time. Doesn't make sense.

The alternative of putting bricks or bottles or bags in your tank is fine until you really need the power of the additional water; then you have people needing to flush 2 or 3 times when one "large flush" would have done the trick.

Third-world countries don't use a lot of water, but then, they have little good water to use.

Most water isn't used for drinking, so it doesn't necessarily need to be of super high quality. That being said, cleaning up the water supply in developing countries is probably in the top ten of things to do to save lives. Many more people die of water-borne microbes per year than died during the recent Tsunami. Unfortunately, only disasters get real attention. People don't pay much attention to long term unliveable conditions. Hopefully, the money for this Tsunami relief will continue to be sent to SE Asia and can perhaps be leveraged to set up new systems providing cleaner water and better waste disposal systems.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

Milage may vary.

Re:Simple test here:

[dnoyeb]

Not really. He just miffed his argument.

The market is not free because the governments are not equal. And unequal governments put different fees and bonuses on the companies in the form of labor laws, which the WTO does not seem to want to address.

Re:Simple test here:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And what I meant was that sometimes- inevitable consequences can be unfair without anybody intending them to be so. India stayed in one place for almost 50 years- American advanced up the ladder to an unsustainable level. In reality, we're going to have to DECREASE our standard of living until it's comparable, if we want to continue to play globally at all.

Personally, I think continuing to play globally is a mistake- and it's America that is making that mistake.

Re:Simple test here:

[RWerp]

Means you've simply seen not enough.

Re:Simple test here:

[Jherek Carnelian]

Youth in Asia is the answer. Either kind.

Re:Simple test here:

[CmdrGravy]

Yes life just happens, it's neither fair nor unfair but when circumstances beyond your control make your life worse it's not very nice at all.

I don't know what the answer is but I don't think any of us can escape from globalisation. The world is driven by trade and commerce on a global stage and there is no way it's going back into national borders.

What we need is a way to ensure companies operate in a way which will eventually lead to a level playing field and take account of the human cost of their operations; whether that is shutting down plants in the US or exploiting workers in the 3rd world. That would certainly cost us all money but we may be able ease growing pains.

We really need more say in how business works, probably everyone in the US and the UK holds shares in some companies indirectly or otherwise but that doesn't seem to translate into much in the way of control or input into how a business is run, maybe it should.

Re:Simple test here:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yes life just happens, it's neither fair nor unfair but when circumstances beyond your control make your life worse it's not very nice at all.

Uh, isn't circumstances beyond your control making your life worse the very DEFINITION of unfair?

I don't know what the answer is but I don't think any of us can escape from globalisation. The world is driven by trade and commerce on a global stage and there is no way it's going back into national borders.

Actually, there is- we just don't have the courage to do it, because it would require us doing basically what the rest of the world did to fall behind us- close our borders for 50 years, and emerge into a world where we're no longer a superpower.

What we need is a way to ensure companies operate in a way which will eventually lead to a level playing field

They already are- it's just that we're so far above that playing field that it will take a major depression to get back down to it.

take account of the human cost of their operations;

Not possible under capitalism and never will be possible under a free market that lacks national borders.

whether that is shutting down plants in the US or exploiting workers in the 3rd world. That would certainly cost us all money but we may be able ease growing pains.

True enough- but like I said above, we do not have the courage to do so.

We really need more say in how business works, probably everyone in the US and the UK holds shares in some companies indirectly or otherwise but that doesn't seem to translate into much in the way of control or input into how a business is run, maybe it should.

I own a few shares- but I'm selling them off to keep the house. The grand majority will never actually own shares- they'll be promised shares (through 401(k)s and the like) but they won't actually even own them enough to be able to tell their broker when to trade them, let alone run the business. What we need is a new system entirely- one that includes steep taxes on shipping to encourage that goods are created as close to the consumers as possible.

Re:Simple test here:

[ckedge]

> Therefore, only those with salaries at a higher order of magnetude will still live comfortably.

So you're saying it's physically impossible for all human beings in the world to live have an equally acceptable standard of living? The only way to have a good job and lots of personal belongings for the common man in a western country is to have tons of poor people in the rest of the world?

I don't know, the house I bought wasn't "coded" or built in China or India, the Car I bought wasn't "coded" or built in China or India. The food I buy isn't "coded" or built in China. The telecom service I use. The Entertainment Programs I watch. etc etc etc.

It's all made here in North America.

Sure, lots of cheap $10 and $100 things are made in China.

BIG FUCKING DEAL.

You are probably right, ALL people in the world won't be able to have the same high standard of living that Americans have right now. We'll have to settle for something in-between. Oh I don't know, something like what the Spanish or Canadians have. Oddly enough not owning a 5 tonne SUV doesn't seem to make the Europeans think that they've got a "poorer standard of living" compared to Americans.

Re:Simple test here:

[mibus]

Beijing eh?

I wonder who does good-priced one-way airfares... :)

Re:Simple test here:

[Tablizer]

I apologize for being so greedy and lazy as to live in a place with a higher cost of living than the third world.

You make it sound like we have a choice. India will NOT accept tons of reverse H-1B's (B1H's). They will fuss and complain. India in general is very socialistic. The only people waving the "free trade" flag in India are those who are benefiting by taking away US jobs. I am pretty sure that if/when Cheapbuckistan outbids them all on price, they will burn their free-trade flags.

Re:Simple test here:

[nathan_w_cheng]

Therefore, only those with salaries at a higher order of magnetude will still live comfortably.

This conclusion makes sense in the context of your argument, but in the wider context of reality it is somewhat flawed: Yes, prices on items will go up as resources become more scarce, but as technology, productivity, and know-how improve, those same items will also provide more comfort per unit of raw material and labor. So it won't just be the top rungs that "live comfortably", but the bottom rungs will too--perhaps less comfortably, but comfortably nonetheless.

There will always be those who live orders of magnitude more comfortably than others; the important thing is that globalization will bring some measure of comfort to those in second and third world countries, by allowing them to contribute to the overall productivity of the world rather than drain it.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

And while we are being politically correct, I want you to know that I take offence that your post is not provided in 10 different languages. It is also offensive to gay whales who may live in international waters that you assume that the poster actually lives in a country at all.

Re:Simple test here:

[jshriverWVU]

I don't know, the house I bought wasn't "coded" or built in China or India, the Car I bought wasn't "coded" or built in China or India. The food I buy isn't "coded" or built in China. The telecom service I use. The Entertainment Programs I watch. etc etc etc.

Just a thought, but chances are your house has electronics made in china, steele made in China, your car is more than likely made in Asia (perhaps Assembled in the USA), TV? Japan/Taiwan, Entertainment programs... hrm... who do you think made all of the equipment to produce those shows.

I might be completely off, but I really dont believe anything except maybe food can be called "100% made in the US" anymore.

Then again I might be completely wrong.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Luddite]

>> hasn't made it at all clear which country

Which country shouldn't make any difference at all. Regardless of wether the work is done in India or Indiana Your contract should have milestones. If they miss one without a damn good reason, (i.e. you made significant changes after spec) they aren't doing their job. Pull the plug and walk away.

Re:Simple test here:

[God! Awful 2]

Of course, this does pose a problem: currently, we're using up resources on a grand scale. And if our population growth continues as the average consumption of individuals go up, we may end up seeing a problem with a shortage of resources. This will cause prices for items to go up, which means that the increased salaries will have decreased worth

Yes, it is true. This is the major fallacy of the pro-globalization policies that are being thrust upon us.

(this is pretty much the case now in the US: you can live like a king in Beijing on $20,000 but in New York you'd barely be scraping by).

I don't think you can live like a king in Beijing for $20k. For one thing, prime Beijing real-estate is pretty expensive. Also, have you seen the way their kings used to live?

The flaws with outsourcing to China are two-fold:

1. Programmers are cheaper, but are generally far less qualified.
2. Everyone from partners to manufacturers and even the government is out to steal your technology.

I don't know the exact reason for #1. It's probably a combination of:

a) General lack of history with effective software development practices.
b) Programming is considered to be monkey work, whereas sales and marketing are held in high esteem.
c) Anyone with a higher education tends to emigrate. (Partly because of reason b.)

-a

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

not better.. "cheaper"

the typical outsourcing model is to fire an engineering team but keep one guy on. Replace with 3 outsourced coders and still have 75%. Then the only remaining engineer fixes the code written by those "better" coders.

Re:Simple test here:

[Ohreally_factor]

Uh, isn't circumstances beyond your control making your life worse the very DEFINITION of unfair?

Gee, maybe this is why it's often been said that LIFE IS UNFAIR.

Actually, there is- we just don't have the courage to do it, because it would require us doing basically what the rest of the world did to fall behind us- close our borders for 50 years, and emerge into a world where we're no longer a superpower.

I think you mean, "emerge into a world where we've become the weakest and poorest third world nation.

Your proposal is absurd, if I am even understanding it.

Re:Simple test here:

[biophysics]

I am not too sure about the quality and skill in companies but I find the basic education here in US terrible. As a informatics grad student I take classes here. Many of Master Students I find can't do even basic math properly - let alone biology. Even for simple calculations they need the most advanced TI calculator. I accept there are certainly a few bright guys around in my class but on average the standard is poor - far less than the equivalent you will find in India. (Yes, I agree many in India still do not go to school...)

Re:Simple test here:

[greenhide]

Huh. For some reason a lot of people seem to think that my argument is that outsourcing to other countries is bad and will worsen the quality of life in the western world.

My main point is to argue against people who think that globalization is necessarily a naturally occurring and necessary phenomenon that will benefit all people equally. Instead, I think that globalization will lead to an *increase* of concentration of wealth. Currently the concentration of wealth is mostly in the western countries. When globalization has spread worldwide and is evenly distributed, so to speak, concentration of wealth will be instead in a group of rich elites in each of these countries, each of whom has more in common with elites in other countries than with their fellow citizens. The last feature of globalization will be the multinational person, someone who is wealthy enough and mobile enough to have no real ties, allegiance, or responsibility to any one nation, and who lives, in a sense, outside of the law.

This is what I think will happen. I don't think that globalization will lead to a big shiny wonderful world where everyone has a decent standard of living. In the United States, If you look at households earning under $40k/year and individuals earning under $20k/year, they aren't doing so hot. Most of these people are saving negative money (i.e., they're in constant debt), don't have health insurance, and are really struggling to make ends meet. $20k is a fortune in China, but not in the US.

We'll have to settle for something in-between. Oh I don't know, something like what the Spanish or Canadians have. Oddly enough not owning a 5 tonne SUV doesn't seem to make the Europeans think that they've got a "poorer standard of living" compared to Americans.

I personally think that both of the countries you mention have a better quality of life than most Americans. For some bizarre reason you assume that I think owning an SUV is good. Read my later postings. My point is that it's consumerism that will poison globalization. People won't just raise their standard of living -- they'll become more and more dependent on purchasing goods and services in order to have a decent quality of life, and the costs of even just the bare essentials would skyrocket.

Unless your rent is subsidized or you live in a particularly cheap part of the country, it isn't easy to survive on, say, $1,000 per month. In China you can probably survive with $300/month.

Re:Simple test here:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I think you mean, "emerge into a world where we've become the weakest and poorest third world nation.

Considering that under globalism, the weakest and poorest third world nations is where the jobs go, this would not be a bad thing necessarily- and besides, we've already got the main economic signature of a third world nation: A two class system in which one class is rapidly becoming more poor and the other class is rapidly becoming more rich, with a disappearing middle class. That's almost the textbook definition of a bannana republic right there. If we're going to become a third world nation anyway, wouldn't it make sense to keep our current standard of living until the rest of the world catches up instead of decreasing our standard of living down to the current state of the rest of the world? Think about it for a second- since these are our two choices with globalization- Participate and watch our standard of living fall, or don't participate and watch our standard of living stand still as the rest of the world passes us by.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

' and besides, we've already got the main economic signature of a third world nation: A two class system in which one class is rapidly becoming more poor and the other class is rapidly becoming more rich, with a disappearing middle class '

The middle class is as large as ever.

' Think about it for a second- since these are our two choices with globalization- Participate and watch our standard of living fall '

Our standard of living will improve, as we will able to make our own decisions about matters with less regard to things that don't matter (like national borders). Things will even out. Consider manufacturing. The American labor unions have done everything they can to encourage companies to open factories off-shore. When they do this, the number of union members goes down, and unions lose power and diminish presence. As a result, the companies start to bring jobs "back home".

Re:Simple test here:

[Ohreally_factor]

If we're going to become a third world nation anyway, wouldn't it make sense to keep our current standard of living until the rest of the world catches up instead of decreasing our standard of living down to the current state of the rest of the world? Think about it for a second- since these are our two choices with globalization- Participate and watch our standard of living fall, or don't participate and watch our standard of living stand still as the rest of the world passes us by.

Here's the fallacy in your thinking: the state of our economy is not a static thing, unrelated to the rest of the world. Our standard of living wouldn't stand still after we shut off our borders, it would drop like a stone.

I think your proposal would be only slightly less absurd if it was to put the entire US into suspended animation and then into a time capsule (and thus, keep our current standard of living). Your proposal is almost Swiftian, except that it lacks the component of canabalism.

Oh, and in third world countries? A disappearing middle class isn't a salient feature, because they haven't yet developed much of a middle class.

You mentioned elsewhere putting an extremely hi tax on shipping, to encourage local manufacture. How about instead we encourage piracy, to make shipping more expensive and more risky? Then, instead of a tradewar, we could have a boner-inducing fight between our pirates and the ninjas that the Asian countries would no doubt field to protect their shipping. A fight for REAL ULTIMATE POWER! With guitars wailing in the background! And whoever wins gets to bone all the chicks of the losing side, which is braggable. Now that would be cool, and by cool I mean totally sweet. Doesn't it get you pumped?

Re:Simple test here:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Here's the fallacy in your thinking: the state of our economy is not a static thing, unrelated to the rest of the world. Our standard of living wouldn't stand still after we shut off our borders, it would drop like a stone.

If, like they keep telling us, we have the most productive workers in the world right now, there's no reason at all why it should. We'd simply move from producing products overseas to producing them here again- using the Ford economic method instead of the WalMart economic method to keep standard of living high.

I think your proposal would be only slightly less absurd if it was to put the entire US into suspended animation and then into a time capsule (and thus, keep our current standard of living). Your proposal is almost Swiftian, except that it lacks the component of canabalism.

Not at all- we did it before and it created one of the most prosperous decades ever seen in America.

Oh, and in third world countries? A disappearing middle class isn't a salient feature, because they haven't yet developed much of a middle class.

Shows what you know about the third world- they started out tribal, under which EVERYBODY is middle class and there are no rich and there are no poor (for that you need this wierd invention known as money).

Re:Simple test here:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The middle class is as large as ever.

Bull. 5 million people, according to the Department of Labor, have dropped into poverty.

Our standard of living will improve, as we will able to make our own decisions about matters with less regard to things that don't matter (like national borders).

And how will we do that, when all of our own decisions are already being made for us by other people?

Things will even out.

Agreed they will- they'll even out when the whole world is living on $2/day.

Consider manufacturing. The American labor unions have done everything they can to encourage companies to open factories off-shore.

No, it was the government that did that with the offshore tax credit.

When they do this, the number of union members goes down, and unions lose power and diminish presence.

True enough- because all the factories closed.

As a result, the companies start to bring jobs "back home".

Then why have the only factories that have reopened been car factories, on which there's a huge quota caping imports? The problem is, not a single textile factory has reopened. Not a single TV factory has reopened. No VCRs, no computers, DVD players were NEVER made in America. Tons of industries moved out- and those industries will not return without a serious change in the way we do business.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

' Not a single TV factory has reopened. No VCRs, no computers, DVD players were NEVER made in America. '

Because Americans suck at making TV's and DVD players.

' And how will we do that, when all of our own decisions are already being made for us by other people? '

The decisions are made by us, now. That is all "globalization" means. If we want to get a car from Mexico, it is our choice. Pat Buchanan thinks that the government should take away this choice.

Re:Simple test here:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Because Americans suck at making TV's and DVD players.

Considering that the TV was invented in America- I doubt it. It's more that the price is cheaper if you use southeast asian slave labor to build it.

The decisions are made by us, now. That is all "globalization" means. If we want to get a car from Mexico, it is our choice. Pat Buchanan thinks that the government should take away this choice.

Anybody who would make that "choice" willingly is an idiot who doesn't know where his job comes from. Since that describes most of America- well, it isn't much of a choice. I challenge you to find a car where EVERY part was Made in America. We invented the car- should be easy to do, right, since you claim we have the "choice"? I choose to drive a Ford, don't I have the right to drive one where the car parts are made by people I trust?

Re:Simple test here:

[Nevyn]

A true free market has no regulation, no government imposed laws. Therefore Microsoft wouldn't have a monopoly because copyright wouldn't exist. So you seem to be arguing for some kind of "free" market where large corporations are protected, but the little guy can still be screwed ... have fun with that.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

' using the Ford economic method instead of the WalMart economic method to keep standard of living high. '

You mean the Ford economic method of decades-long steady and significant firing and reduction of work force, while Wal-Mart hires people during the same period?

' Shows what you know about the third world- they started out tribal, under which EVERYBODY is middle class and there are no rich and there are no poor '

What fantasies are you reading? Slavery was/is rife in tribal societies. It is hard to get more poor than a slave.

Re:Simple test here:

[CmdrGravy]

"Uh, isn't circumstances beyond your control making your life worse the very DEFINITION of unfair?"

I don't believe it is, falling prey to forces beyond your control is unfortunate but loosing a football game because the other team cheated is unfair.

Fairness and unfairness involve some kind of moral judgement and in the case of unfairness involves a moral judgement that first of all you deserved something and secondly that the thing which you deserved was maliciously denied to you.

The trouble with closing your borders is that sooner or later you would lose out in military power to other countries, you would alienate yourselves from countries which would like access to your market and at some point you would be forced to dance to the tune of other countries who are now more powerful than you.

They would point to your restrictive economic practices and encourage you to engage with them in business - on their terms - or else...

In the meantime Americans would see that a lot of the world seemed to have a much higher standard of living than they did, cooler gadgets, better education etc and ignore the fact that a lot of the world is still worse off. Without some kind of very repressive regime they would force the country back into the world market, on it's terms.

Really you are much better engaging with the world, isolation will get you nowhere in the long run. The US should use it's power to improve things now so that it doesn't set it's self up for a bigger fall later on.

If you have a bank account you are indirectly supporting a wide range of companies in whose activities you have no say, if you have a pension you own shares etc etc.

Re:Simple test here:

[CmdrGravy]

I agree the gap between rich and poor is growing and I do like your idea in theory.

Isolationism and the increasing wealth of the rest of the world would ensure an exodus of most of the rich people in the US which would solve that problem.

But like I said earlier the rest of the world would forcibly intervene at some point once they deemed they could make believable threats of violence.

Re:Simple test here:

[CmdrGravy]

England at one point was happy to encourage piracy and it didn't do us any harm. You could be on to something there.

Re:Simple test here:

[arkulkis]

You're obviously absolutely-freaking unfamiliar with the (utter lack of) quality of work coming out of India.

My uncle is a mechanical designer. It takes him longer to fix up the drawings sent from India than to do them from scratch. TRW management thinks this is "saving money" (even though they are spending $$$MORE/part design) than when India was uninvolved.

I'm seeing the same thing in the computer world.

Projects sent to India are incomplete, won't compile, etc. and then finally abandoned, before finally being turned over to (and usually implemented from scratch by) the same Americans who management told to go screw themselves when management got the fucked up idea that incompetant people on the other side of the world are more effective than experienced American professionals whom they can see face-to-face, and actually monitor their work, in real time.

It's time to overthrow management.

Re:Simple test here:

[ces]

The average Westerner uses something on the order of 100-1000 times the water that someone in a developing country does. Now, imagine everyone in the world using water at developed-nation levels.

Not the same as oil, or many other resources, water generally isn't shipped long distances so it isn't as if the US and China are competing with each other for water.

Sure, water recycles, but not that fast. Not thousands of gallons a day for billions of people fast.

Within developed nations at least all you have to do is feed the output from the sewage treatment plant into the input of the water treatment plant. While you do lose some water along the way you can also dramaticly cut the net water consumption of say Santa Barbara.

Food is another biggie. Sure, there's plenty to feed the world now, but that's because few countries eat meat at the level that developed nations do. Doubling the amount of meat consumption worldwide would multiply world grain needs by a much larger factor (I think the equation is something like 1 pound of beef = 10 pounds of grain).

While the popularity of some particular foodstuffs may make them more expensive people will generally switch to something else. I think beef is currently overpriced so I eat Pork, Chicken, or Lamb.
For that matter you don't have to raise many meat animals on grain. You can graze cattle on rangeland that really isn't suited to raising crops.

Re:Simple test here:

[Ohreally_factor]

Not at all- we did it before and it created one of the most prosperous decades ever seen in America.

Which decade is this that we sealed off our borders, not letting anyone or anything in or out?

Shows what you know about the third world- they started out tribal, under which EVERYBODY is middle class and there are no rich and there are no poor (for that you need this wierd invention known as money).

Well, there's the slavery thing the other poster mentioned. But I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about. Which tribes do you mean?

I think also you're making the mistake of calling what might be society without economic classes middle class. Essentially meaningless.

I'm really confused as to what your thoughts are on this matter, MH. They seem to be all over the board. Maybe you're ahead of your time? =)

Re:Simple test here:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

"You mean the Ford economic method of decades-long steady and significant firing and reduction of work force, while Wal-Mart hires people during the same period?"

That came WAY later. I mean the Henry Ford economic method of every worker being able to reasonably afford that which he is working on- and being paid enough to do so (at the time, he was paying 5x the going factory wage for assembly-line work; and sure enough, within three years just about every Ford employee owned a Model T).

What fantasies are you reading? Slavery was/is rife in tribal societies. It is hard to get more poor than a slave.

We're all slaves in one way or another- the distinction is meaningless in a society where all suffer equally in times of famine, and all prosper equally in times of feast, like with the Kwakiutal.

Re:Simple test here:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I think also you're making the mistake of calling what might be society without economic classes middle class. Essentially meaningless.

If there are no rich- and are no poor- then there is only one class- the middle. The Kwakiutal achieved this even with "slavery" and "chiefs"- all of whom suffered equally in a hard winter or ate equally with a good hunt.

I'm really confused as to what your thoughts are on this matter, MH. They seem to be all over the board. Maybe you're ahead of your time? =)

Part of the problem is that the language itself is outside of my time- modern english isn't well designed to criticize the status quo.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

' I mean the Henry Ford economic method of every worker being able to reasonably afford that which he is working on" '

What a great idea! I wonder why Boeing hasn't done this?

' and being paid enough to do so (at the time, he was paying 5x the going factory wage for assembly-line work" '

Then the greedy union thugs stepped in, helped by bad government laws. Being overpaid 5 times was not enough!!!. Ford went into slow decline that continues today.

Re:Simple test here:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

What a great idea! I wonder why Boeing hasn't done this?

For the same reason most companies haven't done that- class warfare indicates that the shareholders deserve to live in luxury, earning money off of the workers. Without that, there would be no profit- for a man would be paid what his economic input is, no more and no less. Profit is derived from the difference between what the workers put in, and what the so-called "free market price" is.

Then the greedy union thugs stepped in, helped by bad government laws. Being overpaid 5 times was not enough!!!.

They weren't overpaid 5x- they were paid what they were worth. The government laws stepped in because oligarchy members like you were living off of other people's labor- a totally indefensible moral position.

Ford went into slow decline that continues today.

Here's an alternate explaination- with the death of old Henry Ford, his lazy-good-for-nothing children and grandchildren took over, and stole so much value out of the company that it went into decline.

Which is why I'm entirely against the idea of inherrited wealth.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

"class warfare indicates that the shareholders deserve to live in luxury"

Mythical "class warfare" is not involved here.

"Without that, there would be no profit- for a man would be paid what his economic input is, no more and no less"

Profit results after someone is paid for the actual value of their economic input.

"Profit is derived from the difference between what the workers put in, and what the so-called "free market price" is."

Profit is earned from adding value to something. That is all it is.

"The government laws stepped in because oligarchy members like you were living off of other people's labor- a totally indefensible moral position."

These people (none of whom were members in an oligarchy_ were living off of what they earned themselves.....

' Which is why I'm entirely against the idea of inherrited wealth '

Whether or not we are for or against it, it is not our business at all what one family member chooses to give another family member.

Re:Simple test here:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Mythical "class warfare" is not involved here.

Class warfare is not mythical- and it's in fact the whole point of this online discussion. You wouldn't be writing in favor of the upper classes if it wasn't for your own involvement in the oppression of workers- therefore this very post is evidence that class warfare exists.

Profit results after someone is paid for the actual value of their economic input.

In that case profit should always be zero- if you're paying somebody the full amount of the actual value of their economic input, then there is nothing left over for stockholders AT ALL. Since this is not the case- you're obviously lying in support of your side of the class warfare.

Profit is earned from adding value to something. That is all it is.

And since stockholders do not add value to a company- they only subtract from a company's value- any profit that stockholders take must be stolen from the workers.

These people (none of whom were members in an oligarchy_ were living off of what they earned themselves.....

Really? What value does, say, a stockholder in Boeing add to an airplane? In comparison to say, the guy who installed the seats? Or rivited together the skin? Better yet- does managment add any actual value, or are they too just parasites on the system?

Whether or not we are for or against it, it is not our business at all what one family member chooses to give another family member.

It is when what is given is the natural resources and/or invented resources of the government paid for with our tax dollars. Heck- for that matter, since dollars are printed and managed by the government- any wealth paid for with dollars is subject to the democratic process. Since inherritance is anti-democratic, it should be banned (oddly enough, one of the richer members of the oligarchy, William Gates Sr., agrees with me on that and wrote a book against the accumulation of wealth intergenerationally. He succeeded in his own life by requiring Billy Jr. to pay back that $100,000 loan that started Microsoft- and hasn't given him a cent since). You seem to have bought into a large number of the lies of the current oligarchy- from the time value of money on up to the present day attempt to steal government away from the people and put it into the hands of the multinational corporations- and I believe that until you've rid yourself of these lies, you have no chance at all of understanding the different levels I'm discussing.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

' Class warfare is not mythical- and it's in fact the whole point of this online discussion '

Well, some people do wage it. They try to foment "class" division. In this, it is similar to race warfare. However, the ones waging class warfare are not the ones who do nothing more wrong than earn a lot of money.

'In that case profit should always be zero- if you're paying somebody the full amount of the actual value '

' You wouldn't be writing in favor of the upper classes if it wasn't for your own involvement in the oppression of workers '

I'm writing in favor of all, regardless of "class" distinctions. It should also be remembered that most members of the "Upper Classes" are workers as well. How did they get to the upper classes? by working.

You are paying them the full amount of their labor. The profit comes from something you added to it.

' And since stockholders do not add value to a company '

They have certainly added a huge amount of value. They have risked their investments in the company. If you really believe what you say, think again after you consider what happens to a company after its investors abandon it.

' any profit that stockholders take must be stolen from the workers.'

Earning is not theft. Why use the word theft when it does not apply?

' Really? What value does, say, a stockholder in Boeing add to an airplane? '

The stockholder invests, allowing the company to purchase and improve their factories, and a lot more.

' In comparison to say, the guy who installed the seats? '

A hell of a lot more. Seat installers are a dime a dozen.

' Better yet- does managment add any actual value, or are they too just parasites on the system? '

Dilbert aside, if management was that much of a problem, few companies would have it. In many cases, they are parasites, but in most cases managers are the ones who have the necessary organizational skills to greatly improve the company.

' It is when what is given is the natural resources and/or invented resources of the government paid for with our tax dollars '

Well, this applies if someone is giving the Brooklyn Bridge to their son, but what does that have to do with anything?

' Since inherritance is anti-democratic, it should be banned '

It is not anti-democratic; it is just a personal matter that a government has no business meddling in.

'you have no chance at all of understanding the different levels I'm discussing'

You preceeded this with mention of a whacky conspiracy theory.

Re:Simple test here:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Well, some people do wage it.

Yep, like you.

They try to foment "class" division. In this, it is similar to race warfare. However, the ones waging class warfare are not the ones who do nothing more wrong than earn a lot of money.

It is impossible under the current system to earn a lot of money without formenting "class" divisions by taking undue profit from one's workers. You admitted this below.

I'm writing in favor of all, regardless of "class" distinctions.

Then why do you support the right of the upper class to CREATE a lower class by paying a different salary scale? If you're against class distinctions, then everybody should earn equal pay for equal work.

It should also be remembered that most members of the "Upper Classes" are workers as well.

That's a lie- most members of the upper classes are INVESTORS, not workers.

How did they get to the upper classes? by working.

No- by inheritance as can be shown in the Forbes lists that NEVER have new surnames.

You are paying them the full amount of their labor.

Their labor is the only value added- if you were paying them the full amount, there'd be no profit left over.

The profit comes from something you added to it.

And since managment and stockholders add no value- because they do no labor, no work- there should be no profit.

Earning is not theft.

It is when you did not labor for it.

Why use the word theft when it does not apply?

Because it DOES apply.

The stockholder invests, allowing the company to purchase and improve their factories, and a lot more.

In other words- only control over the means of production. NO real value added at all- if the means of production were owned by the people, democratically, to begin with there would be no need for the investors at all.

A hell of a lot more. Seat installers are a dime a dozen.

But without the seat installer, there is no value added to the airplane, and the factory is utterly worthless.

Dilbert aside, if management was that much of a problem, few companies would have it.

Management is there for ONE reason only- they are the shock troops of the upper class for the creation of a lower class. Without managment, you would not be able to create a lower class, and there would be no profit.

In many cases, they are parasites, but in most cases managers are the ones who have the necessary organizational skills to greatly improve the company.

"Organizational skills" is a code word for separating human beings into jobs dependant upon class- how managment "improves" the company is by ensuring the stockholders that they will get good "return on their investment" by stealing the fruits of the labor of the workers.

Well, this applies if someone is giving the Brooklyn Bridge to their son, but what does that have to do with anything?

It also applies when someone gives a large amount of money- money being printed by the government and therefore owned by the government.

It is not anti-democratic;

It creates class- and above you claimed to be against anything that creates class. Such a process that creates class is anti-democratic.

it is just a personal matter that a government has no business meddling in.

Then why is a government official signing all of those little green pieces of paper that the person inherited?

You preceeded this with mention of a whacky conspiracy theory.

No theory at all- as you have proven by your lies.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

' Yep, like you'

I have yet to make decisions from a framework of "class warfare".

' It is impossible under the current system to earn a lot of money without formenting "class" divisions by taking undue profit from one's workers.

Not only is it possible, this is what happens most of the time. This is because no profit is taken from workers (unless it is Enron eating the pension plan!).

' Then why do you support the right of the upper class to CREATE a lower class by paying a different salary scale? '

I support the people involved in deals to work out what is fair among them. Since some jobs are worth a lot more than others, this involves working out the value of the work. The different salary scale is a creation of the workers.

' you're against class distinctions, then everybody should earn equal pay for equal work. '

"Equal pay for equal work" is what happens most of the time, since pay is based on the value of the work.

' No- by inheritance as can be shown in the Forbes lists that NEVER have new surnames '

I was referring to the huge numbers of millionaires in the country, not this small list. However, back to your list. Consider Sam Walton. How did he got on this list when he was alive? Which inheritance? How about them Rockefellers? Slowly fluttering to the bottom of the list because no matter what you think, dynasties do not last. How about the Duponts, Morgans, and Carnegies, the rich guys of the past? Their descendants are either off the list or on their way out.

' That's a lie- most members of the upper classes are INVESTORS, not workers '

Most Americans are investors and workers. As for your list, Gates, Dell etc definitely work. Most millionaires (we would agree they are upper class) got that way due to their own hard work.

' It is when you did not labor for it '

Earning is not theft if someone gives it to you or you trade for it.

' In other words- only control over the means of production. NO real value added at all '

Did you read the message? A huge value is added when someone invests in a company. Ask anyone you know who is in small business, they will tell you.

' But without the seat installer, there is no value added to the airplane, and the factory is utterly worthless '

Seat installers are a dime a dozen. Taking you literally, without "the seat installer", there are still dozens of other seat installers to do the job.

' Their labor is the only value added- if you were paying them the full amount, there'd be no profit left over '

The labor of the factory worker is only part of the value. There is value added by others all up and down.

' Management is there for ONE reason only- they are the shock troops of the upper class for the creation of a lower class '

Do you know anyone at all involved in small business? You will find that they have management out of necessity, even when no-one involved is "upper class".

' "Organizational skills" is a code word for separating human beings into jobs dependant upon class '

You are correct if you substitute "ability and value of work" for "class".

' how managment "improves" the company is by ensuring the stockholders that they will get good "return on their investment" '

Then how come small companies with no stockholders find they need management? If they do not have it, they often find that management has to be farmed out to a business services company across town? That is now necessary management is.

' ...by stealing the fruits of the labor of the workers '

They get only what they earn. nothing more.

' Such a process that creates class is anti-democratic '

The subject is actually not related to that of "democracy".

Which pieces of paper?

Re:Simple test here:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I have yet to make decisions from a framework of "class warfare".

And yet- every single statement you've made has been in support of the status quo of class warfare. Which means that you are so into the framework that you can't see that you are a part of the framework.

Not only is it possible, this is what happens most of the time. This is because no profit is taken from workers (unless it is Enron eating the pension plan!).

It doesn't matter who is taking the profit- if a single dividend is offered, it had to come from somewhere. Since the ONLY people creating value are the workers, that dividend came from their labor, and is rightly theirs.

I support the people involved in deals to work out what is fair among them.

Can't be done until Maslow needs are met- without the basic Maslow needs, you don't have equals negotiating to begin with.

Since some jobs are worth a lot more than others, this involves working out the value of the work. The different salary scale is a creation of the workers.

And what "worker" stated that a CEO managment parasite gets to earn 400 times everybody else?

Equal pay for equal work" is what happens most of the time, since pay is based on the value of the work.

But pay is not based on the value of the work- pay is based on what the employer wants it to be, and if the worker doesn't like it, he can go elsewhere, there are plenty more where he came from (this is the meaning of human labor in surplus).

I was referring to the huge numbers of millionaires in the country, not this small list.

Not a single worker among them- all management and investors.

However, back to your list. Consider Sam Walton. How did he got on this list when he was alive?

By inheriting money from a great aunt that died which enabled him to buy his first store. All other money was made off of such low pay that his workers were on welfare- his payroll was subsidized by tax money.

How about them Rockefellers?

Many of them are still there- as are the Carnegies, the Mellons, etc. What of them are still alive- I'll grant you that once names make the list, there is a tendency for the family to spend so much time managing their money that they fail to breed.

Did you read the message? A huge value is added when someone invests in a company. Ask anyone you know who is in small business, they will tell you.

I own a small business- and know for a fact that the value comes from WORK, not from INVESTMENT. Investment is just the means of production, not the actual production. I can't sell investment, I can only sell finished goods.

Most Americans are investors and workers.

401k is not investing- it's a cheat to make sure that you have a bad retirement.

As for your list, Gates, Dell etc definitely work.

Gates hasn't actually WORKED a day in his life- all of his products were bought or pirated from others. Michael Dell never actually made a single machine- he buys on 90 day terms, sells for cost, and makes money off of the interest in between.

Most millionaires (we would agree they are upper class) got that way due to their own hard work.

Well, I've yet to meet one- they all have some scam going based on the time value of money rather than actual work.

You are correct if you substitute "ability and value of work" for "class".

Yes- that's a given. A classless society does not have such bogus distinctions. If you're separating people based on some quality that cannot be known and is totally imaginary- that's class.

Then how come small companies with no stockholders find they need management?

I actually find that small companies with no stockholders don't need management at all- if they need managment then they're doing something wrong, like paying people less than the true economic value of their worth

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the ONLY people creating value are the workers, that dividend came from their labor, and is rightly theirs.

This is a pretty laughable statement, as it completely ignores the concept of initial investment, or it otherwise claims that "initial upfront investment is never a factor in the success of an enterprise."

Gates hasn't actually WORKED a day in his life- all of his products were bought or pirated from others. Michael Dell never actually made a single machine- he buys on 90 day terms, sells for cost, and makes money off of the interest in between.

So you are claiming that Gates and Dell have been sipping drinks on the beach every day? If you think that, then you are very very ignorant.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

' And yet- every single statement you've made has been in support of the status quo of class warfare '

None of the statements has supported class warfare. have yet to make decisions from a framework of "class warfare".

'It doesn't matter who is taking the profit- if a single dividend is offered'

Profit is usually only offered if earned.

'...it had to come from somewhere '

Yes. From the work/effort of the one earning it.

' Since the ONLY people creating value are the workers, that dividend came from their labor, and is rightly theirs. '

A worker should only get a dividend if he has risked the fruits of his labor by investing in stock in the company. If he just gets it anyway, he is getting something he never earned.

' And what "worker" stated that a CEO managment parasite gets to earn 400 times everybody else? '

The CEO is one of the workers himself/herself. Good CEO's are much rarer than someone who rivets seats.

'But pay is not based on the value of the work- pay is based on what the employer wants it to be, and if the worker doesn't like it, he can go elsewhere '

This bargaining results in the pay being for the real value of the work.

' Not a single worker among them- all management and investors.'

Most millionaires are workers, as are all managers. (management is work).

By inheriting money from a great aunt that died which enabled him to buy his first store

Do you know the value of this? It was all pretty small.

' All other money was made off of such low pay that his workers were on welfare '

Read the book of how he got rich. You have no idea.

' his payroll was subsidized by tax money. '

Actually? Not. The Wal-Mart workers are paid for the real value of their work. How about them Rockefellers?

' I own a small business- and know for a fact that the value comes from WORK, not from INVESTMENT '

If someone were to invest in your small business, do you argue that this would add nothing to your operation?

' I can't sell investment, I can only sell finished goods.'

True, but you can sell the goods a lot easier with investment. Value is added to the operation.

'401k is not investing- it's a cheat to make sure that you have a bad retirement."

It meets the definition of investment

"Gates hasn't actually WORKED a day in his life- all of his products were bought or pirated from others."

You may not like his work, but he has done whatever he has done by sitting at his Mac (?) and doing a lot of things.

' Michael Dell never actually made a single machine- he buys on 90 day terms, sells for cost, and makes money off of the interest in between. '

That's a bit of clever work.

' I actually find that small companies with no stockholders don't need management at all '

No-one with the title of "manager" ?

'if they need managment then they're doing something wrong, like paying people less than the true economic value of their worth.'

The companies with management also pay for the real value of the work.

And since the earning power of INVESTMENT and MANAGEMENT is exactly zero, this is a lie as well.

Both add value.

"That's because business is anti-democratic in the extreme."

Do you think that every personal decision should be up to a vote????

Re:Simple test here:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

This is a pretty laughable statement, as it completely ignores the concept of initial investment, or it otherwise claims that "initial upfront investment is never a factor in the success of an enterprise."

Depends on what you mean by "success". If you mean providing a Just Wage to workers and a Fair Price to consumers as a measurement of success- the only one that I count- then upfront investment is largely immaterial and should be handled by one's Guild dues. If by success you mean providing and undue income to people who do no actual LABOR, then upfront investment is always the single largest factor of success of an entriprise.

So you are claiming that Gates and Dell have been sipping drinks on the beach every day?

No, they're too greedy for that- they're always in search of new "opportunities" to oppress more people, which I suppose YOU consider to be a form of work- I personally consider it to be a mental illness.

If you think that, then you are very very ignorant.

And if you think paper shuffling is "work" then you are very, very ignorant.

Re:Simple test here:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

None of the statements has supported class warfare. have yet to make decisions from a framework of "class warfare".
Then why do you support the right of an upper class to BE upper class, if you do not support class warfare?
Profit is usually only offered if earned.
No it isn't. It's offered whenever the business has sufficient excess stolen from the workers.
Yes. From the work/effort of the one earning it.
And what WORK would that be? Shuffling paper?
A worker should only get a dividend if he has risked the fruits of his labor by investing in stock in the company.
Only workers should be allowed to invest in the company to begin with- no others EVER should.
The CEO is one of the workers himself/herself. Good CEO's are much rarer than someone who rivets seats.
No CEO ever works- he just shuffles paper and oppresses the workers. Paper shuffling is not work.
This bargaining results in the pay being for the real value of the work.
That's not bargaining, it's slavery based on a surplus of human labor. Bargaining happens between equals- this statment in and of itself is a decision based on a framework of class warfare.
Do you know the value of this? It was all pretty small.
It was enough to secure the means of retail- and the ability to oppress the workers.
Read the book of how he got rich. You have no idea.
I have read the book- and just how he came up with the idea that by lowering wages (controlling costs) he could increase profit for himself. That all of his workers had to be on food stamps was beside the point to him- lowering wages and controling costs were paramount.
Actually? Not. The Wal-Mart workers are paid for the real value of their work.
Then why did they have to go on food stamps? And why does Wal-Mart make a 40% profit? No, the real value of their work would have been their wages AND a 40% commission on whatever they sold.
If someone were to invest in your small business
I wouldn't let them. Investors not related to the business are EVIL and always bad for innovation.
do you argue that this would add nothing to your operation?
I in fact argue that it would subtract value from my operation- destroying my Just Wage.
True, but you can sell the goods a lot easier with investment.

No I can't- I'd have to pay a dividend back to the investor, destroying value for me.

Value is added to the operation.

You mean subtracted from.

It meets the definition of investment

No it doesn't- employees who are given a 401k are not free to make decisions about what to invest in, and thus, are not really investing. In addition, fund managers usually steal all the profits anyway, leaving the worker with neither a pension plan OR a retirenment account. 401(k)s are just another scam.

You may not like his work, but he has done whatever he has done by sitting at his Mac (?) and doing a lot of things.

Stealing other people's work is not "doing a lot of things". Finding other people's work to steal is not work.

That's a bit of clever work.

It's not work at all. No energy in, no energy out. No actual movement needed at all. It does not fit the clasical physics definition of work.

No-one with the title of "manager" ?

Why would one need somebody with the title of manager when there is only one person in the company?

The companies with management also pay for the real value of the work.

If they did, there'd be nothing left to pay the manager.

Both add value.

Neither adds value- both subtract from the value of the work because there is a need to pay somebody who isn't working.

Do you think that every personal decision should be up to a vote????

Business decisions aren't personal. They are an act of morality in a larger society. EVERY business decision affects countless other people. Therefore they simply aren't personal decisions.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

' Then why do you support the right of an upper class to BE upper class '

People earning money or having it freely given to them is not ' class warfare '. No, I am not one of them. It is just that I am not consumed by greed and jealousy of those who have more than I do. ' No it isn't. It's offered whenever the business has sufficient excess stolen from the workers. '

The profit earned by extra effort (as this is) is not "theft" in any legal, moral, or dictionary definition.

' Yes. From the work/effort of the one earning it. And what WORK would that be? Shuffling paper? '

I guess so. Unless they are in government, non-working paper shufflers tend to be fired.

' Only workers should be allowed to invest in the company to begin with- no others EVER should. '

Why not let the people decide? Must everything be a government decision?

' No CEO ever works- he just shuffles paper and oppresses the workers. '

Most work. the Ken Lay's get in trouble. Few oppress workers: if they did this, they would soon have no workers to oppress.

' Paper shuffling is not work. '

If this is true, then neither is dirt shuffling (ditch digging) rock shuffling (ore mining) or stickshift shuffling (truck driving)

' That's not bargaining, it's slavery based on a surplus of human labor. '

It is the most basic kind of bargaining: don't like the deal? walk away. There is no slavery involved.

' Bargaining happens between equals '

Check the definition of bargaining. Then think.

' It was enough to secure the means of retail- and the ability to oppress the workers. '

A fabricated oppression in your mind. Consider this fact: it is not oppression of the "oppressed" vehemently disagree with you that it is oppression.. Retail? A great idea, one of added value. What sort of kook would rather traipse to 19 different factories just to get a grocery bag full?

' The Wal-Mart workers are paid for the real value of their work. '

The Wal-Mart workers disagree with you. I side with them.

' No, the real value of their work would have been their wages AND a 40% commission on whatever they sold. '

A commission that they did not earn since they did nothing?

' Investors not related to the business are EVIL and always bad for innovation. '

I respect that opinion, and it is one that most business owners disagree with. I would leave this up to them.

' No it doesn't- employees who are given a 401k are not free to make decisions about what to invest in '

That is just another lie. It is still investing, even if you do not like it. At least it is not as bad as your insulting and demeaning lie in which you call working people "slaves".

' It's not work at all. No energy in, no energy out. '

It is quite a bit of work. You are getting more and more insulting to workers.

' No actual movement needed at all. It does not fit the clasical physics definition of work. '

Ah. Fred Flintstone with the pulley and levers. Is he the only real worker? In your attempt to slander and insult the vast majority of America's working people, it can be noticed that you have now excluded Wal-Mart workers from being workers.

' Business decisions aren't personal. They are an act of morality in a larger society. '

Who better to decide the morality than the people involved?

' EVERY business decision affects countless other people. '

...Who better to decide the morality than the people involved?

Re:Simple test here:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

People earning money or having it freely given to them is not ' class warfare '.

Not at all true- for money itself is a sign of class.

No, I am not one of them. It is just that I am not consumed by greed and jealousy of those who have more than I do.

Greed and jealousy are words used by the upper class to control the lower class- why do you use those words if you are not engaged in class warfare?

The profit earned by extra effort (as this is) is not "theft" in any legal, moral, or dictionary definition.

The laws and dictionaries are written by the corporations- and as such are a tool of the class warfare. As for morality- Guild economics was practiced in the middle ages- and had no profit for those who did not put in extra effort (I do not consider paper shuffling to be extra effort).

I guess so. Unless they are in government, non-working paper shufflers tend to be fired.

Not true- all of managment and the investor class are made up of non-working paper shufflers. In fact, these people are rewarded MORE than the workers.

Why not let the people decide? Must everything be a government decision?

Non-sequitor, in a democracy the people are the government. There is no difference between the people and the government deciding- they are one and the same.

Most work. the Ken Lay's get in trouble. Few oppress workers: if they did this, they would soon have no workers to oppress.

Have you SEEN the labor utilization rate (employed/totalpopulation)? Any worker who refuses to be oppressed, will be thrown out to starve- as the grand majority are.

A fabricated oppression in your mind. Consider this fact: it is not oppression of the "oppressed" vehemently disagree with you that it is oppression.

Totally irrelevant- it's completely possible to brainwash people to accept their own oppression. Happens all the time.

Retail? A great idea, one of added value.

There's no added value to retail- just subtracted value of lost jobs in the local community.

What sort of kook would rather traipse to 19 different factories just to get a grocery bag full?

The average 13th century peasant. A much pleasanter time.

The Wal-Mart workers disagree with you. I side with them

And which Wal-Mart workers would these be? The women suing over better wages paid to men? The men suing over unpaid overtime? The stockboys suing over having to lie on the floor for 9 hours with broken bones because they were locked in the store with the phones turned off? The clerks who are refused medical insurance because the manager has been told by corporate not to schedule them for more than 9 hours a week? The manager making less than poverty level wages, but he's happy because he has "benefits" that he's never looked at and only pay major hospitalization? Which set of workers was that again who were happy?

A commission that they did not earn since they did nothing?

They got that customer to pay the additional 40%- if anything it was management who did nothing.

I respect that opinion, and it is one that most business owners disagree with.

Of course, because most business OWNERS who use investments and management to gain undue profit don't actually WORK anymore.

I would leave this up to them.

Also a class warfare comment- how nice of you to allow owners to oppress workers.

That is just another lie.

No it isn't- that's how Enron got away with raiding the pension fund, because the workers were not allowed to decide how to invest their 401(k)s (and in fact, aren't by SEC and IRS rules).

It is still investing, even if you do not like it. At least it is not as bad as your insulting and demeaning lie in which you call working people "slaves".

http://www.distributis

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you think paper shuffling is "work" then you are very, very ignorant.

Bzzzt!!! Wrong!

Man, you really are dumb. Maybe thats why you don't have a job, and spend all day posting on Slashdot unlike the rest of us.

Re:Simple test here:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I see nothing in that link supporting being a con artist and a paper shuffler being "work". In fact, the simplest, #1 definition on that page is:

Physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something.

Since your paper shuffling CEOs don't actually accomplish anything or produce anything at all, they don't work. Same with investors. So, no- BZZZT- you're wrong.

Re:Simple test here:

[Anonymous Coward]

' And which Wal-Mart workers would these be? The women suing over better wages paid to men? The men suing over unpaid overtime? The stockboys suing over having to lie on the floor for 9 hours with broken bones because they were locked in the store with the phones turned off? The clerks who are refused medical insurance because the manager has been told by corporate not to schedule them for more than 9 hours a week? The manager making less than poverty level wages, but he's happy because he has "benefits" that he's never looked at and only pay major hospitalization? Which set of workers was that again who were happy? '

Try the 99% of Wal-Mart workers who do not fall into the abuve categories.

Re:Simple test here:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Try the 99% of Wal-Mart workers who do not fall into the abuve categories.

Well, none of them seem to work in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, or California- all of the workers at Wal*Mart here fall into one of the above categories, to the point that the majority of them have sued Wal*Mart and won.

Its all in the contract

[Anonymous Coward]

The DoD has been doing it for many many years and they will withold payment if somoene messes up.

Re:Its all in the contract

[Anonymous Custard]

The DoD has been doing it for many many years and they will withold payment if somoene messes up

Not really, though.

Check out the Failure to Withhold Funds section of this document.

Saving your bottom line.

[grub]

1: Stop payment on cheque.
2: Demand refund of deposit.
3: Get one return ticket to contractor's location via Expedia.
4: If 1 or 2 fail send return ticket to "IcePick" Vinnie.
5: Pick up Vinnie at airport in a couple of days.
6: Take money home and count it or enjoy photos of mangled corpse(s).
7: ???
8: Profit!!!

Re:Saving your bottom line.

[tgrigsby]

1: Stop payment on cheque.
2: Demand refund of deposit.
3: Get one return ticket to contractor's location via Expedia.
4: If 1 or 2 fail send return ticket to "IcePick" Vinnie.
5: Pick up Vinnie at airport in a couple of days.
6: Take money home and count it or enjoy photos of mangled corpse(s).
7: ???
8: Profit!!!


??? = Sell photos to crew producing "Faces Of Death: When Ripped Off Outsourcers Attack."

Re:Saving your bottom line.

[Anonymous Coward]

Outsourcing that contract... i'll take it, make the flight out of Newark

Re:Saving your bottom line.

[lostguy]

Vindictive is fun. :-)

"We'd like to wrap this up quickly because we have this other huge project to discuss with you, that will take all of your resources for months!"

See if you can get the "all payment at completion" deal for that one, too. ;-)

I know what _I'm_ doing.

[Le Marteau]

Laughing. At you. With glee. Ha ha!

Re:I know what _I'm_ doing.

[Heem]

Agreed. I don't feel at all sorry for you if your outsourcing went wrong. Had you hired someone local to finish your script, you wouldn't be having this problem.

Re:I know what _I'm_ doing.

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL.

It's hard to feel sorry for someone whose boss decided to screw domestic labor for a cheaper product, produced overseas, and apparently with no quality controll.

Much like a fake rolex or a fake Gucci bag, you have purchased a fake script. On the surface it may share many of the same features as the real thing, but already you've noticed it's just not the same, and you do get what you pay for.

How much money has the company wasted in dealing with this issue, and how does this compare to the amount of money saved by outsourcing ?

Re:I know what _I'm_ doing.

[DaHat]

How do you know he didn't hire someone local?

Outsourcing only means that the work is done outside of the company, not out of the country.

Re:I know what _I'm_ doing.

[generalpf]

He said he *outsourced* it, not *offshored* it. Perhaps the outsourcer *is* local.

Re:I know what _I'm_ doing.

[acidrain69]

There is a difference between outsourcing and offshoring.

I am COMPLETELY against offshoring, but outsourcing is OK. Outsourcing just means you are contracting a company to do something for you. Now personally, I thing this is a bad idea in MANY situations where it is overused, because you lose a level of control when you outsource to someone else. You should expect lower quality. In some instances though, it does pay to have someone else do it rather than build your own infrastructure.

Now Offshoring means you are getting cheap/slave labor from outside the country. I don't condone this at all. At least the money for outsourcing stays local/national, instead of going overseas to a country with poor labor laws.

Re:I know what _I'm_ doing.

[3dr]

But to answer his question, you know it has gone wrong when you have to hire a CON$ultant to figure out how bad it really is.

Shoulda kept those "expensive" in-house developers.

Re:I know what _I'm_ doing.

[rking]

I am COMPLETELY against offshoring, but outsourcing is OK.

You're against importing any product or service? Or do you mean that if something's ever been produced inhouse then it must never be imported but can be bought in from other companies in the same country? So I can start up my company from scratch using imported goods, but if I try for a year to make them myself then I have to forego the import option forever? Or what do you mean?

Re:I know what _I'm_ doing.

[Kyaphas]

We know he didn't hire someone local (in the US) because if he did, he would have legal recourse. After all, if there's one thing we know is ALWAYS an option in the US, it's to sue.

Re:I know what _I'm_ doing.

[DaHat]

We do not know that, nor do we know if he is a US based.

For all you know, he is a Canadian living in Ontario (the e-mail address noted in the post does seem to indicate that) who hired a US contractor.

Anytime you deal with those outside of your reach your options are limited. Yes, if both parties are in the same country, the law suit option always exists... but when a national border is involved and the parties are on different sides of it, it can be quite difficult, no matter how friendly relations are between the two contries.

Until you know more facts, it would be nice avoided jumping to such baseless conclusions.

Re:I know what _I'm_ doing.

[acidrain69]

I'm against it when there is an obvious bias against doing it in-country. If the 2 economies are similar in economic and legal status, then importing is OK. As I said, I do not believe in supporting oppresive regimes.

I don't folow your sentence about producing inhouse and then importing. How can something be imported if it is created inhouse? Perhaps you meant exporting?

Re:I know what _I'm_ doing.

[Schnapple]

We know he didn't hire someone local (in the US) because if he did, he would have legal recourse. After all, if there's one thing we know is ALWAYS an option in the US, it's to sue.

But perhaps he doesn't know that. It wouldn't be the first time someone's posted on /. asking for what others call "obvious" advice.

Rule #1 when you pay someone to code for you...

[rednip]

Get the source code! You might have called it outsourcing, but what you really did was pay someone to have an code empire in your domain. Even if they do finially deliver the finished product, you stuck with them for further development.

Re:Rule #1 when you pay someone to code for you...

[Kenja]

I have a pile of code here with comments in Spanish. I dread to think of trying to deal with comments in Bengali.

Re:Rule #1 when you pay someone to code for you...

[miu]

That is not always an option in the real world, but a reputable vendor should be willing to put the code in escrow through a third party. An added benefit to escrow is that it requires the contract to specify dates and what happens when they are not met.

The downside is that contract negotiations can drag on forever, and adding in an additional company can make it take even longer.

Re:Rule #1 when you pay someone to code for you...

[Anonymous Coward]

sure but there is a big difference between that and code that has been DELIBERATELY obfuscated.

remember

read the code NOT the comments ;)

Re:Rule #1 when you pay someone to code for you...

[sexistentialist]

I own an outsourcing firm in New York.

If you contract a person or an agency to develop an item for you, the item is the deliverable. You own that deliverable, and your contract with them should stipulate that. If it doesn't, then you're simply licensing the use of something, and they are not obligated to support it.

Check your contract with the agency and look for what your rights are according to the contract. If you don't have anything signed that clearly defines these things, then you should do one of the following:

1. Prepare for a legal/arbitration battle. Weigh the costs of this against the cost of dealing with a reliable organization to recode it.
2. Cut your losses and sign a contract with another reliable organization. Learn from your mistakes.

The fact that someone has provided you with a deliverable which doesn't give you access to the source code says a great deal about their perception of you and your relationship with them. They don't care about anything other than your money, and you have no leverage to change their opinion.

I recommend that you cut your losses and look for a reliable firm.

Re:Rule #1 when you pay someone to code for you...

[frankie]

Bullcrap. When we hire contract programmers, we set the damn terms. Term 1 is "we get full source code". Term 2 is "you get the last payment when we're sure it works". If the outsource won't agree, don't hire them. Doing otherwise is a big fat casino gamble.

The poster's project manager has failed at his job and deserves a kick in the nether regions.

Re:Rule #1 when you pay someone to code for you...

[Kurt Gray]

I'm guessing the outsourcer wanted $x to deliver just the application and $x + $y for application with source code so the client took the cheaper option. That'd be the Vendor Lock-In Standard Deluxe option.

Re:Rule #1 when you pay someone to code for you...

[Gyorg_Lavode]

Well. we know you don't work for the government.

Re:Rule #1 when you pay someone to code for you...

[ect5150]

I thought Rule #1 was to first establish what requirements needed to be met to actually say "its done" to prevent exactly what's happened to this guy.

That way there is no argument over any money issues or finished product. If its meets a list of requirements, you get the software, they get paid, if it doesn't, they don't get paid, but I guess you don't get a product either.

Re:Rule #1 when you pay someone to code for you...

[cratermoon]

read the code... and hope that the class, method, and variable names aren't in Russian typed with Unicode cyrillic characters.

Re:Rule #1 when you pay someone to code for you...

[Stinking Pig]

I've worked with very sad customers who discovered this to be the case after pinkslipping their developers. Sucks when the fellow you just fired accidentally deleted the source on his way out the door.

Obviously this is not a wise course of action for the developer who intends to continue working in the industry, but a couple of years later the two companies I'm thinking of were still running that code and cursing at its bugs. After all, they laid the developers off to reduce costs and they couldn't afford to get replacement code.

Contract?

[kevin_conaway]

I would assume that you established a contract before starting work with this agency. If they are now in violation of that contract, you have grounds to sue them, correct?

Re:Contract?

[nizo]

The problem is, how do you even go about suing someone who lives in Elbonia (Or India or wherever) without spending a big pile of money? Or maybe that can be outsourced too, hmm. I am off to register "wesuetheworld.com".

Re:Contract?

[drew]

there is nothing in the posters question to indicate where the company they outsourced to is located. they may be in the sae building, or accross the street for all you know...

Re:Contract?

[RWerp]

Most countries have a system to sell off debt. This is a solution to get some part of money back.

Re:Contract?

[Create an Account]

On the other hand, if this is in fact a case of a foreign company blowing off the job, the original poster is unlikely to ever recover any of their funds. Unless the service provider is a really big firm or posted a performance bond somewhere (unlikely), the company probably has no cash to seize, and the assets (if any) are going to be valued at near zero. Sue all you want; they'll just shrug and smile.

In future offshoring efforts, either find a bonded provider (with good terms on the bond) or agree to complete payment on complete acceptance. Alternatively, you could just find people who help support your Social Security system, national defense, and infrastructure and pay THEM to work for you. (We call them Americans, and they're bound by the same laws you are! Neat, huh?)

Re:Contract?

[thomas.galvin]

I am off to register "wesuetheworld.com".

If SCO doesn't already own this... well, the RIAA probably does.

Re:Contract?

[pcmanjon]

"there is nothing in the posters question to indicate where the company they outsourced to is located. they may be in the sae building, or accross the street for all you know..."

Yes, it could be, but you know the current economic trends as well as I do.

How would it be any cheaper for the company accross the street in NYC to code it than your own companys workers? Or a contracter?

Usually people outsource so they can get it cheap cheap CHEAP. Cheap is in the countries outside of the U.S.

So, when you outsource to save money 90% of the time you outsource to another country.

Makes sense?

Re:Contract?

[doofusclam]

We call them Americans, and they're bound by the same laws you are! Neat, huh?

Really? You're a disgrace to your country, is the internet solely American or are you another one of their muppets that have never been out of the USA?

I live in the UK. Does that mean you'd actively discriminate against me?

Who even said the O.P was American?

And what if the rest of the world decided to take the same attitude as you? Call me nuts, but I actually like Microsoft Office and i'd hate for it to be more expensive because some turd of a British politician decided to support 'our' products with big fat import tariffs.

I've been affected by offshoring too - there's next to zero opportunity round here for coders (Gloucestershire, England) as so many companies have moved their development to India. I'm now working at a small company for whom the logistics of dealing with India would be too much. Things change, change with them.

Re:Contract?

[drew]

How would it be any cheaper for the company accross the street in NYC to code it than your own companys workers? Or a contracter?

as i pointed out in another post, there are a lot of companies that need programming tasks performed from time to time but not enough to justify a full time programmer (or team of programmers). there are other companies that keep only enough programmers around to handle steady low volume tasks, and outsource projects larger than what their team can handle to consulting companies with a large pool of ready workers. in those cases, hiring a firm to do the work is certainly cheaper than hiring your own employees, and much less hassle than trying to round up a large enough team of individual contractors to do the job.

yes, i don know the economic trends, but that doesn't jsutify everyone around here jumping to conclusions the way they have been. there are still a lot of consulting companies here in the U.S. as well.

Re:Contract?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I would assume that you established a contract before starting work with this agency. If they are now in violation of that contract, you have grounds to sue them, correct?

So what? You planning to sue some Chinese/Indian company in their own country? Good luck with that - you'll have better luck sending pictures of their CEO's kids.

Re:Contract?

[Anonymous Coward]

...are you another one of their muppets that have never been out of the USA?

Well, I've been to France, Germany, Turkey, Egypt, Italy, Israel, Spain, Monaco, and Puerto Rico. I've also been to St Thomas in the Virgin Islands, which certainly felt like a foreign country. I've always wanted to visit England and Ireland, but that hasn't happened yet.

...muppets...

Did you really ask me if I was a cloth covered puppet? Dictionary.com says muppet also means a stupid person. Well, my IQ usually tests at about 150 to 160, but that's hardly authoritative. I graduated from university Magna Cum Laude, but again, hardly authoritative. I guess you'll have to judge for yourself.

As far as discriminating against you, no, I probably wouldn't. The US and UK have a more balanced trade relationship, in addition to the vast amounts of shared culture. You face similar costs of living to mine. We can compete. Not so someone living in the third world.

You are right that I just assumed that the OP was American. The whine sounded familiar.

And what if the rest of the world decided to take the same attitude as you?

...there's next to zero opportunity round here for coders...

Maybe if UK took a little bit of my attitude there would be more opportunity round there? Look, I'm no fan of isolationism or tarrifs, but I recognize that offshoring leads to the same types of problems globally that the Walmart Economy causes locally. I just think that it's terribly shortsited to deplete the capital pool faster than its natural rate of growth. The current trend of offshoring is not balanced. This will be ameliorated when the (American) Baby Boomers begin to move out of the workforce en masse.

Hey, I'm sorry if I offended you.

Dang, this was a long post.

Re:Contract?

[Create an Account]

I replied without logging in a second ago. Here it is under my name.

...are you another one of their muppets that have never been out of the USA?

Well, I've been to France, Germany, Turkey, Egypt, Italy, Israel, Spain, Monaco, and Puerto Rico. I've also been to St Thomas in the Virgin Islands, which certainly felt like a foreign country. I've always wanted to visit England and Ireland, but that hasn't happened yet.

...muppets...

Did you really ask me if I was a cloth covered puppet? Dictionary.com says muppet also means a stupid person. Well, my IQ usually tests at about 150 to 160, but that's hardly authoritative. I graduated from university Magna Cum Laude, but again, hardly authoritative. I guess you'll have to judge for yourself.

As far as discriminating against you, no, I probably wouldn't. The US and UK have a more balanced trade relationship, in addition to the vast amounts of shared culture. You face similar costs of living to mine. We can compete. Not so someone living in the third world.

You are right that I just assumed that the OP was American. The whine sounded familiar.

And what if the rest of the world decided to take the same attitude as you?

...there's next to zero opportunity round here for coders...

Maybe if UK took a little bit of my attitude there would be more opportunity round there? Look, I'm no fan of isolationism or tarrifs, but I recognize that offshoring leads to the same types of problems globally that the Walmart Economy causes locally. I just think that it's terribly shortsited to deplete the capital pool faster than its natural rate of growth. The current trend of offshoring is not balanced. This will be ameliorated when the (American) Baby Boomers begin to move out of the workforce en masse. Hey, I'm sorry if I offended you. Dang, this was a long post.

Re:Contract?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The current trend of offshoring is not balanced. This will be ameliorated when the (American) Baby Boomers begin to move out of the workforce en masse.

True, but in the meantime we will have lost three generations worth of manufacturing knowledge and one generation of information technology workers- this solution will come so late that there will be *no* competitive advantage to hiring an American left. Unused skillsets have a tendency to degrade over time. So when this emergency is over- we might be left with a bunch of people who trained on 1990s technology trying to work in 2010.

good looking out

[Jah Shaka]

first i would let us know who the company is... i think the lack of commuication alone is enough to warn the rest of us!

Go public

[Giro d'Italia]

Name them, especially here, and let them know you've done it. That will teach them a lesson.

Re:Go public

[Anonymous Coward]

It sure will. It will give them a great lesson and some practice with the US legal system when they sue you for libel.

This is, after all, why lawyers, businesses, reporters and other people who use public forumns to beat up on each other avoid blasting their target directly without having a court decision to back them up.

Re:Go public

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not libel if it's true, it's news.

Re:Go public

[notsoclever]

Doesn't even have to be public. One time an lying, scumbag asshole I worked for one time threatened to sue me for libel because when he demanded I work for him again, I told him he was a lying, scumbag asshole in a private email.

Re:Go public

[jdgeorge]

It's not libel if it's true, it's news.

I have no mod points, but this comment deserves them....

In this case, the facts would be well documented and verifiable, a strong libel defense.

However, the substantive possible fallout could be that other companies might be leery of working with you. They could be afraid you would publicize all the bugs in the code you produced for them, etc. Just something to think about.

Re:Go public

[Xphox]

Because I would still like try and solve this, before it goes too far, I won't name any companies.

The software was tested, and confirmed by the way. It just seems that after the new year a bug appeared in the calendar system used, which has caused everything to break due to invalid dates.

I didn't want to go into huge detail in my post.

An answer as to why Source Guardian? The original software had two purchase methods. Encrypted for a very good price, or full blown souce for lots more. Because the customization work was quoted at under 1/4 the cost of buying the source, it was a very good deal. Seeing as the company who wrote the software referred me to this programmer, I thought it was a safe bet.

At least the software company who sold me the package has show effort, and is doing everything in their power to help me.

This has already caused me a great deal of pain, and I will never outsource again.

Not that it matters, but the company in question is located in India.

Re:Go public

[GoofyBoy]

This is advice after-the-fact. Sorry.

>Encrypted for a very good price, or full blown souce for lots more. Because the customization work was quoted at under 1/4 the cost of buying the source, it was a very good deal.

Did you ever wonder why it was such a good deal for you? Usually because its a better deal for them. Even if you didn't have a problem with the install script, they have you when you want ANYTHING changed. Minor bugs, major additional features, they can now charge you anything. What are you going to do about it?

>Seeing as the company who wrote the software referred me to this programmer, I thought it was a safe bet.

Safe bet for what? Why should you trust the original programmer?

Re:Go public

[Xphox]

The project isn't a multi million dollar deal. It was a software package which I wanted the caldendar system modified, and added a 3rd party gateway instead of PayPal.

I would never have to modify the code, because it is maintained by the software vendor free of charge as he released bugfixes, etc...

I don't know about you, but when I purchase software from a company I expect to recieve updates from them as long as I pay their support fees. With this company it's yearly. And I am on very good terms with the company as I've been a customer of theirs for three years now.

Re:Go public

[Anonymous Coward]

He wouldn't have a case. AFAIK, libel is by definition public.

Re:Go public

[1u3hr]

Doesn't even have to be public. One time an lying, scumbag asshole I worked for one time threatened to sue me for libel because when he demanded I work for him again, I told him he was a lying, scumbag asshole in a private email.

As long as it was a private email, between you and him, it's not libel. It has to be seen by at least one third party. If he could show it was seen by his staff, say, in the normal course of work, it might then be libellous, but not if he was the one who deliberately spread it around.

Re:Go public

[mrchaotica]

I would never have to modify the code, because it is maintained by the software vendor free of charge as he released bugfixes, etc...

Would this be the same vendor who didn't have the resources to complete the project, necessitating the outsourcing in the first place?

Re:Go public

[Xphox]

Yes it would be, but that's compairing apples to oranges.

They could in fact take my project, but I coudn't wait for them to have an open slot. That's not the point of this anyways. There is no problem with the software vendor at all.

I guess you've never had a full plate?

I was actually happy that he was up front, and said that he could not meet our deadline, instead of lying to us, and missing it.

Re:Go public

[notsoclever]

I'm well aware of that, but he had a lawyer, and I did not, nor did I have enough money to hire one. Fortunately nothing ever came of it anyway.

Re:Go public

[mrchaotica]

Well yeah, it's good that he didn't try and fail to do it. I guess the point I was trying to make is that the vendor could have said "sure, we'll do it" and hired an extra developer themselves to make sure it got done rather than said "we're too busy right now" and put the burdon back on you to find someone to do the work. After all, hiring a temporary programmer couldn't have worked any worse than outsourcing!

I don't know; it just sounds to me like the vendor could have been a little more proactive about holding onto the responsibility than they did, and that it would have resulted in a better situation -- if I were that vendor, I'd like to think I would have handled it differently. But that's just my opinion; if you like your vendor then that's fine.

say "I told you so"

[doorbender]

I told you so.

Serves you right

[Anonymous Coward]

Serves you right. Next time, buy American.

Re:Serves you right

[Anonymous Coward]

Serves you right. Next time, buy American.

What makes you think he didn't buy American? Oh... I know, you have no idea what "outsourcing" means.

Re:Serves you right

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'll bet there's almost a .001% chance he's talking about an American firm here. Which, of course, is why he hasn't considered legal remedies.

Re:Serves you right

[LiquidCoooled]

But I'm in England you insensitive clod.

Seriously, local suppliers fuck up as well as long distance ones.

Best advice, choose carefully, start small, and don't put all your eggs in one basket.

Re:Serves you right

[KiltedKnight]

Seriously, local suppliers fuck up as well as long distance ones.

Very true. The difference being that with a local supplier, you have a much easier time seeking some kind of remedy or compensation.

Best advice, choose carefully, start small, and don't put all your eggs in one basket.

And above all, make sure your deliverables and warranties are enumerated in your contract, that way nobody has any surprises.

What are the details of the contract?

[afstanton]

If the contract specifies full ownership of source code, it shouldn't be encrypted or otherwise protected, and the outsource company is in violation. If it's just for working binaries...too bad.

Kind of a no brainer...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it doesn't work, and you agreed that they'd get paid when the project was FINISHED (in my mind finished means the code is completed AND it does what you agreed upon it doing) then get your money back. They can have their funds when the project is done.

Caveat Emptor

[infinite9]

So you paid without testing the final product? I suspect all you can do now is sue. We've received "finished and tested" outsourced projects before that didn't even compile. You have to be very careful out these things.

Re:Caveat Emptor

[Badgerman]

This is why I insinst on compiling code myself during evaluations and updates. That and review the code - you never know what's been snuck in.

Re:Caveat Emptor

[clockwise_music]

Exactly. Why the hell did you pay the company without testing the damn thing first? Like you said:

>and will be stuck with a product that is useless

If it's useless, and you paid them for it, whose fault is that? Who doesn't buy something without testing it out first? Especially software! Out of all people you should know that there are always bugs! And you didn't get the source code? Don't mean to troll but I hope that you have learnt something from this.

Contract?

[Short Circuit]

Did they violate the terms of their contract? If so, you might be able to sue.

For the large corporations out there...

[paulicat]

If your company is anything like the mess of a corporation my last employer was, you just outsource other projects to take away focus from the ones going bad...

Lying

[Mumpsman]

You know that feeling you get in the back of your head when you hear someone telling a lie? The "OMG...this person is lying to me, and I'm paying them to do it" feeling?

I usually let that happen twice before I call them out on it.

Is this really necessary?

[__Maad__]

I hate to take this stance, but it has to be said. This thread is probably going to get a lot of cautionary posts that ring to the effect of "you get what you pay for" and so on. And seriously -- is it that hard to find someone with the skills to do a task like this ("scripting", as you say) locally, at a reasonable price?

Re:Is this really necessary?

[WyerByter]

But even if the outside company that is doing the work is in the same building it's outsourcing.

Re:Is this really necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

And seriously -- is it that hard to find someone with the skills to do a task like this ("scripting", as you say) locally, at a reasonable price?

What makes you think the outsourcing company isn't local or isn't offering reasonable prices? What do you mean by local anyway, same town, same state, same hemisphere? I guess if it's the same town then it's easier to go round and talk face to face.

Re:Is this really necessary?

[Kenja]

"is it that hard to find someone with the skills to do a task like this ("scripting", as you say) locally, at a reasonable price?"

It sure is. All the local people want a living wage, the jerks.

Re:Is this really necessary?

[nwbvt]

Whether or not it is local really isn't that relevant. Outsourcing just refers to paying another company to do some work for you, in contrast to offshoring in which the other company is overseas.

You learn...

[kzinti]

Next time you have a comprehensive acceptance test. YOU conduct the test, or you designate a third party. You do not allow the contractor to conduct the test. You test everything that matters - features, performance, capacity. Whatever. You spell this out in the contract and you don't pay until it passes.

Re:You learn...

[murlobot]

So money saved on outsorcing will go to testers and lawers. Is it really worth it?

Re:You learn...

[kzinti]

Testing doesn't have to cost a lot of money, and if you user a boilerplate contract, you don't have to involve lawyers. My group just outsourced some work like this, and we had a formal acceptance test that we conducted ourselves. It fixed some minor problems and we got what we wanted; above all, it didn't add a lot of cost to the product.

But turn it around... how much does it cost you to pay a contractor and then get something that doesn't come close to meeting your needs?

Re:You learn...

[sh0dan]

Both parent posts make good points. And this leads to some points I've experinced from outsourcing.

Testing
You need to have proper testing. Actually you also need this even when doing development inhouse.
You need to hire testers for your work, if your product is anything more complex than a utility for yourself. You can hire students, inhouse ressources or whatever you can pick up on the street. You need to make it clear in the contract that the program isn't finished until it has been tested, and that you'll respond with test results within X days of recieving a program revision.

Sourcecode
You should ALWAYS get the sourcecode. No code is perfect, and something always pops up after one or several months. If it, for some reason, isn't possible for the original firm to fix the problem at least your option isn't a complete program rewrite. This also ensures that there isn't any license problems with "borrowed" code and stuff like that.

Both of these issues should be explicit in your contracts, but also be fair to the third party, and restrict bug report times, so they don't have to fix bugs in two year old code for free.

Regaring the "when is something gained by outsourcing" question, at my work we outsource when we either don't have the inhouse compentencies or ressources - and most importantly: When the task can be clearly defined. Having a rather 'loose' project description not only frustrates the programmer, but it also frustrates us, when we recieve something way other than we expected. So: Clear contracts & clear project definitions, and hopefully you'll have a good working relation with the people you outsource to.

Never need to withhold a payment

[Supp0rtLinux]

We've outsourced a bit... but we never pay until the work is complete unless its a long project, in which case we pay as increments are completed and the code is sent back to us.

You get what you pay for

[JasonUCF]

What time do you have to react? Like if you act now as opposed to two weeks you'll make back your money? Unless you sent the money through a very trusting (read, you do a lot of business with) bank that has some sort of angel stop-payment plan.. you are S O L.

Where is the contract? Whose laws govern it?

You went with a company outside of your country to do a deal..

Why didn't you test what you got first and then pay for it...

I smell FUD... no details here, is this just an anti outsourcing fable?

Re:You get what you pay for

[ninji]

Usually american banks are extremly their-client sided, any time i've wanted funds pulled for someons account for a check they cashed that I didnt recieve proper products or service for, or the same with credit charges, the only sole question my bank ever asked me is 'Is it a fradulent(unauthorized charge? Or did you receive something other then what you paid for?'

I've answered with both, and still the same result, my money back within a few days, and a letter in a month saying i get to keep it forever...

That is Bank One, but almost any american bank is willing to blindly take money back, where as most other banks around the world seem to really not be willing to...(i've had alot of international customers, partners and friends not be able to file chargebacks even in cases of diret fradulent activity)

I don't know if you had a signed contract, and the terms of it (but if you did im sure it coveres you not paying if they dont do the work properly, or some equivelent... Also hopefully it gives you rights to the source?

If its been 8 days since you've heard from them, maybe try emailng them with instead of a 'Whats going on why dosent this work' with a 'Could we have the source so we can do some modifications' and perhaps they will respond thinking you've lost intrest in prosecution, that way you can atleast ge the source before taking your money back...

But thats a risk and juding by what you say of them don't sound like they would respond or even want to give up the source...

Re:You get what you pay for

[CountrySon]

I smell FUD, too, so your point is a good one, but stop and consider all the anti-FUD that brain-dead MBAs are spouting about outsourcing these days. Two wrongs might get us close to a "right" here.

Re:You get what you pay for

[big ben bullet]

indeed...

if you pay peanuts you get monkeys

Outsourcing gone bad

[cyberfunk2]

I consider it to have gone bad the first time they miss a promised deadline. These companies are in the buisness of delivering on time usually. As soon as they balk on that core buisness, I get worried.

Sue Them

[Anonymous Coward]

Next on Ask Slashdot: "How do I tie my shoes?"

I do what everyone else does.

[Anonymous Coward]

I start making racist slurs against people from India.

Why just with outsourcing

[dead sun]

When would you do this with a domestic company? There's your answer. Why is it really any different?

A better question might be if there's any sort of response apart from withholding payment and cutting ties. Is there a legal response that will make a difference to your bottom line? That'd be an interesting facet of outsourcing if you ask me.

Re:Why just with outsourcing

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, let's get this straight: he didn't say he went with a FOREIGN firm, just a third party. Outsourcing doesn't mean he went to India!

I think the poster raises a valid point that is worthy of discussion. At what point do you take drastic measures against the third party?

wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

in what way is this different than any other situation involving bad work?

treat the firm that you outsourced as a single employee. if they consistently dont perform give them the boot. no not that boot... the kind made of leather that doesnt involve three fingers.

Hell, itll bite you.

[Dr Reducto]

My friend works as a consultant, and he was consulting at a company where they decided to outsource some programming to Russia. They get the program shortly before the deadline, and it DOESN'T WORK!!!

So they take the program, rip out all the shit (a surprising percentage of it), and rewrite the whole thing pretty much from scratch in the course of a week. They finally get it working, and hand it into the boss, without telling him how badly they got fucked by the outsourcing. The boss is impressed by the quality of the code, and decides that the next project they do should be sent to the same firm. Luckily, my friend wasn't around the next time they went with the low-cost outsourcing.

Re:Hell, itll bite you.

[ESarge]

So don't lie to your boss.

Never lie to your boss - it's always better to admit you made a mistake then fix it.

Re:Hell, itll bite you.

[sh0dan]

They finally get it working, and hand it into the boss, without telling him how badly they got fucked by the outsourcing.

How on earth did he expect his boss to know not to hire the same firm again? I know most bosses are stupid assholes, but at least give the boss a chance to make an intelligent decision!

Re:Hell, itll bite you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not letting management know how bad the code was is a HUGE mistake and disservice to your employer.

Never let social pressure or the unpleasantness of being the bearer of bad news stop the flow of information in your organization. If, out of loyalty and dedication to your people you work overtime for a week and get it working, you have to let them know, or they won't be able to be loyal back to you in return.

It also stops the Russian firm from realizing that they aren't giving out a good enough product to stay in business, and screws them over too.

Basically, letting information stop with you instead of passing it on damages the whole capitalist system in the long term, and you should only do it if you like being poor and unemployed.

Re:Hell, itll bite you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good story you made up !!

Re:Hell, itll bite you.

[kumachan]

It's not made up! Honest.

The exact same thing happened at my company. Except the Russian firm developed magical powers and could fly around the room. And shoot lasers and stuff.

Re:Hell, itll bite you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, not being afraid of talking to people about how bad code is ALSO ends up making one poor and unemployed. lol

*still trying to figure out where that narrow line is and hoping to get work again someday*

Re:Hell, itll bite you.

[s0m3body]

please, tell me one thing

if they could rewrite it in one week, they could have written it in 2-4 weeks

so why outsource ? i don't believe that you can outsource a project and get a final result in 1-3 weeks... so it makes NO sense

i think that you are telling a story which is not yours, and which you don't understand

Re:Hell, itll bite you.

[rotor]

The company I worked for outsourced an app to Connecticut with the same results (it doesn't have to go outside the country to run into this). The difference is that as I and two others ripped into the code to re-write over 80% of it, we told our boss, our boss's boss, right up to the CIO of the company. Now we're going through it with a different contractor, and hopefully they'll learn that it wasn't a one-time incident and that we need to find some criteria to reliably pick contractors.

Re:Hell, itll bite you.

[Paradise Pete]

Not only that, but they outsourced a program they could have written in-house for less time than it took to negotiate the contract.

when it goes bad?!?

[macsox]

disclaimer: i am a progressive democrat.

but, really. when it goes bad? i have yet to see an example when the cost savings to a multinational corporation justify the damage done by outsourcing work.

you'll have people point to the study that came out that says that outsourcing is good for the economy. but is it? what it really provides is a decline in the quality of jobs in america.

let's think about this. company x has $300,000 it spends on paying 100 engineers. then it discovers it can save $200,000 by sending those 100 jobs to india. so with that $200,000, it hires 200 more engineers in america! net gain of 100 jobs here, and 100 in india! everyone wins!

except, of course, that the jobs that remain here pay 1/3 of what they used to. and that doesn't even include benefits. the moral of the story is, as always: when the company and stockholders win, you better be a stockholder. because if you're an employee, you're screwed.

Re:when it goes bad?!?

[gn0rt0n]

Any points you may have had are overshadowed by your lack of capital letters. You obviously thought about this post when you typed it. Take the extra time and use the shift-key.

Re:when it goes bad?!?

[kin_korn_karn]

The USA is fast becoming a nation where only capital investors have rights. That means that your choices are: 1) leave, 2) become a capital investor, or 3) accept your lack of rights. Until the political climate swings back to the left, it will be this way.

Re:when it goes bad?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

' Until the political climate swings back to the left '

Under a leftist system, only the rulers have rights. Thankfully, what you say is not true. Even though a large majority of Americans are capital investors, those who are not have basic economic rights, democratic rights, and other rights.

Re:when it goes bad?!?

[kin_korn_karn]

Even though a large majority of Americans are capital investors,
Are you talking about 401(k)? Just wait until the regular folks' portfolios start growing to the size of the big money guys' - we'll have another correction, like the 'bursting' of the dot-com bubble. The investor class does not want the working class to accumulate wealth and the 401k is their way of ensuring that they do not.

those who are not have basic economic rights, democratic rights, and other rights.
Please show me a case where someone with little to no net worth went up against a millionaire and won.

Re:when it goes bad?!?

[dubl-u]

the moral of the story is, as always: when the company and stockholders win, you better be a stockholder. because if you're an employee, you're screwed.

Could somebody explain to me how on Slashdot we get outraged when somebody without perfect technical knowledge comments on a technical issue but we mod up people who comment on economics without apparently knowing a thing about it?

It's true that sometimes employers and employees play zero-sum games: if one side wins, the other side loses. But the main activity of any company is for investors, managers, workers, suppliers, and customers to play positive-sum games, ones where everybody ends up better off. If you don't get that, you will be unable to comprend how capitalism works.

study that came out that says that outsourcing is good for the economy. but is it? what it really provides is a decline in the quality of jobs in america.

Again, you don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about. If overseas trade were such a bad thing, then wouldn't drastic increases in trade over the last few decades have resulted in drastically worse standards of living? The answer is no, because trade is generally a positive-sum game, and because the principle of comparative advantage means that trade pays off not just for poor countries, but rich ones as well.

I certainly grant that lowering trade barriers can hurt some workers, even though the populace as a whole gains. Those people we should help, but we can pay for that with plenty of room to spare out of the gains that come from freer trade.

Re:when it goes bad?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

i have yet to see an example when the cost savings to a multinational corporation justify the damage done by outsourcing work.

I have to echo this and go further. I have yet to see outsourcing work on any scale from medium-sized to very large companies, and in every case the outsourcing caused irreparable harm to delivery of the product.
3 Card Monty also looks like a great deal the first time you see it. Don't be a sucker (again).

Bend over and take it...

[Ooblek]

You outsourced it to a foreign company (not on your home country's soil) I presume?

As punishment for your stupidity, bend over and take it. You deserve what you are getting. You could have hired a few consultants and brought it in house, but nooooooooooooooooo.....you had to try to get it cheap.

Karma sucks.

Re:Bend over and take it...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Folks that think outsourcing can solve problems are fooling themselves. It may be cheap but so are the results. TIme to grow up, hire an American, and accept better work that can be done.

Two thoughts

[tkrotchko]

1) What contract do you have in place with the vendor? Surely all of this is spelled out in a statement of work someplace?

2) Why would you agree to have something developed for you if you don't get the source? Surely there are so many independent vendors with references and more willing to work with you that you didn't have to agree to such a silly restriction.

At a minimum, all of your communication with the vendor should be via certified mail. If you're going to stop paying them, you need a paper trail that document that they haven't abided by the terms of the contract.

Laugh

[the_mad_poster]

What do I do? I usually point and laugh and say "I told you so".

How about...

[Anita Coney]

... next time actually TESTING the product before giving the final payment?! It's a thought.

Contractual agreements

[KiltedKnight]

Do you have your contract handy? What provisions do you have in it for failure to deliver on-time? You should have some kind of deadlines and other associated non-delivery clauses in there, if you drew it up properly.

If all you have is a verbal contract, you could very easily be up the creek, unless you've got non-interested collaborating witnesses who will sign affadavits, attest to it in court, etc.

This is a time to bring in your lawyers, let them review the contract, assuming you have one, and then work from there.

In the meantime, stop payment on any checks and look to hire one or two developers, minimum, who can do this stuff in-house for you. That way, when it doesn't work, you can walk down the hall, put a hand on the developer's shoulder and say, "Get it done or else."

Source Guardian???

[Cryptnotic]

You've been ripped off.

Re:Source Guardian???

[glenebob]

Oh my... I didn't know what source guardian is until just now...

OH MY! You HAVE been ripped off. I certainly hope you learn from this mistake. Clue (as others have said):

1) ALWAYS get the code. Always. If someone offers to deliver without source, laugh and hang up.
2) See rule #1.

Re:Source Guardian???

[BestNicksRTaken]

Yeah no shit, why would you agree to outsource to someone who hides the source from you - that's just asking for them to rip you off and hold you to ransom for future bugfixes.

Sorry mate, but you're a fucking idiot!

Re:Source Guardian???

[jmkrtyuio]

Without source code your SOL. As you deserve to be.
Call it an expensive lesson, pick up the phone and pay for a real coder who gives you real code.

Outsourcing programming tasks without receiving the programming just the program, is similar to purchasing a book and instead of getting it, having someone call you up and read it you over the phone, real quick-like.

Re:Source Guardian???

[theCoder]

I'd never heard of this Source Guardian thing, so I did some Googling, and quickly found their web site. I found their FAQ particularly interesting. From the first question:

1. Why do I need to use SourceGuardian for PHP?

We have developed it because of the following needs: ...
* So that to prevent others from peeking into your code and find security holes

Besides the abhorent grammar (in the first question of a FAQ for software that costs $250 to license, you'd think someone might give it the once-over), it seems to be admitting that anyone who uses this product has poor quality code that they want to hide. Especially since the other reasons given for using SourceGuardian, such as shared hosting, don't apply in this case.

In response the the submitter's problem, the FAQ does prove remarkably helpful. Question 12 offers some pointers on how one might go about decrypting the code. Unfortunately, it sounds like the run it through an obfuscator first to make it even harder to use.

Really, even with the price discount the guy got, the use of this sounds like it should have been a huge red flag. The contractor was obviously not willing to trust the submitter, so why should the submitter trusted the contractor enough to be willing to use that program?

Life's lessons

[binaryDigit]

As agreed, he delivered the install script, and we made the final payment. Upon testing the new install script we noticed things did not work as intended,

You made payment BEFORE you ran formal acceptance testing of the application (yes, including the installer). That was your fatal error. Once you've ponied up the bucks, you've lost all leverage short of a lawsuit.

If I were you, I'd email then and request a specific timeline/deadline for completing the work. Make sure your email contains language stating that what they delivered does not meet their obligations. Assuming they respond similarly (i.e. "we're working on it"), then at least you have some level of proof that they acknowledge that they are potentially breaching the contract you have. Then take their asses to court.

Good luck. Next time remember

- formal requirements
- explicit deliverables (see requirements above)
- formal acceptance test to ensure that the software actually meets requirements

Re:Life's lessons

[bigpat]

Good luck. Next time remember

- formal requirements
- explicit deliverables (see requirements above)
- formal acceptance test to ensure that the software actually meets requirements


They probably outsourced all the people that could do the above effectively.

I'm serious, all too often it isn't the code monkeys that are the real expense that companies want to outsource. It is the architects, managers and higher level people, the very ones that are capable of putting together the detailed formal requirements and doing the type of acceptance testing that is required for successfully outsourced projects. Those are the ones with the big salaries that CEOs want to trim.

That is why I think outsourcing is doomed in all but the largest software projects and companies, the overhead in terms of people that you need to keep on your side to make a project successful just doesn't justify the savings of getting rid of a few developers. I think the math would only potentially work when you get rid of dozens of programmers but retain your project management and the people that can write a good formal specification.

Unless, of course outsourcing is really a political excuse to get rid of an underperforming Engineering group which is always a management problem, so it does no good to keep the managers in that case.

Re:Life's lessons

[Syberghost]

And just to trip up the rampant anti-outsourcing phobia (which is fundamentally racist and anti-democratic, IMHO), it should be pointed out that you should do the EXACT same thing whether you're hiring a single contractor or a whole firm, and whether that's some shop with a name you can't pronounce in Bangalore or Accenture (formerly Andersen Consulting).

Re:Life's lessons

[anonymous_wombat]

Also, you forgot:

- You own the source code.

Anyone who would pay for custom software without getting the source code for it deserves to get screwed.

Re:Life's lessons

[drooling-dog]

They probably outsourced all the people that could do the above effectively.

This was my thought exactly. It doesn't sound as if this organization has much on-board experience in negotiating or managing software development contracts. They would likely have gotten screwed whether the contractor was off-shore or not, but their problem is compounded in this case by the lack of an effective legal remedy.

Re:Life's lessons

[Suppafly]

whether that's some shop with a name you can't pronounce in Bangalore or Accenture (formerly Andersen Consulting).

It's worth noting that every Accenture employee I've ever met was from India working in the US on a visa.. just because you can pronounce the company name doesn't mean they aren't from bangalore..

Re:Life's lessons

[Syberghost]

Must be regional. The majority of the ones I've met are only "foreigners" in that they are from states where you can't get grits with your omelet.

in terms of the construction industry.

[Brigadier]

I work for an architecture firm, where in outsourcing is quite common. Unfortunatly it's a better question to ask how do you prevent it from going wrong. The answer for that is regular, frequent progress checks. Now if it does go bad this is where yo uhope that your contract is well written. Usually this comes in the form of liquidated damages. eg. If the progress does not meet the progression timeline set at check points a, b, and c. then liquidated damages will be assesed at $$$ per days behind schedule. In the case of consultants who are frequently used some times a point system works a bit better. this way they will work to keep a high performance point total which will help them with future contracts.

Sillyness.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Upon testing the new install script we noticed things did not work as intended, and all attempts to contact the outsourcing company has resulted in the following answer:'My guys are still working on it.'

Why did you pay them before you tested the package? Sillyness.

Final Payment?

[spacefrog]

Let me get this straight, you made final payment *without* getting the source code?

Wow.

Re:Final Payment?

[andymac]

Not all contracts for s/w development transfer source code and the related IP. Some contracts will transfer source for use internally only for maintenance purposes, other contracts will transfer it for full use (full copyright transfer, etc.). But it is not uncommon to have a contract where the contractor retains some rights to the IP (in effect licensing the code to the contracting company).

Don't assume all contracts are the same.

Re:Final Payment?

[lubricated]

and people who agree to bad contracts deserve what they get. When a company pays someone to write code they should get the source, otherwise they will realized their mistake.

Re:Final Payment?

[Benanov]

Someone's limiting your freedom! Call RMS! :)

Re:Final Payment?

[greed]

Someone's limiting your freedom! Call RMS! :)

You know, this sort of thing is exactly where he got started? Being stuck with closed AND broken software that no-one would fix?

What's the difference if it's an outsourcing firm delivering binaries, or a vendor providing a "solution", or a simple application?

Re:Final Payment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me get this straight, you made final payment *without* getting the source code?

No, the stupid thing is making the final payment without testing that the product met the requirements!

Re:Final Payment?

[nojomofo]

What if the vendor has a specialty in some domain, and has built up a library over time? The vendor can then build outsourced solutions for less money using the library that they have built up, and save the customer both time and money. In that circumstance, it is very justifiable that the customer might not get all of the source code. Which should, of course, be stipulated in the contract.

Re:Final Payment?

[Xphox]

I guess you've never head of Source Guardian?

Perhaps you should take a few moments, and visit their website.

http://www.sourceguardian.com/

Re:Final Payment?

[Anonymous Coward]

you would have to be a fool to release licensing of the program to the contracting firm.. Same as you would be a fool if you had your wedding filmned and photographed and did not own the rights to your photos and video. (Yes it is COMMON for people to have their wedding owned by the photographer, and it's there fault.)

I love this type of mistake. the more people it bites the more people are aware of the bullshit pulled by "creative" types.

Re:Final Payment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Complete source code is definitely good, but getting the complete "build" environment is also very important. Makefiles, IDE used, libraries, are ALL important to acquire BEFORE payment.

Confirmation that builds work FIRST before payment is important also.

Re:Final Payment?

[geekoid]

haha, like they would pass the savings to the customer.
Lets see, the going rate is 100 bucks an hour.
They give me 30 hours of work, do I
a) only charge them 10 ten actual hours or
b) charge them the book hours?

I choose...book hours.

Re:Final Payment?

[nojomofo]

Well, if the client is careful, the savings would be passed onto the client in return for not having source code and complete control over all parts of the final deliverable. Client would be crazy to pay the same amount for only binary (or some source, some binary) as it would cost to have the whole project custom-developed from scratch.

Re:Final Payment?

[An Onerous Coward]

Shouldn't matter. If the customer doesn't get all the source, then the vendor is the only one to go to for bugfixes, feature requests, etc. The customer should demand all source, and throw a royal fit if source isn't forthcoming.

Now, the customer may be contractually obligated not to redistribute the source, or use that source as part of a commercial package for resale. I'm not saying "GPL everything". But if some critical system relies on a piece of software that I can't fix, and can't hire anyone but the vendor to fix, then my company is in their hands.

Re:Final Payment?

[Oligonicella]

Agreed. I worked in banking. The foremost wire-transfer vendor sold us the source code. They were typically called to fix bugs and add deep enhancements, but this allowed us to provide entire auxillary systems.

Re:Final Payment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah. If the vendor built up a library, they did it based on the code they were paid to write. So it aint technically theirs.

I pay an outsourcing firm to write code. All the code they write that I pay for should be mine. If they keep any of the code to sell to other clients without an agreement with me first, it's a problem.

What's to stop an outsourcing firm like that to write an application for me for full price, and then turn around and sell basically what amounts to copies of it to my competitors?

Now, if we work out an agreement in the contract, and there's some savings for me on the costs, then it's a different story. In that case, we might be able to work out a deal where they include some compiled libraries with the bulk of the code, and I don't get the source of the libraries. But I'd still want to be able to recompile the application.

Re:Final Payment?

[Anonymous Coward]

But what you describe is purchasing a library from a vendor, entirely different from outsourcing work.
The whole notion of outsourcing, as opposed to purchasing and integrating a product, is that the work is done just as if it was in-house, but the actual work is not done in the company. See?

Re:Final Payment?

[Xphox]

The only thing I didn't recieve was the install script. Which is basically to setup the database, and a few minor things. The bug was actually found after the new year switched over, which is caused by a flaw in their calendar code. Everything worked on the 28th when tested, then after the new year, it all went down hill.

Faulty contract?

[Anonymous Coward]

U sure the contract covered ALL possible scenarios? What about the deliverables, etc? If everything seems to be OK, you MAY be dealing with a company that 'claims' to be legit. Your management may have been frugal in spending the extra money to outsource your project to a well known company.

Unfortunately the parent option...

[tekiegreg]

Might be your best one, legal remedies overseas get sickening. Particularly in the India(is that jurisdiction?) judicial system. Something most outsourcing companies really don't understand, if the sh*t hits the fan on your contract the best case scenario is that it would take you a while to legally get compensation; worst case scenario is that the courts tend to favor the natives to their country more than the foreigners and you're out of luck.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[Skyshadow]

I have to agree with this 100%.

I assume from the lack of considering a legal option that the OP is talking about off-shore outsourcing (I know the outsourcing apologists in this thread have been busily suggesting it isn't off-shore... Sure, guys). Getting any satisfaction from an off-shore court is almost impossible.

My last company was the victim of out and out fraud on the part of a Chinese firm. When my company threatened legal action, they basically laughed at us. They were right to laugh -- essentially there was no above-board way to get any legal judgement against them. We were foreigners, plus we didn't know who to bribe (the Chinese legal system is incredibly arbitrary and corrupt).

We never saw a dime. When the investors found out we'd lost a huge amount of money *and* didn't have the scheduled release, they took over the company and liquidated it.

That's part of the reason I'm not too worried about offshoring as a long-term trend (as opposed to the fad it is now) -- you can't entrust anything critical overseas because you have zero recourse if you're screwed over or incur liability.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[ari_j]

You can get a judgment, no problem. The hard part is enforcing it. In the US federal court system, you can sue a foreign company and the US federal courts will assert jurisdiction over it if that company has passed a given legal test, which I will refrain from enumerating here in any way, but essentially covers cases over the specific involvement that company has within the US. For instance, a company that sells cars in America would be subject to jurisdiction here. It's my first thought that the federal courts would assert jurisdiction over outsourcing firms, as well.

The problem is that, even if you get a judgment against the foreign company, how are you going to enforce it? The courts can't imprison them for contempt, because they're in another country. Extradition for contempt? Ha, I wish.

So, if you get a judgment against a foreign company, you'd have to go over there with Vince and collect on it the hard way, anyhow. Why not save the legal fees and just go over there in the first place, without having to file any expensive lawsuits in federal court?

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Everything I just said could possibly be wrong, but may not be, and is in no way intended as any form of advice, legal or otherwise. If you believe anything I've said in this comment, you assume all risks and liability that may ensue, be they personal, civil, criminal, or otherwise. I have also never played a lawyer on TV. Confusing me with someone who has would be flattering, but incorrect and foolish.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[bani]

don't get mad, get even.

just write a nice letter to the chinese embassy / chinese law enforcement, that a company you were working with turned out to be a front for a pro-democracy revolutionary group, falun gong, or pro-taiwan-independence movement or something.

i've gotten chinese spammers shut down this way, when they laughed at me. they aren't laughing anymore.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[Anonymous Coward]

legal remedies overseas get sickening. Particularly in the India(is that jurisdiction?) judicial system

Indian leagal system is based on English common law; limited judicial review of legislative acts; accepts compulsory ICJ jurisdiction, with reservations according to CIA factbook.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geo s/ in.html

Educate yourself.

-AC

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[Anonymous Coward]

Brutal torture solves about 95% of all problems...

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[Johnny5000]

i've gotten chinese spammers shut down this way, when they laughed at me. they aren't laughing anymore.

Wow, you're right... getting a brutal dictatorship to torture and kill people who send you unwanted emails is *awesome!*

asshat.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[Aceto3for5]

No, they could be dead you sick bastard. This isn't insightful as much as it is evil. I would agree to jail time for filesharing before i agreed to murder for spamming. I guess the fact that they laughed at you gave you a right to have them killed. You know people will do anything to get by in poorer countries, and sometimes that includes spamming. You insensitive, thoughtless, spiteful bastard.

You are using a repressive and murderous government to keep your inbox clean. It would be funny if not for the fact that you are actually doing it! What are you going to do? Report me to Homeland Security for terrorist links because i disagree with you?

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[flieghund]

That is so incredibly evil that I don't even know where to begin...

I'll have to start doing that, too. >:)

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[BVis]

Wow, you're right... getting a brutal dictatorship to torture and kill people who send you unwanted emails is *awesome!*

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I do something like this to my roommate? He came to America to work on his PhD this past fall.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[tekiegreg]

What's on paper is one thing, what is fact is another...I'm quite well eductated thank you...

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[bani]

while the chinese government might do a lot of distasteful things, they dont always do things completely arbitrarily. even totalitarian states like to have an image of due process. :)

anyway what happened is they had their offices searched and their computers confiscated (according to the whiny semi-apologetic mail later received). they were basically shut down totally, at least for a short while.

they werent killed or tortured or even imprisoned. but they were definitely scared shitless, and they arent laughing anymore. it cost them time, money, and probably a heart attack or two.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[markh1967]

It's my first thought that the federal courts would assert jurisdiction over outsourcing firms, as well.

I can't see how you could come to this conclusion. If, for instance, I as a British citizen living in Britain was contracted to write some software for a foreign client I would only be intersted in adhering to British law. I couldn't possibly be expected to be conversant with the laws of another country and all contracts and other legal matters would be decided in a British court.

I suppose jurisdiction would hinge on where the deal was struck; if I was to travel to the other country and solicit business there I could expect to have to follow that country's laws even if I left the country to actually do the work, whereas if I was approached in my own office by the foreign client then it would be an entirely British matter.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I only have one question for a morally bankrupt soul like yourself.

Namely, do you know any tricks like that for miscreants in Romania?

>:)

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[ari_j]

Nope. First of all, contracts will be governed by the law of a given jurisdiction. Most contracts will state on the contract which jurisdiction that is. For example, many contracts in the US explicitly claim they will be governed by Delaware law. Oil contracts are often governed by Texas law. I presume that the same could be done, and your contract could explicitly say "Governed by Her Royal Majesty's British Law." or "Governed by the laws of California." and it would work, either way.

However, which court hears a case is independent of which jurisdiction's law governs the case. If you purposefully avail yourself of the laws of a given jurisdiction, you should be subject to jurisdiction there, at least under claims relating to your availment. In the car example, you couldn't sue the foreign company in US court for defamation it is doing in the other country. But you could sue in US court for the car exploding on your driveway.

If you do a significant amount of contract work with parties in other countries, I would recommend you seek a lawyer's advice regarding the contracts; preferably a lawyer with experience dealing with international contract law.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[Altus]

"Report me to Homeland Security for terrorist links because i disagree with you?"

you joke... but how long until that becomes a viable way of dealing with undesirable people... the same way it is in China.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is absolute fucking genius. Good work.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That's part of the reason I'm not too worried about offshoring as a long-term trend (as opposed to the fad it is now)

As a fad, it may be bad enough- we've already lost the last three years of CS graduates to other, lower skilled, industries, and it looks like we'll lose three more years, minimum, before seeing a turnaround in employment due to baby boomers retiring. That's almost an entire generation of coders down the drain, in exchange for a slightly higher stock option price.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[cheekyboy]

tell the govt they are a front for chechen rebels planning a secret way into russia

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[bigbadbuccidaddy]

Already happening, wasn't it Ted Kennedy who had trouble flying recently?

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[Anonymous Coward]

Romania is merely corrupt, not oppressive.

Try the Mexican approach: hire the police to do your dirty work.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I am all for making death by torture the offical, world-wide punishment for spam.

We have the war against terror, where is the war against spam??

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[Glonoinha]

No, I checked with the TBS hotline ... we got a 'marginally funny' on that one.

Actually it is just about ingenius - you only have to have a few spammers beheaded, tortured, etc before it has a serious impact on spam.

Now if he could only figure out a way to apply this to oursourcing companies in India.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[Anonymous Coward]

So your company betrayed its own country by outsourcing, and got what it deserved.
Hope to see ya'all on fuckedcompany.com.
Eat a dick. :)

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Everything I just said could possibly be wrong, but may not be, and is in no way intended as any form of advice, legal or otherwise. If you believe anything I've said in this comment, you assume all risks and liability that may ensue, be they personal, civil, criminal, or otherwise. I have also never played a lawyer on TV. Confusing me with someone who has would be flattering, but incorrect and foolish.

That's funny. You sure sound like a lawyer.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, in the true democratic country we can use something else. No need to throw people in jail. I think that dealing with IRS audit might stop spamming activity at least for a while in the US.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[RedBear]

"Report me to Homeland Security for terrorist links because i disagree with you?"

you joke... but how long until that becomes a viable way of dealing with undesirable people... the same way it is in China.

About three years from now... Negative three, that is.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[DeBeuk]

You must be from the United States.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it is awesome. REALLY awesome. I've got a friend who can speak and read chinese, I'll have him write me some sample letters I can send from free e-mail accounts.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh boo fucking hoo. First off you really think the parent is serious!? Second off even if they did get killed, fuck it. If all you can do is cheat people out of money and use your government as some sort of a shield, having that government used against you sounds perfectly fine to me. If all you can do is cheat people/do dirty shit then you're worthless anyway. It's the new darwinism, monkey->man->gun.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a pussy.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is already. If you can track your spam back to the source, it is much easier to place a quick anonymous call to your preferred industry association than to try to get law enforcement involved directly. You could also try the more "patriotic" approach but that's also riskier since, if it turns out that your spammer has Friends, you could be the one facing charges.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[romania]

Hmm... it's quite easy. The 'mother' company or individuals wanted to screw somebody into working for them for tenth part of the pay. And it didn't work out. In a better world the outsourcing company could have participate freely to gain the project eliminating the parasite.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[Anonymous Coward]

No reason why you can't enforce the judgment - while you wouldn't be able to get it in China, surely there are other American firms that this company is doing work for? Judgment could be enforced by seizing the payments made by these companies to the Chinese outsourcing company.

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[arkulkis]

Already happening, wasn't it Ted Kennedy who had trouble flying recently?

No, no, no. Ted Kennedy is the one who has trouble driving (especially across bridges).

"We'll drive off that bridge when we come to it." -- Ted Kennedy

Re:Unfortunately the parent option...

[fm6]

The kind of fraud and corruption you describe has been a big problem, not just for outsourcers, but all companies doing business in places like China and Russia. But don't count on this remaining the status quo. Eventually, these countries are going to realize that this BS is hurting the economies, and they'll crack down.

I don't quite agree that outsources is a "fad", but that word is not too far off the mark. Every time Corporate America discovers a new management concept, they rush into it without stopping to think whether they're applicable to the problem at hand. Eventually, CA will realize that not every job can be sent overseas, and they'll start to think about what's really practical to outsource, and what isn't. But there are millions of jobs that can actually be done overseas. These jobs are not returning to these shores anytime soon.

When to ask

[doombob]

When you realize that the outsourced company thought you wanted Finnish customizations on your script. That would be a good time to ask for your money back.

Employees win

[Anonymous Coward]

The better workers in this are the ones getting jobs.

Outsourcing Goes Bad?

[DamienNightbane]

Doesn't that imply that outsourcing is good to begin with?

When we do it...

[Humorously_Inept]

We set up clear and concise terms and requirements in advance. We demand ownership of source code. We have a schedule of meetings with the outsourcing company during which they are responsible for presenting scheduled deliverables. We demand complete documentation from the outsourcing company including their test specs and results. We run acceptance tests on the outsourcing company's products.

Treat the outsourcing company like you would a department or person in your own company. You need to have a strong two way rapport or things will not work. I guess you'll have to fight your way our of this scenario so use it as a lesson.

Don't pay

[Anonymous Coward]

If it doesn't work, you shouldn't have paid. If you have, try to get the money back until it does work.

You should never hire consultants if you don't get the source --- that's just asking for trouble. They can charge arbitrary amounts for minor modifications.

Resort to torture

[Vandil X]

What Do You Do When Outsourcing Goes Bad?

With an Indian accent, begin reciting alphanumeric product keys to your coworkers over and over again, until their ears bleed.

Outsourcing is good

[Anonymous Coward]

All outsourcing means is hiring better workers even if they are "outside."

What are you talking about!

[Anonymous Coward]

He NEVER stated that the work was outsourced outside this country. It's obvious that you are a liberal since you spoke and stated your opinion with a very narrow minded agenda ridden view without any regards for facts or reality.

Sorry, but it sounds to me like he's getting screwed by a good ole 'mericun company. I'm sure that will make him feel a lot better.

Re:What are you talking about!

[Anonymous Coward]

He NEVER stated that the work was outsourced outside this country.

Then why did he have to ask what his remedies are? Presumably, he would know what to do in his own country.

It's obvious that you are a liberal since you spoke and stated your opinion with a very narrow minded agenda ridden view without any regards for facts or reality.

In my experience it's bible-thumping, neo-conservative christians that shout their views based merely on faith, with no basis in fact or reality.

Re:What are you talking about!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why did he have to ask what his remedies are? Presumably, he would know what to do in his own country.

One hell of an assumption there. Sueing is the obvious answer (regardless of country). His question had to do with how much rope should he give them, not "can I sue them". "Outsourcing" refers simply to having work done by a third party, the vast majority of which is done purely in country.

In my experience it's bible-thumping, neo-conservative christians that shout their views based merely on faith, with no basis in fact or reality.

So old school conserative christians aren't a problem?

hehehe

[Anonymous Coward]

thats what you get for not outsourcing to india. cmon, you know you want to, everybody is doing it. dont be a chicken. whats the big deal? itll make you feel good. besides, girls dig that stuff.

Re:hehehe

[Anonymous Coward]

hey got any cheap eastern women for me this week ?

I got your coke. It's in the Mercedes as usual...

Why start now?

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon, you think this moron is going to learn his lesson and start hiring Americans? He'll probably outsource the hit.

Of course, hit men are probably his only option at this point. One of my old companies got screwed over by an outsource contract, too, and basically there was nothing we could do about it even though they were obviously at fault. Good luck coming into India as a foreign firm and having any sort of luck in the legal system -- in my experience, it's so blatently biased and corrupt it's pathetic.

But hey! They had three (fictitious) programmers working for what it would have cost to hire one (real) programmer in the US!

Re:Why start now?

[Anonymous Coward]

' C'mon, you think this moron is going to learn his lesson and start hiring Americans? He'll probably outsource the hit '

Or, he will learn to hire a trustworthy Indian firm. That sounds like a better idea than wasting a ton of money by hiring American and paying three times as much.

Re:Why start now?

[grub]

C'mon, you think this moron is going to learn his lesson and start hiring Americans?

You assume the outsourcing was contracted outside of the US, I made a point of saying "contractor's location". In fact we don't know where the original place is. If you do a whois on the domain of the submitter you'd see it's based in Canada.

Re:Why start now?

[Anonymous Coward]

New oxymoron - "trustworthy Indian firm"

Re:Why start now?

[superpulpsicle]

When outsourcing really goes bad. You mind as well close shop.

It's virtually impossible to rejustify to management that you need to bring whatever service back to the U.S at 10X the expense.

Re:Why start now?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mind as well close shop.

Might as well. Seriously. Ask around.

Outsourced - not offshored

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no mention that this work has been offshored (to a company in some exotic location such as India). It is entirely that the work was outsourced to a company in the USA.

Re:Outsourced - not offshored

[The Turd Report]

Maybe on Bizzaro Earth.

say "I told you so"

[netsavior]

Then proceed to work 80 hour weeks to meet the new deadline. This is what I have done every time a company I have worked for has tried "Outsourcing" err I mean every time outsourcing has failed (which is 100% of the time in my experience) 0 for 5 in three companies... way to go

When you hire a...

[glenrm]

Software Engineer, you get more than just a coder, you get IQ, you get somebody who understands the low and high level testing that needs to be done, you get somebody who can help you ask the right questions, you get somebody who can make sure the code compiles, that makes sure you get the code, that can rewrite or the crap code you already have, somebody that can save your ass, that is why we cost so much...

Re:When you hire a...

[GoofyBoy]

Are you talking about a licensed Professional Software Engineer?

If you are, I doubt that you've had any real world experience. Being one is not some holy grail, more like "more titles to help management feel better"

Re:When you hire a...

[micromuncher]

Software Engineer? There is no such thing - its not an accredited engineering discipline. It all comes down to the indivual, and thanks to dot com and corporate tenure, most of the monkies typing out code have education in OTHER fields, NOT computer science, not the fringe software engineering, blah blah blah. I compete with monkies that have a 6 week programming course where I have a compsci degree and been programming since I was 12. Job? Programmer. Rate? $30/hr vs $60/hr. Person interviewing? Someone without much experience. Person gets job? $30 code monkey who's never seen a source level debugger.

Re:When you hire a...

[faragon]

You're lucky. I live in Spain, having a computer science degree (5 years at the university), programming in C since I was 14 (from 12, what a casuality, as you, but in GW-BASIC). Well, I earn about 15 euro/hour, 10 after taxes, that gives $13/hr (US $). I'm used to program LynxOS and Linux embedded toll systems, time critical, real time, etc.

I'm near 30 year old, have to pay about $1000/month for the flat, leaving just $800/month for living. If you substract the VAT applied to consumer products, I have to live with less than $600/month. If you're a "software engineer", Spain it is not a great place for living, you'll earn here more money by repairing TV, George Foreman's grills or whatever.

The funniest thing is that here the outsourcing it is being as a real alternative, as India people have still a lower income.

Re:When you hire a...

[micromuncher]

I feel your pain bro. World economics and outsourcing is a huge issue - but that is the nature of capital right? Human resources are the biggest expense, so screw local economies and think global.

A side point; this is why OpenSource is so popular everywhere but North America. OpenSource is a real solution to leveling the global playing field - and local experts can consult for what's locally reasonable.

A software package that costs $300 USD anywhere in the world means that most of the world can't afford it.

Re:When you hire a...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, they're called "Computer Scientists."

Re:When you hire a...

[thogard]

What states have real licensed professional software engineers? I'm working on my computer engineering license in the state of Missouri via the apprenticeship rules but I have to work an additional year under the guidance of a another licensed engineer in the field and I can't find one. The real problem is professional engineers I've worked for are all retired or no longer have much use of their minds any more.

At one time recently my father was one of only 6 licensed computer engineers in the state of Missouri. The problem is his training is in analog computers.

Re:When you hire a...

[Altus]

as much as this is technically true.. its not very practical.

computer science isnt about coding... its about what a computer can do... Its theory.

software engineering (and you can not only take a corse in that, you can get a masters in it from many universities) is about software... how to design it... how to implement it... how to test it and how to run that process.

there may not be accredited professional software engineers out there (as any EE or ME or CE will be happy to tell you for hours and hours and hours) but that doesn't mean that software engineering isn't a discipline and that it isn't different from computer science.

Re:When you hire a...

[Anonymous Coward]

No I'm the lucky one...

I am not a programmer, I am a technical analyst who tells programmers how to fix their crappy code. I have no 'degree' I am self taught. I know multiple languages but I don't want to crank out code under a deadline for 70 hour work weeks. I run circles around arrogant coders who try to bullshit everyone.

Fortunately, 'outsourcing' hasn't been a problem for me because I have job security. They can't afford to outsource what I do. I am responsible for keeping crap from being rolled out to thousands of users. You would not believe what I have seen in testing. I am one of several sign-off go-to guys who can shit-can your project and send you back to square one on the red-tape highway of hell. I am the Monopoly go direct to jail card, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars.

I'm a lab monkey who makes $76k a year, drive an Audi A4, pay $949 rent for my flat, am married to an RN (registered nurse) who makes almost as much as I do with overtime. I've got 10 computers, a 55" flat screen television, high quality frozen beef in the fridge, and a growing single malt scotch collection. Going to buy a 300k home in the next year or two.

Life is good, I get to be a real world BOFH and make money at the same time. Guess what? All the outsourced code goes through me as well. If a rollout were to go badly it would cost the company millions. I don't care if you have spent 8 months on your project, the users are not ever gonna see it until it passes muster and plays well with the other desktop software or runs in all the right browser versions. I have found an essential position and I guard it like a rabid pitbull!

Maniacal Laughter - BWAHAHAHAHA

p.s. out of hundreds of programmers, maybe 5 of them have earned my respect because they know their shit and they write good code. The reason outsourcing is so popular is because there's a shitload of crappy USA programmers and why pay them crazy money when you can have the same crappy code written by foreigners for 1/10th the price.

I think part of the problem is the inability to actually fire someone for incompetence nowadays. The lawyers in the US have made it so hard to fire someone, it's ceased to be funny. I long for the days when you could pull a Donald Trump and say 'you're fired' and not have to deal with lawsuits.

You have to do something really stupid or anti-social to get fired nowadays. (punch your boss, loose your temper, etc.) I believe this has to do with lay-offs as well. Most of those that get laid off after a re-org are those who are a pain the ass and there's no way to legally fire them. Others just promote them or talk them up to another manager they don't like so maybe they will transfer away from being your responsibility.

It's really hard to find good workers. One must be much more careful when filling a new position. Outsourcing is cheaper and you can generally kill a contract easier then you can fire an employee. An a guy from India is less likely to show up at the main office with an assault rifle and start shooting.

Re:When you hire a...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, computer science is about the science of computing. Not what any given machine can or can't do. It's about coming up with the best way of doing something, regardless of the platform.

Bwah ! ha haha ah aha ahhahahah!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what you get for sending work outside of the local market ! Serves you Bastards right !

Firsthand experience

[cOdEgUru]

I consulted for an Atlanta firm which dealt in Sarbanes Oxley compliance software and my firm agreed to develop a rule based data adapter which sucks in raw data from external enterprise systems such as SAP and translate it. And my firm agreed to do so without having any one (else) with a bit of enterprise development experience hoping we would be able to outsource it to someone else in India (despite all my "muted" protesting).

Well, we picked a firm (which I believe was cheap enough to be picked), talked to a couple and they seemed knowledgeable and we were on. I wrote down the requirements myself and passed it on to them. There were two who where hands on and I provided any help they required plus the project management. It all went to shit in a couple of days. First, they wanted to bounce ideas off and around for a few days. Here, I am working from 8:00 AM in the morning through 2:00 at night, drilling requirements in to their thick heads, answering questions, go to bed late, only to wake up and realize that they had the same questions and were waiting all day for me to wake up!!

I got so pissed off after having to spend most of my waking day working on what they were supposed to, putting together answers to questions already answered, and chatting with them over IM, losing layers of patience bit by bit before calling them morons to their face. They were still billing us a full 8 hours for doing nothing, blaming it on unclear requirements.

After going to and fro for over a week, when nothing got built, I turned around and got my buddy who works for HP in Cupertino to pick it up. He coded it in his sparetime and pretty much finished it single handedly in the time that it was promised.

The biggest pains in outsourcing, from where I stand, is the disconnect between the teams, the clarity in requirements and the work ethics. I have seen the other end of the spectrum too, when I left for India for a short stint and worked with a team on a high risk project and had to deal with all sorts of management stupidity and workplace politics, putting my team through 14 hour work days, getting pissed drunk together on build nights and delivering on our promise with in the expected timeframe. The work ethics atleast on a developer level is not that different, if you get good young kids, they are smart and loyal. But if you step up to the level of management, you do find hundreds of incompetents who suck the living blood and exist solely to serve their own interests and to collect their paychecks.

I am not prejudiced. Infact, I am Indian and everyone mentioned above is, as well.

Re:Firsthand experience

[Anonymous Coward]

"The biggest pains in outsourcing, from where I stand, is the disconnect between the teams, the clarity in requirements and the work ethics"

You said it clearly buddy ! The idea is not to deal with a offshore company directly. You deal with their US based establishment. What that provides you is a layer of abstraction that translates your requirements in a way that they are used to. No matter how good you are in requirements documentation, its like talking to a disparate system and the best way is to have alocal rep on site to translate that to their offshore counterparts to understand.
I have been on both sides of the fence (US and Offshore) and have experienced it first hand.
This way you dont have to waste your sleep and loose patience, the offshore companies US rep will do it for you. And you can catch him by his neck if things dont go right !

Re:Firsthand experience

[bennyraphael]

This only demonstrates that the outsourcing company should be selected after careful evaluation. Simply selecting a company that is "cheap enough" is bad management. There are hundreds of companies out there with exceptionally skilled developers and proven records of customer satisfaction. Search on google for "outsourcing best practices". You will find enough material to get started. All the best in the future.

Re:Firsthand experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you work for Transcentive? I hate those fuckers!!!

Re:Firsthand experience

[Monty_Lovering]

I am a Client Service Manager for a European high-tech contact centre. We do support work for hardware, software and Internet security companies based in Europe and the USA.

We cover 16 European languages, so obviously fulfil an outsourcing requirement American companies couldn't hope to do in house. Nothing to complain about there.

We also outsource support work, first in English to a web-based (like Siebel or RightNow) support centre in Karachi.

They are cheap and pretty good. Their RPA (responses to solve an assigned incident) is around 1.5, about the same as US-based teams or our own European teams. They do close about 10% less incidents on the first response (FCRR) than the Americans or Europeans though.

This is about half due to them not being native English speakers and either misunderstanding at first or being misunderstood, and half due to them persisting in doing 'shotgun' initial posts, giving one likely fix and a few others, and thus confusing some customers.

The main thing is you cannot hint, or suggest, or tell. You have to ask; if you've got a good suggestion they will embrace it, they will accept one they don;t agree with, but tell them to do something without consultation and they are a little insulted.

Also, actually SHOWING you are annoyed is sometime the only way to get your point over; they're a more emotive and dramatic culture. Being all off-hand and English sometimes goes over their heads.

They crap over a Latin American team run by the client from a great height. I really like the people I work with.

The European side of the business is far more easy about having a Pakistani support centre doing work for them. Some of the attitudes on the American side of the company are a little less relaxed. South Pakistan is actually comparatively cosmopolitan compared to the tribal north; most people living there moved from India during partiton, so it's a mixed society with no single and ultra-"orthodox" tribal view holding sway; one of the techs is a woman.

The US head office insist on the Pakistani techs using 'European' names. I'm sorry, but if someone has a problem with having a problem solved by Iqbal Abdul, then they can take their bigoted ass to the FAQ's. Funny thing is, just like Taiwanese people can have really whacked-out ideas of what an English name is when they choose one (Ceiling Fan, I shit-you-not, and Euphoria Wu. Seven and Golden were really popular too), so too are Pakistanis ideas of European names rather droll. Paul George, Martian Nighcolls (sic) etc..

I think this is insulting, and in fact another American client with a vastly more complicated product uses a massive phone support centre in India and the agents use their own names.

The idea of a customer getting racist or abusive to one of the Indian staff is something that makes fire come out the boss of the US company's support department, so different companies/indivduals have different views.

I grew up in a really cosmopolitan part of London, and really am not bothered by dealing with the guy who runs the place, and is _really_ Muslim. Of course, he hates the bad guys just like everyone else. They write really old-fashioned courteous English, and sometimes US customers take offence because of it.

Recently the company closed a US phone support centre and outsourced their US phone support to Canada. We couldn't compete with the price (using an Irish partner to take the calls).

We had a bad time setting up a partnership with a centre in the former Yugoslavia, but now have a pilot going well in Roumania for the 'big five' European languages.

Invariably most current volumes of support calls will be there within two years. In Holland we shall just support still more high-tech products; a consumer multimedia program is a tad simpler than administering network security. So staff will go but be replaced by more skilled, better-paid jobs.

In effect the shittier jobs will go to people in other countries who think the

Re:Firsthand experience

[Dekks]

This is a little off topic but the company I work for also outsources although they technically refute this, they use an American Company that outsources. Anyway being a British person living in America I find it very amusing that people here always complain about the notes they put in our system claiming they are too long and poorly written, where to my eyes they are perfect "Queens English" and come across as far more well written than my American peers, not that my grammar and spelling is particulary great mind you.

Re:Firsthand experience

[tsumocat]

What's really annoying is that most of outsourcing projects that I have witnessed are utter failures, but are treated by upper management as successes, since we all know corporate America never makes mistakes (or at least admit that they make a mistake). And all the useless middle management are afraid to speak up, since they are afraid of getting outsourced, so this absurdity never ends.

What's even more annoying is that lot of times, these upper management types who decide to outsource does so to their crony firms, and they get a nice little thank you on the side. They could care jack shit about what happens to the employees, the project, or the company.

Sad.

Re:Firsthand experience

[metlin]

I'm an Indian from Atlanta, you insensitive clod x-(

Re:Firsthand experience

[stmfreak]

Human beings are natural procrastinators, suck-ups and incompetents. There are smatterings of brilliance and good work ethics out there as well, but they tend to run in the minority. These traits exist in equal proportions around the world, not merely concentrated in [some country you want to hate].

The problem with outsourcing is that you introduce significant comm-latency to the process of discovering which type of humans you've hired.

Re:Firsthand experience

[SoulPatch]

Spoken like a true xenophobe. I applaud you for your stereotypes in a time when its quite fashionable to bash Americans. Similar to when Americans liken Europe to a jilted ex-girlfriend. Shes irrelevant, but just hasn't quite gotten the message yet. Maybe she'll just go away, die, whatever... it really doesnt matter.

Quite the stroke of genius; did you manage to come up with this all by yourself? What a smart boy you are!

Stop jacking off to the thrill of trolling Slashdot and get your fat ass out of your parents basement and see the world. We aren't all that different, just better than you.

Re:Firsthand experience

[Anonymous Coward]

TIME SHIFT - is the worst enemy of outsourcing, and improperly dealing with it, is going to KILL you but good.

I work for a company in the Middle East, but live in the USA. It's exactly 12 hours difference. But through intensive trial and error, I learned how to deal with it.

For the sake of insanity, I abhore the idea of having my first day of the workweek on a Saturday night at 9 pm... it totally fucks the partying opportunities... we get 24 hours (Cultural shift - Arabs consider Sunday the first day of the week).

So, my weekend begins on Thursday morning at 5 am and ends Sat night.

Living in this schedule is literally torn my mind to schreds, so I've now adopted a more human schedule. Work during the day (for 5 hours), and go home. But after 9 pm I still stay reachable (thanx to VIOP and chat). So I schedule meetings and "overlap time" (up to 4 hours) with rigid hours THEY (in MIddle east) have to respect. I do NO programming during that time... Just reserve it for meetings, and collaboration... and being ON CALL.

I now have a mutual respect with them (Arabs), and they no longer require me to "work" on Sat night - for the same reasons I respect their religion, they respect mine.

My productivity almost tripled... So after I meet, I always will say, I'll have something for you in the Morning. This gives me a FULL DAY to prepare my work, so I can deliver it the following evening (their morning).

India is just 1 1/2 hours ahead (God knows why India has this stupid "half hour" shift). Me thinks it's just so the whole country can be on the same timezone. I've been to India in the past. Back when Outsourcing wasn't a "dirty word".

USA (Or european) programmers need to consider working for reducd wages, then perhaps US companies might find it better to hire local programmers.

Re:Firsthand experience

[cheekyboy]

Sounds like all programmers should learn management skills and then we can sack all the managers doing nothing but reports all day.

Re:Firsthand experience

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not an asshat, where you are.

Nanee Nanee Noo Noo!

Re:Firsthand experience

[Anonymous Coward]

They were still billing us a full 8 hours for doing nothing, blaming it on unclear requirements.

Well it does seem pretty unclear what they were supposed to be doing. Perhaps you did tell them what to do though. I would give that lesson to your bosses: you get what you pay for. Sure the 16 year kid down the street knows how to "work on cars" but do you want to trust him to work on the CEO's Mercedes?

Re:Firsthand experience

[Dekks]

The persons username was troll-a-holic, I know you're probably aware of this but you gave them the exact type of response they were trying to provoke, best to just leave it and hope they get bored.

Re:Firsthand experience

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Didn't we go through this before with the dotcoms? Managers, executives and stockholders are screaming in unison that "outsourcing" must happen, so entire chunks of many industries lumber in that direction. Sure enough, all kinds of incompetent twits appear, dressed in natty suits, looking to catch the wads of cash that are being incautiously thrown. Suddenly, managers (and so on) find themselves not only having to become skilled in outsourcing (your own company's suited twits may be calling it "strategic sourcing"), but they are well behind on the skill of determining who the bullshit artists are in the outsourcing supply world. Dip all of this in more investor screaming, and you have a wonderful recipe for a disaster.

All foolish demands will be met by con artists. This is the first thing a manager or executive should know.

EULA?

[sremick]

Getting your money back for bugs in the software? Well, did you "accept" that End User License Agreement presented to you on install? Heh.

If so, you're probably SOL. I've never managed to get my money back from Microsoft due to the bugs in their software either.

It probably said something about this EULA superceeding all previous EULAs and contracts too.

(Note to the humor-challenged: this is a joke. Sorta.)

Hope you have a good contract in place

[andymac]

Your contract with this contractor should outline 1) your warranty period, i.e.: how long you have to get deficiencies corrected at no cost (or at some predetermined labour rate); 2) ownership of IP; and 3) any acceptance criteria (or actions that are to be construed as acceptance of the work product as is)

If you own the IP, you should have the product delivered to you in a format that is maintainable (i.e.: editable) by your company. Sounds like you didn't have such rights assigned to you in the contract. I'll have to assume that, at any rate.

So once the warranty period has expired, and you've given acceptance, you're screwed. You have no legal basis for having the contractor do additional work for free. If you want to pay him, I'm sure he'd be glad to oblige.

But, if you have not met the terms of acceptance for the work product (again, I will assume there is some definition in the contract as to what actions construe acceptance) and the warranty period had not expired, the contractor is on the hook for fixes - not improvements or additional features, mind you, but that doesn't sound like your situation.

So if you're in this case, you should estimate the $$ required to complete the work. If it's under the limit for your regional small claims court, file a claim. If you win, great. If he doesn't pay and if it's an owner/operator (i.e.: solo guy), place a lien against his car or house for the amount owing. If it's larger than the small claims court limit, you'll have to decide if it's worth your while (time and legal fees).

Talk to a lawyer AND make sure your contracts are water-tight going forward.

It's quite simple... escalate

[hellfire]

If your usual channels aren't working your CEO (if this isn't you) needs to get on the phone with this outsourced company's CEO. He will politely explain the importance of this, and they will work on an "action plan" to make the appropriate things happen and make sure you are properly updated each day on the progress.

If this bears no fruit, or the plan isn't being followed, or no one calls you, the CEO needs to get on the phone and threaten legal action for failure to deliver on a promised contract.

All the while your company needs to do a cost/benefit analysis of legal action on this company, and do it quickly. Line up all the documentation and make sure everything is well recorded. Consult a lawyer on what needs to be done to make sure a case is solid.

Because if threatening legal action doesn't move them, the only step left is the logical one, make the threat real.

No testing?

[mkop]

only thing left was a small bug fix, and an install script which needed to be completed. As agreed, he delivered the install script, and we made the final payment. Upon testing the new install script we noticed things did not work as intended, Why would you pay without testing? Even if you have a contract in place it would seem you accepted the code as done and made payment. You might have a small chance of winning if you sue.

What do I do?

[Pan T. Hose]

The better question is what do I not do. I never pay in advance, that's what I do. That way I never hear "My guys are still working on it" and I have no such problems, which--let's face it--you can only blame on your own frivolity. And quite frankly it has nothing to do with "outsourcing" and where are the people who are working for you. Personally I have found on many occasions that people in Central and Eastern Europe can work much better than others in the United States or Japan, and of course a healthier environment for developers is a great plus. The bottom line is that you can find great people everywhere, and you can also find con artists everywhere. If you cannot negotiate safe terms and manage risk while doing business, don't blame "those damn foreigners" and "outsourcing" for that. Blame your own naïvete. And yes, I have learned it the hard way.

Outsourcing doesn't always mean overseas ..

[MisanthropicProgram]

or H1-Bs.
I know of a few small companies that outsource much of their IT because they can't offord to hire their own staff and/or they just don't have the expertise in that area. Also, it wouldn't benefit them at their current stage of business. Where's the outsourcing company you ask - in the same town - using American workers.

Re:Outsourcing doesn't always mean overseas ..

[Le Marteau]

Point taken. In my rush to attempt a frosty piss, I had not fully considered the phraseology.

The subject is just a sore spot with me these days. My boss calls it "Right Sourcing" because, well, "Its outsourcing when it's the right thing to do."

That phrase, "Right Sourcing" drives me up a frickin' wall. I couldn't believe my ears the first time I heard her say that phrase, and stopped her in a meeting to ask, "Did you say, 'right sourcing'?"

I had alot of respect for her. Still do, but that phrase is so idiotically transparent in its intent it is nauseating and I can't belive anyone can say it with any seriousness.

Wrong website

[acidrain69]

This is not a slashdot issue. Just because the people are writing software, doesn't mean it is a technological issue.

This is a business issue. Is my contractor delivering? What do they have done? Ask to see it. What milestones have been met, and what is being done to resolve the remaining issues? Perhaps your agreement with the outsourcee needs to be rethought, it sounds like it wasn't planned very well.

I have absolutely ZERO experience in outsourcing and writing scripts as a job, and ZERO experience in managing a business and relations. These are obvious answers to obvious questions that do not belong on Slashdot.

If you just tried to save a buck by outsourcing, then you deserve to get burned. You are just jumping on the outsourcing bandwagon without making sound business decisions. There is a level of control lost when you outsource something. You sound like you have no method of feedback and reassurance. Shame on you.

Re:Wrong website

[Anonymous Coward]

I have absolutely ZERO experience in outsourcing and writing scripts as a job, and ZERO experience in managing a business and relations. These are obvious answers to obvious questions that do not belong on Slashdot.

Because slashdot obviously revolves around what *you* know. Not only that, but in the next paragraph you comment on the issue despite having just admitted that you know nothing about it.

stfu please. :)

Re:Wrong website

[acidrain69]

Knowing nothing about something and making an educated comment on it are disjoint. I can make obvious observations on something if I choose. You, being a moron who cannot even try to refute my post, have the option of modding me down, or trolling, which is what you chose.

In case you didn't figure it out, Slashdot revolves around what EVERYONE knows, especially the "Ask Slashdot" section, which this clearly falls under. Hence the comments and replies and all.

Dumbass.

Re:Wrong website

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again, I'd like to point out that you are NOT everyone. Just because you don't know anything about a specific topic, doesn't mean this is the wrong website to ask the question.

Slashdot revolves around what EVERYONE knows

This statement is completely wrong. Slashdot revolves around people knowing a variety of different things, and then SHARING their knowledge with people who don't. If we only discussed what everyone already knew, then there wouldn't be much point, would there? Outsourcing seems to be a common phenomenon in the IT world, so this question is completely relevant.

Dumbass.

Re:Wrong website

[Anonymous Coward]

For a guy with such a cool .sig you're a real asshat. If the question this fellow asked didn't belong on slashdot, the editors wouldn't have posted it.

Re:Wrong website

[acidrain69]

Again, you are not understanding.

Slashdot is supposed to be about tech, and people's rights relating to tech.

Since when did Slashdot answer business questions? There is nothing tech about this topic.

When I say "Slashdot revolves around what EVERYONE knows", I mean what everyone knows collectively, not individually. I'm not saying that slashdot is about everyone knowing obvious things. You misunderstand me. You are telling me on the one hand that I can't share my opinion, but on the other that I'm not allowed to share what I know or what insight I can provide.

Outsourcing is a BUSINESS issue, it does not just affect tech, and it has been around since before the tech boom in the form of outsourcing manufacturing work and textiles before that. The question is irrelevant. There is nothing relating to IT in this topic. Said poster feels he didn't get what was asked from the outsourced company, and wants to know what his recourse is. Purely business.

Re:Wrong website

[acidrain69]

Maybe you haven't noticed, but there are a lot of people that complain about the content on /. Usually about reposted stories and topics that have nothing to do with tech.

Do you think even slashdot editors are above mistakes? Personally, I think they just glanced at this story and saw the buzzwords "outsource" and "software" and figured it was about tech, but this is a business & legal question, not tech.

And thanks for the compliment on the sig, you poo-eating troll.

Re:Wrong website

[Anonymous Writer]

This is not a slashdot issue. Just because the people are writing software, doesn't mean it is a technological issue.

TIME magazine published a good article on the blog phenomenon which actually mentions Slashdot indirectly by the second sentence. With around half a million viewers a day, it is one of the most influential blogs on the net, and posting "Ask Slashdot" stories draws upon the collective participation of that large userbase. Despite the flaming and trolling, it is pretty fascinating to see the occasional informative comment in discussions that sometimes go beyond the scope of technological topics. There have already been several replies to this submission from people who have been in the same situation. I've personally been surprised by comments; I once suddenly found myself in an informative discussion, getting some really good advice from a surgeon about my dad's osteoarthritis just in the comments section.

Shame on you.

It's nicer to end comments with a smiley :)

Re:Wrong website

[Anonymous Coward]

No. What I'm saying is, if you admit that you know nothing about a particular subject, lose the holier-than-thou attitude and don't be a dick by saying things like "If you just tried to save a buck by outsourcing, then you deserve to get burned."

Re:Wrong website

[acidrain69]

Why can't I say that? It seems to me that they did not do a good job of laying out requirements or protecting their investment. If the reason they went outsourcing was to save a buck, it is going to bite them in the ass if they don't make responsible business decisions.

Mode: AC, maybe

[ackthpt]

first i would let us know who the company is... i think the lack of commuication alone is enough to warn the rest of us!

Maybe anonymously, to avoid getting sued. Nothing quite as rewarding as turning all your hard earned capital over to someone who was incompetent, you whine publicly about and then lost a defamation suit to.

I knew we had a bad one when the guy came in and and had been given a week to do some conversion and had been given a simple task I could have knocked off in 5 minutes. They guy claimed to be profficient in C, but borroed my K&R book and a week later still hadn't got it done. Contract cancelled, no check issued, guy led out door, executive announcement we would no longer do business with that company (they directly called our AP dept and sexually harrassed a clerk, suggesting she pay them.)

What I do...

[HangingChad]

What Do You Do When Outsourcing Goes Bad?

• Point and laugh, fighting the urge to add "I told you so" during the hysterics
• Raise my rates
• Profit!!!

Unable to Modify Deliverable

[theBraindonor]

It sounds like you've been ripped off in more than one way.

First, you aparently don't own the code that was developed. Even if someone does give you the source code, you need to make sure that you are able to modify it as you please. Quite a few contractors have pulled this over the years. They will deliver a product cheaply, then charge much higher rates for upgrades and fixes. Beware of a bargain price on software you won't own.

Second, you issued payment without verifying the completeness of the deliverable. If there are problems with the install script itself, how many other problems will you find once it is installed correctly? Just because a product has been delivered, does not mean that the contract has been fulfilled. Once the money is out the door, it almost never comes back. When a contract goes bad, would you rather pay for the product as well as legal fees to get that money back? Or would you rather pay the legal fees instead?

Worse possible math EVER.

[hummassa]

300,000 $ = 100 engineers. 1 engineer = 3,000 $
100,000 $ = 100 india engs. 1 ie = 1,000 $
200,000 $ = 200 engineers. 1 eng = 1,000 $

each eng here will survive with the same salary as in India? I think not. The manager will get 50,000 $ in bonuses, and the VP the other 150,000 $. everyone wins, if by everyone you mean the PHB and the VP. ah, and the stockholders won't see a dime, too.

Re:Worse possible math EVER.

[mesach]

Umm... YOUR math should read

300,000 $ = 100 engineers. 1 engineer = 3,000 $
100,000 $ = 100 india engs. 1 ie = 1,000 $
200,000 $ = 100 engineers. 1 eng = 2,000 $

Escrow

[tarumaasu]

Maybe you should think about using an Escrow service next time.

Contracts with payment milestones and inspection

[Adammil2000]

In your contracts, tie the vendor's payment to specific milestones and measurable quality criteria for each milestone. There should be several milestones over the course of your project, depending on the project's length. Withhold payment if they don't meet the contractual agreements. They will have a vested interest in getting the project back on track if their payment depends on it. Make sure your contracts are written carefully to ensure they are motivated to keep you on schedule and meet the quality levels that you define. Don't be shy to explain in detail exactly what work you need and how you will measure the quality of that work in the contract, because it will discourage any vendor from signing the contract that thinks they might not be able to meet the bar you set. Also, don't fall for "time and materials" contracts, because most of the time that shields the vendor from any responsiblity of failure. They get their money as long as they do some work and have no vested interest in ensuring the project succeeds or finishes. They can drag their feet and then ultimately fail and walk away, and they get their money, but you're stuck. Hope that helps you...

It depends

[ThousandStars]

That depends on how you paid and where the company is located. If they won't send you the source, you may be screwed. If you paid by check, you can try to stop payment, and if you paid by credit card you can reject the charge. If it's too late for either of those or if you paid by some other means, you might be out of luck. If the other party is in America you can try suing them, but that may or may not be worth the time and effort and you'll need a lawyer. If that person isn't in America, you probably won't be able to sue and collect.

The good news about being out of country is that the price is inexpensive. The bad news is that, if things go sour, you have almost no recourse or leverage.

Finally, next time I can only recommend you take this guy's advice. I realize that may not inspire much comfort now.

so unprotect the script then

[Anonymous Coward]

Skip the lawyers and all that bullshit. Just fix the problem.
Get a good debugger (eg, Soft-Ice) and unpeal this Source Guardian thingamajig. If the script is trully a script, then it's in there somewhere. And most of those src code protection mechanism aren't very adept at hidding it from someone who knows how to use a debugger.
Then never do business with that company again. And make sure you don't pay for stuff that's not delivered to spec.

File *NOW*

[erikharrison]

Put the pressure on right now, seriously. Then never, ever work with them or any other outsourcing company that "protects the source" by wrapping it up somehow.

I've worked with these "reputable" outsourcers before. Really, there is a crop of programming companies that have turned up in the last few years that make the 15 year old outsourcing companies sick. I've been in a position where I had an internally modified GPL source, needed a feature added, and when the CTO decided to push that work out of house, we wound up with a binary and that's it. And it didn't do what we needed it to do.

The company you're working with has probably been behaving this way as long as it's been around, but this shit needs to stop. Lay down the law and pull out, as much and as fast as you can. There are reputable companies who do this kind of work. However, it is almost always small companies, which also release real products that will get you the best result - like Omni, who makes OmniWeb for the Mac, also was well known for being outsourced to for game porting. Look for someone who also makes a product, then you'll have found someone potentially worth working with

impossible to say for sure

[Anonymous Coward]

> At what point do you consider they may have just ripped you off, and how do you > know when to file complaints and withhold payment?"

Like many ask /. questions, there is missing info. For instance, we're only hearing one side of this. Maybe the poster didn't adequately state his requirements. One thing is for sure: Outsourcing is dicey for both parties, and arguably more so for the contractor than the customer.

Assuming the contract was straightforward, and the guy still owes you work, just threaten to sue, like you would with any other contractor who's trying to wash his hands of something without fulfilling his end of the bargain.

What I'm getting at is that there is a common trap here: requirements statement being vague. Contractor takes the job, occasionally unwittingly, and ends up needing more hours than expected. Buyer underestimates the effort needed to fulfill his expectations, and, maybe unwittingly, underestimates the actually required cost.

In either case, the contractor is screwed because he took the job. And often, you must, if you want to eat - because the way things are now, there are 1000 other jerks who will underbid it, because 1) they're better than you 2) they don't grasp the true scope 3) they are predatory bastards.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

' I am COMPLETELY against offshoring '

Why? If there is a much better worker in India, why prevent someone from hiring them?

Re:Why?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Because 90% of the time, the worker in India is not "better" but only "cheaper", and due to the strangeness of international law, is less liable for their actions.

Re:Why?

[acidrain69]

Because indian workers do not work under the same conditions as amarican workers. Healthcare, employee rights, the list goes on. I do not support slave wagesin other companies, I do not support the oppression that exists in China in the manufacturing sector. Supporting offshoring just lowers the quality of life in America.

India and China should fight for workers rights just like the US and Europe had to. I don't believe in giving money to oppressive systems, when I can avoid it.

Nobody said there was better work in India. Ask the customers that I talk to every day on the phone, they will tell you that they hate speaking to foreigners.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask the customers that I talk to every day on the phone, they will tell you that they hate speaking to foreigners.

If they keep saying that when you phone them then it's time to take the hint: they really don't like your accent.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe in giving money to oppressive systems, when I can avoid it.

Let me guess, the time when you can't avoid it is when those evil foreigners force you to buy cheap consumer goods?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, if dont have an iota of knowledge of the Indian and Chinese systems, do not blab your mouth off. The Indian IT workers are much more sophesticated than the Chinese slave workers. The Indian IT workers enjoy a high salary (only the medical profession ranks higher in terms of salary)and much more freedom to choose jobs/locations. They are a coveted lot and because only of their mental prowess, their ability to do such complex work. The chinese labor forces involved in manufactring dont earn a fraction of the salary and are not free to choose their job / location.
So please do not compare Indian IT workers to cheap chinese labor..there is no comparision !!!

Re:Why?

[acidrain69]

No, you misunderstand. I don't have an accent, the OTHER agents they talk to do. We have call centers in and outside of the US. They are happy when they get someone w/o an accent.

Re:Why?

[acidrain69]

Care to post as non-AC so you could actually respond without hiding?

I don't make a lot of money, so I don't have a lot of decision about essentials. I try. Yes, when buying consumer goods.

Re:Why?

[WhiplashII]

To a certain extent, I think that they need to have work before they can complain about working conditions. That's what is missing in all this - the fact is that Indians that used to be in danger of starving to death trying to find a job are no longer in danger.

After the basic necessities of life are met, the masses will start complaining about working conditions. As long as people die from lack of food, no one will complain. So your actions, however nobly intended, probably have the wrong result...

Re:Why?

[acidrain69]

I never did. I compared a system where you have the US outsourcing to other countries, one system where you outsource manufacturing, another IT work. They are 2 different industries, with different employees, but the system of offshoring is the same.

US companies choose a country where labor is cheaper, and export it there. There IS a comparisson, you are just twisting my words to argue against it.

Re:Why?

[Alarion]

I have to admit, I absolutely hate it when I call my bank or credit card company/bank to change an address, or make some other inquiry and I spend 10 minutes spelling out words because the offshored call-center employees don't even speak english. They can read from a terminal screen pretty good, but ask them something that's not one of their list of options and things get ugly.

It's about the same with delivery chinese food. I listened to a friend tell the order taker his street name. It went something like this:

"Yes, my address is 1234 Foxborro road".
"No, not buckro. FOX-burrow"
"Furbrow? no man, EF OH ECKS, BEE OH ARE ARE OH".
"GODDAMNIT I DIDN'T SPELL SUXBEO".

frustrating, but mildly amusing all the same.

Re:Why?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Let me guess, the time when you can't avoid it is when those evil foreigners force you to buy cheap consumer goods?

How about when the evil American MNCs don't make the item anyplace else? As in with clothing, TV Sets, VCRs, DVD players, the computer you're typing on at this very minute...All of these items I'd RATHER buy American after my experiences during the last 4 years, but can't- because nobody did while I was still a kid growing up, and now that I'm 34, nobody makes this stuff in America anymore AT ALL.

Re:Why?

[acidrain69]

Europe and the US managed to do it on their own during the industrial revolution. I think the indians will be better off if they build their own local economy. What will happen to them when (if) they manage to organize for better protections? Will the corporations leave India? Then what will happen to their economy now that they aren't being exploited?

This whole system of offshoring rests on the fact that you are exploiting a workforce. It's bound for failure. I don't support it. When (if) the indians ever get around to fixing their society, we will be left looking for someone else to exploit. Don't you see the ethical dilema here?

Re:Why?

[arkulkis]

If there are "much better" IT companies in India, then why is all of the work performed in India such absolute crap?

Re:Why?

[arkulkis]

Yes, Indian IT workers are so much more sophisticated than the Chinese....and yet, for all their time and effort, most everything they produce is absolute shit.

I'm absolutely freaking SICK of dealing with the screwed up code and other projects coming out of these superficially educated people, from a culture which has, in 7,000 years, invented NOTHING....N-O-T-H-I-N-G, who suddenly expect to be on top of the world in cutting edge technology.

Anyone who expects a nation which doesn't even have the motivation to install basic plumbing (especially sewage systems) to provide even passable-quality high-tech work is smoking crack.

join the club!

[Anonymous Coward]

except my friend was smart enough to whithold payement. There are tons of people out there who just scam you, ask for money and never actually do the work. Or they do it half assedly.

Hire domestic programmers next time

[wishus]

Outsourcers have no vested interest in the long-term success of your project. I've spent the last 4 years recreating a product from ground up because the original product that the outsourcers built sucked. It was so hard to use and error prone that it hurt the reputation of our company, and cost us a lot of money.

We almost missed the market window because of this failure, but the company put together a team of domestic programmers, on salary, who want to see the product succeed, because it is in our own best interest. We started from scratch and built it the right way, and it has entered the market successfully.

I'm sorry, but I really don't have any sympathy for you. Maybe next time you'll create jobs for domestic programmers and they'll give you a product you can actually sell.

Re:Hire domestic programmers next time

[SmokeHalo]

Funny, nowhere in the text did it say that the outsourcing company was not domestic.

-1 Assumption

Re:Hire domestic programmers next time

[Anonymous Coward]

Nor do we have sympathy for you. Your scumbag, bottom feeding, offshoring little shit factory already sent those jobs overseas. Only difference is that after getting fucked in the ass with a wire brush for four years, your pointy haired bosses decided to maybe try again at home.

Nice way to spin your company as having some redeeming qualities. I love this line

Maybe next time you'll create jobs for domestic programmers and they'll give you a product you can actually sell.

You can understand that by firing the original team four years ago, then hiring a new team today, you have not created any jobs for domestic programmers, right?

Asshat.

Re:Hire domestic programmers next time

[wishus]

Funny, nowhere in the text did it say that the outsourcing company was not domestic.

True, but it doesn't much matter. My point was that outsourcing companies don't have a vested interest in the long-term success of your project, in the way that hired programmers do. The Outsourcer's job is to deliver a product by a deadline. They don't have to sell it or support it, so there is little incentive to design a solid product.

There are two main drivers for any software development project: the first is the product the customer will see. The second is the codebase that the developer and his coworkers will be maintaining and expanding for the next few years. It is possible to create software which is passable from the customer point-of-view, but a nightmare to future developers. This is the kind of product that I have seen from outsourcers.

So, yeah I assumed that the outsourcing company was foreign. But it doesn't really matter.

Re:Hire domestic programmers next time

[wishus]

You can understand that by firing the original team four years ago, then hiring a new team today, you have not created any jobs for domestic programmers, right?

I didn't fire anyone. I'm just a programmer, man.

Additionally, there was no "original team." It was a new product, initially developed overseas. When they learned their lesson, they hired some domestic people to do it right.

Next time, don't assume so much. It makes *you* look like the asshat.

Re:Hire domestic programmers next time

[Anonymous Coward]

You boy, are one tongue in anus asshat.

Re:Hire domestic programmers next time

[Big_Al_B]

True, but it doesn't much matter. My point was that outsourcing companies don't have a vested interest in the long-term success of your project, in the way that hired programmers do

Well, then you certainly suck at making your point.

Look at your 'Subject'. You say "hire domestic programmers" which clearly implies that foreign programmers are less skilled and/or not conscientious employees. It certainly does NOT imply that he should "grow his staff programmer headcount."

Nothing in your original post made this distinction clear either. If your point was the latter, it was *completely* lost in your marginally xenophobic rhetoric.

Re:Hire domestic programmers next time

[Big_Al_B]

When they learned their lesson, they hired some domestic people to do it right.

Hm, I thought domestic vs. foreign "wasn't your point". So which matters more, IYHO, hiring domestic, or hiring in-house staff?

Just curious, because you're not being at all consistent.

Re:Hire domestic programmers next time

[XopherMV]

Outsourcers have no vested interest in the long-term success of your project.

A couple years ago we used some guys from Accenture to work on a project. They sent over their best guys for the negotiation. But once we signed, we never saw them again. Instead, we got some junior programmers fresh out of school who didn't know what they were doing.

Once they started working, it seemed like their entire goal was to delay finishing the project in order to keep getting a paycheck. We ended up late and over budget. The end result was some shitty-ass code that barely worked and which we didn't use.

All this griping about foreign outsourcing reminds me of this. Just like domestic outsourcing companies, foreign companies and their workers are only interested in getting your company's money. The quality of the code doesn't matter to them, except if they don't get paid. That only makes them want to do the bare minimum not to get fired, which often means crappy code.

If you want good, quality work, then don't outsource at all - foreign or domestic. Keep it in house, where the workers actually care about the product they put out and aren't interested in doing a half-assed job. Employees know that the quality of their work matters. These people know they'll need to support this code in the future, so they make sure to get it right the first time.

You're FIRED

[chroot_james]

easy enough

Tried this

[PsiPsiStar]

Our company went with this option. Vinnie has taken our check but has yet to extract vengance. Inquiries into the matter via his secretary get the reply "I'm working on it."

Re:Tried this

[TopShelf]

Once again, the lack of formal standards rears its ugly head. You issued a check without receiving the source coder's scalp?

Re:Tried this

[91degrees]

Icepick vinnie has been "rightsized", and our corporate heavies department outsourced. We now send a polite well spoken Indian chap to intimidate the victims.

You paid before you tested

[Nhojwolfe]

You deserve to loose your money. You outsourced you deserve to have your job sent over seas. I have one thing to say to you lol.

I think you got used.

[Badgerman]

The best bet I'd say is talk to your lawyers and review the contract. But you made several mistakes.

1) Always test the application yourself from compiled code. Its too easy for people to code to pass tests.
2) Always have source code. Always.
3) The final version should be compiled from source code.
4) The code should be reguarly reviewed by your staff for errors and suspicious code. NEVER give someone else access to your network.

Outsourcing is a real Pandora's box.

Same as a domestic company, I would think.

[technomom]

Read the contract, read the deliverables, read the deadlines. If the company didn't deliver what they were supposed to in the time provided, then ask for your money back or give them a new deadline and tell them in no uncertain terms that they need to meet that deadline or they will provide a refund.

I don't think the offshoring outsourcing has much to do with it. Bad developers and businesspeople can be found everywhere.

JoAnn

The Human Solution

[Spinlock_1977]

Everyone else has talked up the legal options, so allow me to point this out: The author of the software package (that recommended the rip-off firm) probably has more of a reputation to protect. Ask him to make this situation right - either by fixing the bug, or applying pressure (loss of future referrals?) to the consulting company. Threaten to name the HIM here in Slashdot if he won't help you - he may respond better than a consulting company an abstract name.

Contact your vendor

[wren337]

Make a stink with the company that referred you to the outsource company. Don't assume malice on the part of the vendor, keep working with them politely and insistantly. Try to get a full source release from them if nothing else.

Bottom line is you screwed up by paying them before they were finished. Never pay any contractor off until you are sure the goods have been delivered, you have no better leverage than an unpaid bill. Might have been an expensive lesson learned.

Don't return Buisness.

[jellomizer]

Do ever go back to them for return business, or at least until they have a change in management, and openly tell people about your bad experience with them.

But for the next time you will need to determine the contract more carefully. The Outsourcing company wants to be paid hourly with no limit, this way they feel that they can afford to get the project done the right way without cutting corners.
Most accountants like buying outsourcing at fixed costs because it prevents the Outsources from turning a small project into a huge one and it makes it easier to budget. But it forces the outsourser to be cheaper in their design because they need to save money so they make a profit, and if the project is overdue the oursourcers are loosing money so they are trying to getaway with whatever they need to do to finish it.

I would ask for them a Quote first, contract them hourly at a rate to until they reach the quote price, then reduce the rate a lower price (Try to aim for "at cost" for the outsourcers) to around 20% over the deadline. Hold the cost of the price of the quote until the project is completed.

That way the Oursourced people are motivated to get the project done on schedule (Because management hates offering at cost work for someone who can have there time placed elsewhere) But at the same time the outsource people are not loosing money on the deal and will be less likely to sacrifice quality to get it done, because they can still cover their costs. And the Majority of the cost which is the quote you hold that money until you are happy with the work as the extra bargaining chip. Good nogeations is when both sides are equally unhappy.

That is: better

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone can do the same thing, but cheaper, that is a lot better. When other considerations are held steady, cheaper is better when it comes to deals (where you need to pay for something).

Re:That is: better

[Marxist Hacker 42]

If someone can do the same thing, but cheaper, that is a lot better.

Only in the short term, and for the smallest number of people.

When other considerations are held steady, cheaper is better when it comes to deals (where you need to pay for something).

Not really- because in the long run you'll just spend that money on more taxes to replace the "cheaper" with social services. By spending more up front on the deal, you provide more economic benefit to the society around you- which pays YOU back in a large number of ways. Cheaper is NOT always equal to better in the long term. In addition to that, on the current deal (espeically the one in this article), the extra expense often pays for certain legal rights that you don't get going overseas, including the right to sue the outsourcer when he fails to complete the contract to your specifications.

Re:That is: better

[Anonymous Coward]

' Only in the short term, and for the smallest number of people.'

It is best for the long term, as you are not wasting money.

' Not really- because in the long run you'll just spend that money on more taxes to replace the "cheaper" with social services. '

No, you will not. It is entirely unconnected.

' Cheaper is NOT always equal to better in the long term '

If the work is as good, then cheaper is nothing but better.

' including the right to sue the outsourcer when he fails to complete the contract to your specifications.'

Then you find a company without such problems.

Re:That is: better

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you automatically ASSuming that it's better? Are you some offshore Indian tech firm and come here shilling?

Re:That is: better

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It is best for the long term, as you are not wasting money.

Money spent locally is never wasted- every $1 spent creates $8 of value in economic movement.

No, you will not. It is entirely unconnected.

Not at all- just think about it. Spend that $1 locally, and you've insured that your neighbor down the street still has a job. Spend $.50 overseas- you get the same immediate value back, but your neighbor loses his job, gets hungry, breaks into your house ans steals what he needs. That's a simplification- but it illustrates the point.

If the work is as good, then cheaper is nothing but better.

A big if- and without the local laws enforcing the contract, there's no way to know that IF for sure.

Then you find a company without such problems.

And after you've been through 10 companies with the same set of problems, you'll return to outsourcing LOCALLY where you can get your hands around the neck of the person who caused the problem.

I have the perfect solution

[chadamir]

outsource to another company to make a crack for source guardian. Its genius.

3 letters known to management...

[catdevnull]

The 3 letters that management are just now starting to understand are : TCO. Total Cost of Ownership isn't something that comes from a single ledger in the bean counter's office. It's often learned the hard way by unexpected costs like the cost to fix mistakes or the loss of important clients or businsess deals. When an out-sourced company/individual does a poor job because you spent the least amount of money possible, the return on the investment is low. ROI are 3 more letters. After a while, the executives in charge figure out that investments are tied to ownership.

I think the outsourcing epidemic is abating because of the backlash to the off-shoring. The two are different but have become synonymous. I think both are a trend in which companies experimented and won and lost. It works for smaller companies who can't afford their own IT department so they can hire a company to provide a level of service they cannot match themselves. Conversely, it might be considered a step down for a fortune 500 company to look to a start-up company to handle their enterprise level needs. I might be generalizing a bit, but it works for some things but not others. For example, Janitorial staff might work but IT desktop support probably might be a bit more difficult. I think the outsourcing option might not be on the table when/if the economy improves.

Re:3 letters known to management...

[captainClassLoader]

catdevnull says:

The 3 letters that management are just now starting to understand are : TCO.

I think another 3 letters the original poster's managers could stand to learn about would be CYA, as in the non-existing contingencies for nonperformance section of the so-called contract they signed with that dodgy outsourcing firm. Doesn't seem to be much CYA going on in the original poster's company, let alone the subtleties of TCO.

Re:3 letters known to management...

[HungWeiLo]

Mod parent up. That pretty much sums it up.

Let's say (for hypothetical purposes...) that I work in a company that makes a product that can (hypothetically, again...) kill people. And then let's just add that certain teams across the pond was caught red-handed faking test results in order to run them through the testing mill. And then let's just add that the management must unconditionally use 20%+ "globalized resources" in order to meet their annual goals...sigh...I'm on a plane next week to sort it out...

Siemans Medical outsourced My hospital's IT

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry for posting this AC..... They fired all the techs, leaving 2 people to cover a hospital 24/7. (hint there are 168 hours/week).
The first manager they hired got fired. Seems when he left he took some computers with him, roumor has it, to finance his drug habit.
Investigation still in progress.

you accepted work w/o checking it?

[gelfling]

then you deserve what you get. seriously, next time put something in your contract that says things have to be delivered to work as proposed. then you need them to show you that they checked it out. otherwise the fault is yours.

Re:you accepted work w/o checking it?

[dark_fishbowl]

I write cde for small clients. I make a point to deliver the product and insist on the client doing a full test on it before payment is received. Upon payment, the client receives the source as well as the final.

I am the exception, not the rule. Most coders out there slam it out and push for payment right away.

I never have to go drum up business. My policies keep them coming back.

Ice PIck Vinnie

[Alien54]

I usually reserve for spammers.

On the other hand, Igo Kutchyakokov is reserved for over seas operations. He works with a marvelous Japanese Italian negotiator, Makya A. Soprano, related to the New York City and New Jersey Soprano families.

You _paid before testing_? Idiot.

[Pathetic Coward]

It was obvious to them that you didn't care whether or not the product worked, so they had no incentive to produce anything. They already have your money.

Just yesterday I was talking about a similar situation with an ex-coworker. No publishing house would issue a manuscript without copyediting, fact-checking, and running it by the legal department. That would be a firing offense. But in software everything is expected to work the first time without error or even any communication with the contractor about specifying what the product is actually supposed to do. If those managing even bother to look at the product, it's exceptional.

If you still have your job after this debacle consider actually hiring someone in America that has experience developing software and will have the professional stature to tell you when things aren't working and when the specifications aren't clear. Yes, you may end up paying more. But if you're actually concerned about a working product you need to take the responsibility of what's necessary in personnel and resources to produce it.

Good thing ...

[Mr.Surly]

... you paid before testing it.

There is better work in India

[Anonymous Coward]

' Nobody said there was better work in India '

There is. That is why there is outsourcing.

' I do not support slave wagesin other companies '

Slaves do not earn wages, as they are owned: your statment is contradictory. There is no outsourcing to Indian slaves.

Re:There is better work in India

[acidrain69]

They are slaves to a system that does not provide proper worker protections. They make wages. Slaves are usually provided for in some way, be it housing or food or whatever, so even slaves are paid in some way. They would die otherwise, and thus be useless to their owners.

Re:There is better work in India

[Marxist Hacker 42]

http://www.distributism.org/wageslave.htm

Go educate yourself.

Question

[andy1307]

Do you work for the FBI and is this about the SAIC outsourcing contract to build the virtual case file system?

story is not believable

[sjf]

So, you authored a script and then GAVE UP OWNERSHIP OF THE CODE TO THE CONTRACTOR ?

If this story is remotely true then you were very foolish indeed. As others have said, you need concrete acceptance criteria.

This story has nothing to do with outsourcing per se. The mistakes you made could just as easily have happened if you had been as lax with a US contractor working in house.

I strongly suspect this article is an attempt to discredit the practise of outsourcing. The biggest problem I see is with your common sense.

-S

Re:story is not believable

[Duhavid]

There is, I think, one small difference. With a US contractor, you would have some legal recourse.

Seriously.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it's all over this thread, but YOU PAID THEM BEFORE YOU TESTED IT??? AND WITHOUT ANY SOURCE???? So.... do you need another outsourcing partner?

Rule #2

[crimoid]

Rule #2

Test the software they've given you before you pay them.

Learn & move on

[maggard]

First, you're screwed.

You might get lucky, they might come through, but at this point you've lost control and are unlikely to get it back.

Things you could do are imply possible more work as a carrot, or offer a premium for the source code, or pull out the stick of a lawsuit, publicizing your experience, etc.

But those are long shots.

Complicating this is the possibility of it all being international. I know lots of posters are assuming that but outsourcing doesn't require this, it could as well be to some shop down the hall, next building over, whatever. If they're outside your jurisdiction then trying to sue 'em won't be worth the distraction & costs, write it all off as a bad investment and get to work on replacing the code.

Clearly what does need to be done is your folks getting your outsourcing strategy in order. As everyone has pointed out you were fools not to require clear source, not to test the product before paying for it, for not for having an explicit resolution policy written into the contract.

My advice would be in the future to work through a reputable 3rd party who does know this stuff. There is no end of middlemen who have boilerplate contracts, service guarantees, and extensive rosters of coders. The overhead they'll add is far less then what it would cost you to do the same.

The caveat with the 3rd parties is again, getting locked in. Make sure that if you do find a good vendor(s) you can eventually form a direct relationship without paying the 3rd party in perpetuity. Make sure to read all of the fine print, for all parties, before selecting anyone.

Good luck, and learn this lesson well.

Mod Parent Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

He said "Software Engineer!"

If you don't get it then ask a real engineer what they think about that ;)

Re:Mod Parent Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to explain the joke? Most software engineers I know are great guys who learn by themselves. Most "real" engineers I know hate their jobs. I don't know what's funny...

Re:Mod Parent Funny

[GoofyBoy]

>Most software engineers I know are great guys who learn by themselves. Most "real" engineers I know hate their jobs.

Software Engineers should not have learned things by themselves. They went to post-secondary school (usually the hard ones), taken professional exams and are legally licensed to work in an area. The "real" have legal responsiblities (to the client and the public) for their work and that legal responsiblity has weight.

And I know "real" engineers who love their jobs. So what?

Re:Mod Parent Funny

[glenebob]

"Software Engineers should not have learned things by themselves."

I find that the sort of people who say this, just are not all that strong at self-learning, and so assume that no one else is either.

Re:Mod Parent Funny

[GoofyBoy]

>I find that the sort of people who say this, just are not all that strong at self-learning, and so assume that no one else is either.

No, as in Engineers should not be learning non-industry standard methods/techniques and applying them for a job. Its ok to learn new things outside of a class room but the information should be with others (reviewed by peers as in a journal, communicated with peers to obtain a second professional opinion). Learning should not be done "by themselves". It should not be; "Gee, I though of a great new idea of how to mix concrete. Lets see how it works on my next skyscraper."

Re:Mod Parent Funny

[jonathanduty]

"Software Engineers should not have learned things by themselves."

I use to work with someone like you. When a new problem would come through the door that required a new technology he would stomp his feet and refuse to solve it until the manager sent them to some expensive training. Thought he was a big shot because he had a master's degree. Refused to take the extra step and research something on his own. To be honest, he was useless.

When I look for an engineer, I'm looking for a problem solver, a "go-to person", no matter what.

Ask for your job back?

[foooo]

Ask for your job back?

Has outsourcing ever gone GOOD?

[Dehumanizer]

I don't think so.

Laugh!

[blahbooboo]

Laugh and charge them 2x the amount you were going to when you were fired! :)

filthy sneaky indians

[Anonymous Coward]

New oxymoron - "trustworthy Indian firm"

say it brother. those Indians (along with other arabs) lack a "hard work" or "honesty" gene. not only that, they a dark brown, like they never take baths.

free market comp

[PsiPsiStar]

And I hate it when people accept the notion of free market and competition only when they are on the winning side.

So which nation is it that doesn't act in its own self interest? India has laws saying that if you're going to be a foreign company on Indian soil, you hire native workers. China counterfits everything from American brand names to American currency within its borders.

Boeing protects itself from competition by getting the standard for US runways set differently than Europe.

The Philippines has a growing call center business, but charges 50%-100% tax, plus fees for imports to the country.

Why do you think that any country should agree to be on the 'losing side' of a deal if they can avoid it?

Re:free market comp

[Angostura]

>Why do you think that any country should agree to be on the 'losing side' of a deal if they can avoid it?

Just to be clear - when you say 'losing side' are you talking about the country's workers - who want to be paid more than the going world rate, or the country's consumers - who want to pay the cheapest price possible?

This is not a black and white issue, it is up to each country to decide by how much they want their consumers to subsidize their own salaries.

Re:free market comp

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Just to be clear - when you say 'losing side' are you talking about the country's workers - who want to be paid more than the going world rate, or the country's consumers - who want to pay the cheapest price possible?

The thing is they're the same people- this separation is a false dichotomy, for if the consumer's salary goes to zero in favor of cheaper labor elsewhere, they will cease to be a consumer.

Re:free market comp

[PsiPsiStar]

Mostly I'm talking about the consumer and those who are subjected to the effect that 'free trade' has on the dollar value of their labor, as opposed to large organizations which are far better able to insulate themselves from the negative consequences of globalization and capitalize on the benefits.

Prices have continued to rise as wages have fallen. Most American consumers are unable to effectivly capitalize on 'globalization' and continue to pay wholesale rather than retail.

Re:free market comp

[Angostura]

I know. Hence my last paragraph, which you may want to read with a little care.

In fact, it's not actually that simple since the country also exports goods.

Re:free market comp

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I know. Hence my last paragraph, which you may want to read with a little care.

My point was that in America today- citizens don't decide anything at all- they're just little worker bees, to be used and thrown away by the corporations whenever convient.

In fact, it's not actually that simple since the country also exports goods.

Actually, America stopped exporting finished goods some time ago. Our current major exports are raw resources, scrap metal, and food. And even that last (and most profitable due to government subsidies) goes out as raw foodstuff, for the most part, and gets processed overseas (there are a few notable exceptions, like Tabasco Sauce, but those are usually even a different recipie designed for the country being exported to specifically).

Re:free market comp

[Angostura]

Wow your point is evolving fast.

Re:free market comp

[Anonymous Coward]

Show it to creationists then :-)

Re:free market comp

[Anonymous Coward]

' Most American consumers are unable to effectivly capitalize on 'globalization' '

Most Americans consumers do. Start with the choice between a toyota and a ford.

Re:free market comp

[PsiPsiStar]

Globalization may increase choices (though the number of car manufacturers to choose from has only decreased in recent years, rather than grown) but the point is that to get 'cheap foreign goods' requires going through a middleman who will take a good portion of the savings.

Items that were $1 in China go for five to ten times that price outside of the country, due primarily to markup. Domestic goods have less markup. This is part of what I meant by consumers not getting the biggest share of the benefit.

Source guardian!?!?!

[Spy der Mann]

OK I think that no matter how you feel, you should demand answers NOW. Demand the unfinished script, and next time you sign a contract, include a license that gives you full access to non-encrypted copies of all the scripts, and that these copies (not the original scripts themselves) remain your property and you can do whatever you want with them (with exceptions of publicly distributed scripts i.e. GPL or LGPL licenses and such).

Closed source is poison. An uncle of mine hired a company to do some website for him, but he doesn't have access to the files (not even the PUBLISHED files on the host).

Also, was there a time-limit specified on the contract? Can't you sue these guys for non-fulfillment of contract or something?

OUTSOURCING != OFFSHORING

[drew]

good grief, like 2/3's of the comments here are rants about paying people in another country to do your work or claiming that the poster is screwed because he did business with a company from another country. he never stated where the business he asked to do the work is located. it's possible that they are in the same city. (of course, they might be in india, but nobody here knows that, you're all jumping to conclusions.)

there are a lot of companies that need programming work done from time to time but don't see the need to pay dedicated programmers full time salaries. there are also companies that have dedicated programmers, but occasionally have more work at one time than their in house staff can handle. i've done work for both types of companies before- sometimes they were located only blocks away from me.

anyway, that being said, if you had a contract, and it specified that you wouldn't pay until the work was complete, you should first try and stop payment with your bank if it's not too late. if it is too late, i would get a lawyer on retainer, and notify the firm of that fact. sometimes just knowing that will be enough to get them to cooperate with you. if not, then you've already taken the first step towards either getting your working product or getting your money back.

and it may be too late now, but for future reference, never sign a contract that doesn't give you the source code. now, even if you resolve this issue with your provider, you are stuck going back to them for any future modifications....

Re:OUTSOURCING != OFFSHORING

[Anonymous Coward]

You dothead.

been there done that

[Random Web Developer]

I've been a dev on a project that had been outsourced to india and went terribly wrong.
You can stop paying as soon as possible, but i doubt you'll get any money you already transfered back.

Instead of listening to that "my guys are working on it" tell them that you won't pay them any more and other guys will fix it. If your project is any like ours you will end up trying to fix it first, rewrite it later. Maybe you'd better rewrite it in house from the beginning.

In short:
- Get it over to your country as soon as possible
- you are pretty much fucked for what you've paid already
- think twice before outsourcing again.

Disclaimer:
- I'm not usually a anti-outsource troll, just felt compelled by the post. I live in europe where i suppose it's not as much of a problem.
- I am sure there are decent indian software company's, I am confident that our customer just ran afoul of the wrong one.

Winning Back American Jobs one at a time

[czbear]

I say we form a counter insurgency squad. We learn how to speak broken English Indian style. Then the plan is to offer our outsourcing services for say: totally upgrading an enterprise application for pennies on the dollar. We can take a 10K deposit or better. When they call to ask where their software is we simple inform them that the Great God Ganesha has decree that I cannot write code for another six months, sorry

Winning back America one job at a time!

Re:Winning Back American Jobs one at a time

[Anonymous Coward]

Have no fear, the American Peso will bring the jobs home. Of course you won't be able to afford anything built in any other country, but it won't matter much, because America still manufactures most of what it consumes, right. Oh, right, Globalisation has removed most manufacturing from the US.

Oh well, I'm sure something is still made in the US.

Re:Winning Back American Jobs one at a time

[CmdrGravy]

"...speak broken English."

If you are American the chances are you already do ;-)

Re:Winning Back American Jobs one at a time

[Anonymous Coward]

You bet.

International Terrorists who invade sovereign nations illegally and unjustly and find none of the things they claim were the sole reason for doing so...but they stand by their decision.

That is what is made in America, along with Radical Christian Fundementalists.

Re:Winning Back American Jobs one at a time

[Big_Al_B]

We learn how to speak broken English Indian style.

Done! That sentence, in the context you've created, is broken English. You need a "should" or a "could" or an "ought to" in there for a complete thought.

And, the original post isn't about "off-shoring". It's about "out-sourcing" which can be just as domestic as any other B2B relationship.

So, Roscoe, howzabout next time you read for comprehension before posting some redneck racist swill about other people and their religion?

Re:Winning Back American Jobs one at a time

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you worship cows and eat, drink, and shit curry?

Re:Winning Back American Jobs one at a time

[czbear]

1) That's some funny post you got there. Most of the work that has been out-sourced has been off-shored (maybe that's a new redneck word I just dun HAHA). That's not called comprehension its called interpretation, maybe yours is broken. Or maybe you have not yet had the pleasure of being replaced by cheaper foreign labor (Yes I must be a red-neck I just started a sentence with OR).

2) That's not a racist swill IMO, my wife is Chinese and I would have used that but India is a much more popular "Out-Sourcing" location. You want to see racism try getting a job in India as a non Indian.

3) Don't take yourself so damn seriously it's a joke, HAHA (Note to self).

Re:Winning Back American Jobs one at a time

[Big_Al_B]

1) That's some funny post you got there.

Glad you liked it.

Most of the work that has been out-sourced has been off-shored

Oh yeah? Got the data to back that up? Just because off-shoring is the popular economic bogeyman, doesn't mean it's more prevalent than hiring outside consultants to do inside work. That happens everyday, everywhere. Find me a company that doesn't have several contractors onsite, and I'll show you a truly small business.

(Yes I must be a red-neck I just started a sentence with OR).


Hardly. Using conjunctions to begin a sentence is a literary tool that many brilliant writers occasionally use. And apparently you do it too.

2) That's not a racist swill IMO, my wife is Chinese

Your post was based on diminutive stereotypes about a specific ethnicity and religion. What would you call it? Oh I see...

it's a joke, HAHA

Well, no one seems to have modded you 'funny'. You'd think someone would have by now, eh? I mean, if it truly was 'funny'.

Re:Winning Back American Jobs one at a time

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear your brother-dad calling you...he says you better bring his banjo an' yer purty mouth back on home now.

Addendum

[Spy der Mann]

You should check out http://www.sitepoint.com/ for contract and legal tips dealing with web programming. They even have a newsletter about it.

Looks like you've been had

[mysterious_mark]

Let's face it many ASP's in this country are unreliable, incompetent or downright dishonest. The ones overseas are even worse, and there out of reach of both the US legal system and 'Icepick Vinnie'. Anyone who trust the offshore companies, even the big ones like WIPRO is just palin nuts I think. I've done tons of work on messed up outsourced coce, so this opinion is based on my experience. Wouldn't necessarily trust US companies like EDS or whatever either, but at least you could drag them into court, can't realistically do that to overseas comapnies.

The only fair market is a free market

[Anonymous Coward]

' The Free Market is only a good idea when it is also a Fair Market'

The only fair market is a free market: a system in which the people making the deals decide what is fair or not.

' In the case of outsourcing to India, this is simply not true '

That is both free and fair: the employees and employers are free to decide whether or not the deal is fair, and they make it (or not).

Re:The only fair market is a free market

[Hognoxious]

The only fair market is a free market: a system in which the people making the deals decide what is fair or not.

A free market is only fair if both parties to the deal have equal bargaining power.

Re:The only fair market is a free market

[Anonymous Coward]

' "A free market is only fair if both parties to the deal have equal bargaining power" '

It is still free if they don't have equal bargaining power: the person who feels overpowered by the other is perfectly free to step away from the deal. The requirement of "equal bargaining power" negates the idea of a free market: you are imposing some arbitrary and meaningless standard on the deal: "No! Bud and Joe, you cannot do this! You cannot make this deal because I think you do not have equal bargaining power. No, wait: you can't do it because it is on a Sunday afternoon!" I think it up to Bud and Joe to decide, not meddling outsiders.

Re:The only fair market is a free market

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but Joe can afford to step back from the deal while Bud needs to feed a hungry family so he'll take whatever he can get.

Kind of why unions were created ... to give workers more bargaining power.

Re:The only fair market is a free market

[Bush Pig]

> ... the employees and employers are free to decide whether or not the deal is fair ...

You've never been unemployed with a wife, three children, and a mortgage to support, have you? In Australia, that's almost doable, but I doubt that it is in the US because you don't have much in the way of a social safety-net.

The deal is only fair if each party has equal bargaining power, which simply isn't the case here.

Re:The only fair market is a free market

[Pharmboy]

So you have never anticipated changes in the market and retrained yourself? why do so many people learn a skill, and then expect that one skill will be around forever?

Each side DOES have equal bargaining power. It is just that one side is willing to do the job for much less than the other. It may suck for you and others right now, and I do understand that and feel for you, but the playing ground is level.

In Australia (just as in US, Canada, Europe), you have access to educational institutions that many in other countries do not. Is that fair? You have access to city transporation systems that other countries do not. Is that fair? Obviously I could go on and on about how "unfair" your advantages are. The main difference is that your advantages didn't save your job, although they probably GOT the job the first time.

Re:The only fair market is a free market

[Hognoxious]

It is still free if they don't have equal bargaining power: the person who feels overpowered by the other is perfectly free to step away from the deal.

If there's only one supplier of food and you're starving? Sure, you can step away from the deal.

Re:The only fair market is a free market

[Anonymous Coward]

' If there's only one supplier of food and you're starving? Sure, you can step away from the deal '

That applies when there is only one source of food, which is certainly not applicable in any way to this outsourcing situation (in which there are innumerable competing "Dealers").

Re:The only fair market is a free market

[Hognoxious]

Big fat deal. It darn well refuted the assertion that if one guy can walk away, it's a fair market, which was the intention.

Re:The only fair market is a free market

[Bush Pig]

Your comments are, I'm afraid, asinine.

Although I've been in the position I've described and have consequently accepted jobs I didn't much care for at lower pay than I'd like, and have continuously re-educated myself and changed careers, I was actually speaking more generally about the relationship between an employer who needs, say, a welder but doesn't want to pay a fair wage, and an out-of work welder who realises that if he doesn't accept the shitty wage, he and his family will starve in the gutter, and someone else in a similar position will accept the job, even though it doesn't pay quite enough to live on. So, unless you have a rather idiosyncratic definition of "equal", this is _not_ a relationship in which there is equal bargaining power.

best advice

[BeerMilkshake]

Learn from it, and capture that knowledge somewhere for future procurements. Management 101 - plan what you will do, do it, check the results, take action to correct deficiencies. Your organization needs a Procurement Management Plan that outlines what types of contracts will be used (FFP, T&M, etc), how estimates will be done, and so on. As well, invest in training for your management team. You need capabilities in Contract Administration, knowledge of Contract Law and industry best practices. There are other reasonable ideas in other posts. I am both a contractor and I hire subs on occasion. It can be done well if you take care.

What else do we do?

[big-giant-head]

Please I haven't seen any Indians who can do my job better than I. In most cases it isn't as good, however they can work 5$ an hour I can't. So even If I can do the job of 3 indians, it's still cheaper to hire 4 or 5.

Thing is with American middle class losing thier jobs who will buy Overpriced American products ( they stay overpriced because the CEO's must still make Multi-Multi million dollar pay checks)

I don't see Indian Programmers making $5K a year standing in line to buy $2000.00 MayTag fridges and $30,0000 ford/Chevy/dodge SUV's .... etc. etc.

We are already seeing the short sightedness of all this Look at the stock market it is contiually weak, in spite of the fact that we have been in a 'recovery' for 3 years. Why, because consumer demand isn't as strong. Well when you are destroying good jobs and replacing them with lowing paying jobs, people are not rushing out to buy non-essential crap. Add rising health insurance rates which no one in the US wants to do anything about.

If the Indians think they are so great now, just wait, there is No great love for them here in the States, As soon as the Chinese or Africans or whomever can do the job cheaper, the Indians will be left with a bunch of vacant Call Center/Tech Centers and rising unemployed middle class. What will they do then, Nothing they have nothing to sell anyone wants other than the fact they were cheaper, for a while. To boot they will have left behind some major bad will on the part of the American public....

All the 'Free Market' fans here (everyone is free market till they lose thier job, house etc....) will be on the Chinese/African ..... band wagon.

There is No such thing as a free lunch or a free market someone has to pay......

Re:What else do we do?

[j-pimp]

There is No such thing as a free lunch or a free market someone has to pay......
Free market is free as in speech. Free lunch refers to free as in beer.

Re:What else do we do?

[LoveTruthBeauty]

I can understand being sensitive about losing your job because its been outsourced to somewhere cheaper. It surely must lead to frustration coming to the realisation that your country doesn't really care about any given citizen at all.

Still, the underlying racism is unpleasant. I commend the above authors on their self-confidence, but there's nearly a billion Indians, and for them to think that they are superior coders/managers/widget washers to every single one of them makes the word arrogant seem inadequet.

I feel for anyone who has lost their job, but unless you are the kind of patriot who would happily spend 3 or 4 times over the odds just to buy locally made, how can you expect your employer to do the same?

The other side of the coin is that you almost certainly don't need the job as badly as India (or whereever) does. Compared to even a middle class indian, you live like a king. Unless you've experienced Indian living conditions first hand, you have no idea of the disparity. I'm not saying you shouldn't have a good quality of life. I am saying Indian's deserve a good quality of life too - and every dollar they earn is going to make a bigger difference to them, their communities, and their country, than every $10 you earn will make to you.

As an American, you are born with so many more advantages than any Indian - so many its almost impossible to comprehend. When was the last time you saw 20 Americans sitting in 105+degree sun smashing rocks with a hand hammer to make road base because their labour was cheaper than a machine, and they needed the handful of rupees a day they were paid to survive? Just because they have started competing with you in your chosen profession is no cause for resentment or despair. You can make more money than your 'replacement' flipping burgers, and I'm sure there are better options available to you.

If you want to blame someone, blame your government for not creating a stronger economy and for letting the workforce slip into obsolescence. The India/China thing has been on the radar for years. Everyone who hasn't been in a coma has had the opportunity to diversify and protect their superior quality of life. Blaming foreigners is ugly.

Re:What else do we do?

[networkBoy]

Quite an important distinction too.
-nB

Re:What else do we do?

[networkBoy]

You can make more money than your 'replacement' flipping burgers,

When adjusted for cost of living this statement is not true. I live in California, where we have one of the highest costs of living. I make reasonable money at my high tech employer, yet I am barely able to make ends meet. I'll acknowledge that I can likely live on less, but if I were flipping burgers I would also be completely homeless. I can not live on $6.75 an hour. Not when the cheapest rent I can find is $750 a month in some really really shitty apartments. I opted to upgrade to $800/month apartments because the area was better and I can feel safer with my wife and two kids. I normally don't bash H1B's and such, as I work with many of them, they are nice, and I enjoy their company.

What I can't stand about your post is that it assumes that they are getting more benefit from my job than I give up by loosing my job. To that I cry bullshit and such very loudly. The nature of the beast is to move where the costs (labor, EPA, Building, etc.) are lower. This I understand. I simply re-create myself into something too valuable to be shipped overseas, now I stay employed. If I loose my job to an individual over there, they will earn a reasonable wage, but it will not be the same total dollar amount I earned. Likely it will be 10x less. Thus your argument that one dollar does them the benefit of my ten may be true, but it doesn't matter, because they are only going to get paid one dollar for every ten I make. At the best the loss of my job helps my Indian counterpart to an extent equal to my loss. I think that is not how it would work though. I think I would loose much more than they would gain. -nB

Re:What else do we do?

[LoveTruthBeauty]

Adjusted for the cost of living a US standard of living vs the cost of living an Indian standard of living, perhaps, but that's apples and oranges, which is exactly my point. The cost of living in the US is certainly much higher than in India, but so is the quality of life. Some people believe that they deserve to be wealthy because they were born in a wealthy country, and therefor those born in the 3rd world must deserve that. I am not one of those.

For an Indian to pay for the same health care, same education, same clean streets, same safety etc. it would take the about the same amount of US$, and even then they best they can do is create an oasis of comfort in a sea of poverty. This can be seen by looking at the hotels. The cheap ones are definately cheap - less than US$1 /day, and it shows. If you want to stay in India at the same quality as your US Best Western, it will cost you about the same as in the US. Its very expensive to provide 1st world amenities in a 2nd/3rd world country.

> At the best the loss of my job helps my Indian counterpart to an
> extent equal to my loss.

Even if this were true (its not), India needs more help than the US. When Indians clog their city streets with SUVs because they want the freedom to go offroad oneday maybe, instead of the lucky ones transporting their entire family on a 50cc step through, then the US will have an equal claim.

Its understandable that someone who hasn't been to India might begrudge losing their job to an Indian, but if you take the time to go to India and see for yourself the difference in quality of life, you will be amazed at the reactions from locals who just cannot fathom being so wealthy as to be able to throw away such a fortune on a holiday! The amazing thing is, for the cost of a few month rent, you can fly to India and live like an Indian for months. I highly recommend it.

Re:What else do we do?

[Anonymous Coward]

free as in `free market` != free as in `free lunch`

It's free market as opposed to a planned economy which in Europe have collapsed, and let me tell you by first hand experience it's not nice either when your parents loose their jobs and start to rationalize food.

In the spirit of transparency I now run an outsorcing company and our clients are more than satisfied with our work, as opposed to their own employees.

Re:What else do we do?

[ssimontis]

Outsourcing programming positions isn't good at all. My friend's dad works along with some Indian IT guys at his company. They are scared to let the Indians do some programming. Its small stuff, but they're still scared that something will go wrong. Maybe if others start to see this, jobs won't be outsourced as quickly?

Re:What else do we do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen!

Well stated. It's also very disconcerting that the parent post got rated up while yours sits sits at +1.

Its attitudes like the parent poster that remind me of how people like george bush get elected -- alot of people are just plain selfish.

I for one HATE WITH A PASSION those types of people. I'll leave it at that.

Regards.

Re:What else do we do?

[Anonymous Coward]

The other side of the coin is that you almost certainly don't need the job as badly as India (or whereever) does

I normally don't get involved in this type of discussion on slashdot, but the above statement really frustrates me.

While I feel for those less fortunate than myself, let me put this into perspective ...

If I don't have a job then I can't provide a home for my family and we would become homeless.
If I don't have a job then I can't provide food for my family and my children go hungry.
If I don't have a job then I could not provide a proper environment for my children to go to school and eventually college.

My point is that not everyone in the USA is rich. Many of us need to have a job or else bad things happen to us and our children.

Re:What else do we do?

[LoveTruthBeauty]

I wasn't implying that being an American means you don't have to work for a living. I was saying that your quality of life is so far beyond that of most of the rest of the world it is truly staggering. Living in the US, surrounded by other Americans, its easy to compare quality of life with the norms there, but those are not the norms in the rest of the world.

Of course you want a nice house, in a nice neighbourhood and the best for your children. Everyone does. For you its a possibility, and I wish you well in achieving it. You can achieve that working in any number of jobs that you can get with only a few years of post-high-school training. In India, it is only the elite who have anywhere near that kind of opportunity. To an Indian, Joe USAverage is so far above them in wealth its like you comparing yourself to Bill Gates.

Of course its true that not everyone in the US is rich. For a first world nation, the poverty and lack of care of bottom percentile disgraceful. But if you are earning more than minimum wage, by world standards you are way out in front.

We are talking computer programmers here. These are relatively priviledged, even amongst a nation of priviledge! No one likes to be told they've got it easy - life is rarely easy for any of us - but fortunately for us slashdotters, most of us have no direct experience of just how hard it can be. If you have the money and time to peruse an internet magazine, you are doing better than most of the rest of the world in ways you probably haven't even given thought to.

Don't feel ashamed, but don't think its your right either.

In many countries, people don't dream of living in the right neighbourhood to feel safe. They dream of having enough money to take their mother to see a doctor to prevent her becoming blind. They litterally can't afford it and watch their loved ones get sick and die. Its not a matter of taking on an extra shift for them. There just is no way for them to make enough money for such luxuries.

It would be great if the world was a level playing field, and success was simply a measure of hard work. It doens't work that way. Hard work helps, but if you are born in the 3rd world, all the hard work you can do will not give you the standard of living of the average 1st world slacker.

Despite being a wealthy nation, US citizens do not travel much. Understandably, many assume the rest of the world is similar to the US. Sadly it is not. This false assumption leads to innacurate judgements and I believe is the only reason an American could really begrudge their job going to India. Learn about life in India. If nothing else, you will be much happier in you own life instead of envious of the Jones's twin engined 24 cylinder, 2 gallons to the mile SUV.

Re:What else do we do?

[big-giant-head]

Americans are not rich, I don't work, my family is living on the street. As far as the millions of Indians go, sure there are those that can probably do what I do, and do it better, but so far I haven't run across any that are 'better' some are just as good, but not better. As far as the run in the mill call center person they are completely useless.

I had SWB dial up for a while and a software upgrade from swb cause my pc to be unable to log on the first time but if I tried to reconnect, it would do it. I spent 12 f**kin hours over a 7 day period on the phone with Indian tech support. They wanted me to download new modem drives (same setup unchanged for 18 months) so I did, turns out the 'new' drivers were exactlty the same as the ones I had. They wanted me to buy a new modem, which I did, it behaved the same way and I returned. Another one wanted me to buy a new Video card. I told them my video was built into the MB. They were nice but useless. I canned SWB got Cox Cable Modem, had a problem connecting. Got ahold of a Lady in Alabama she had the problem fixed in less than 3 minutes.

I've met dozens of people who have equally horrific experiences dealing with Indian tech support from ATT to symantec.

You tell me who is 'better'. This delusion everyone has that Indians as whole are better is unfounded. They are cheaper thats it. Thats all american companies care about is cheaper. Anything so the CEO can another few million in compensation out for himself.

Re:What else do we do?

[pasta_here]

Well lets talk about facts and figures. o UK economy had gained 16 billion pounds through offshoring in 2004. o Venture capital and private equity firms invested over $1.1 billion in 66 Indian companies during 2004

Re:What else do we do?

[Anonymous Coward]

no no they prefer to be called native americans

Re:What else do we do?

[Ohreally_factor]

Well, if you can't support yourself on what you make in California, you're free to move to an area with a lower cost of living. What's keeping you in CA?

From the price of rent on the poorest apartment, it sounds like you're living in San Fran. Why not look for a place on the other side of the bay? Say around Ashby and Shattuck. Yeah, it's crappy (at least last time I checked), but you should find something much cheaper.

Maybe you should consider sharing a house with another family? Find a two bedroom house, then your family gets one bedroom and the other family gets the other.

I know this sounds absurd, but I'm trying to illustrate that collectively, we've chosen a higher standard of living as our norm. If we had a lower standard, lower expectations, we might be better able to compete.

I simply re-create myself into something too valuable to be shipped overseas, now I stay employed.

I have to say this: YOU ARE NOT YOUR JOB. Your value as a human being is not related in ANY way to your earning power. This is important to remember, because you will always be replaceable in your job, no matter how hard you work. Even if you own your own company, you're still replaceable because of the possibility that someone somewhere else can do it cheaper. If it ever happens that you are replaced, and you've got too much of your identity and ego tied into your job, you will suffer a crushing blow from which you might not recover. So avoid at all costs buying into this particular brand of bullshit. YOU ARE NOT YOUR JOB.

Re:What else do we do?

[ggvaidya]

Please I haven't seen any Indians who can do my job better than I.
Please. I haven't seen any Indians who can do my job better than I can. And yes, we code better too :).

If the Indians think they are so great now, just wait, there is No great love for them here in the States, As soon as the Chinese or Africans or whomever can do the job cheaper, the Indians will be left with a bunch of vacant Call Center/Tech Centers and rising unemployed middle class. What will they do then, Nothing they have nothing to sell anyone wants other than the fact they were cheaper, for a while. To boot they will have left behind some major bad will on the part of the American public....

I don't know anybody who has "great love" for the Redmond Behemoth, but I don't think Mr. Gates needs to worry about his millions just yet. Business means adapting to change. There's a million things which could bring down the outsourcing industy, and like with the dot-com meltdown, a lot of companies are going to simply go out of business in India eventually. But the good ones? They'll stay - and compete - for years to come.

Just my two rupees,
an Indian

Re:What else do we do?

[LoveTruthBeauty]

> Americans are not rich, I don't work, my family is living on the street.

I assume you mean that if you don't work, your family will be on the street. Well, yes I guess so, after your unemployment benefits run out, and your savings, and you sell your car, and your tv, and all of your more fortunate family and friends withdraw their help. Most Indians don't have any of that, and to make it worse, they have nearly a billion other people in the same position and an economy much worse than the USA's, reducing their chances even further.

I didn't say living in America means money for nothing and not having to work. I said that on the whole in India, lives are more desperate, and opportunities fewer and farther between, and less means more than in America. Its not a criticism of America - in some ways its a tribute.

I also wouldn't argue that Indian's are better than Americans at any particular job. Certainly cheaper. Perhaps they are more motivated on average, but I suspect their education has to make do with motivation when resources would be more useful. A kid who has mucked about with computers since he was 6 is going to be much more talented a programmer than an equivalent who saw his first computer at university.

Don't blame the call centre staff for not being trained in their products. Its their employer's being penny-pinching. Clearly by offshoring the company has decided that cost is more important than quality. Not because Indians provide poor quality service, but how could they know as much about the product as the people who worked on it, tested it, use it, etc? Not to mention understanding their customer's idiom and context. Actually, its amazing they do so well.

Contracts and Escrows

[eventDriven]

I would be surpised to find that contract boilerplate does not exist for these scenarios, but here is what I think my general (oversimplified) guidelines would be:

If the script was some sort of feature unique to my business or processes, I would contract to own the source.

If the script is for a general feature that the developer wishes to maintain as an offering to other customers, than the contract should be written as though you are sponsoring the development of the feature (1.e. lower price)

If the situation is somewhere in between I would negotiate source escrow for specific deliverables/metrics.

But in regards to your current situation, continue to request his attention to your concerns. If that fails, request the source. If all else fails flame him all across the web.

I don't think I've ever heard it discussed much, but distributed flaming/shaming (flashflames) could someday be an effective punishment. It sounds stupid, but I'm sure there are employers out there googling prospective recruits/contractors.

I work for a consulting firm

[merlin_jim]

I like to think of us as one of the good guys. We try to do what's right for the client every time, not necessarily what's right for our bottom line.

At what point do you consider they may have just ripped you off, and how do you know when to file complaints and withhold payment

If you're asking yourself that, it's time to withhold payment and start addressing your concerns. I would recommend an e-mail to them, then a third party arbitrator, then court.

And some of these points have been mentioned here but this is my general advice when it comes to outsourcing:

1. You get what you pay for. We've been told by our clients that we charge nearly 3 times as much as some of our competitors. We've also been told that it's worth that to them to know the project is going to be done on time and to spec.

2. You own all project collateral, and payment is contingent on receiving it. This should be a contractual agreement before work is started.

3. Requirements should be clear and measurable. No requirements should be implicit.

4. Most outsourcers right shitty code. The Gartner Group estimates that 90% of the cost of an application comes after its initial release. Writing good code can greatly reduce that cost. But the economical reality is if I give you a project estimate that costs 4 times as much and will take 150% as long as the other guys, you are more likely to accept their contract. Even if, in the long run, you'd probably be better off going with us. How do you mitigate this risk? Meet the developers, talk to them, understand their viewpoints. And do code reviews. Unfortunately there's no objective way to say that a piece of code is good or not. However there's no reason you couldn't make it a contractual obligation that their code has to pass an internal code quality and standards audit before payment.

A good outsourcer will require you to sign an End User Acceptance Test Approval or some such document at the end of the project; if they don't, require that they do. And don't sign it (or pay them) until you're satisfied that all project collateral has been received, that all the requirements have been satisfied, and that the code passes your quality standards.

You would be surprised how many times we bid on a project, lose it to the lowest bidder, and then a few years later hear from that same company again because the relationship went south and the person's code is completely unmaintainable. Many times they end up paying us to rebuild the app at that point...

Re:I work for a consulting firm

[roard]

You would be surprised how many times we bid on a project, lose it to the lowest bidder, and then a few years later hear from that same company again because the relationship went south and the person's code is completely unmaintainable. Many times they end up paying us to rebuild the app at that point...

Funny and a bit OT, but I had the exact opposite the other day. A few years ago, somebody asked me to do a proposition for a website (small database, some system to publish shared documents, but nothing so complex, really). As I was still a part-time student at the time, it was a good opportunity. With a friend we wrote a fairly complete proposal and demo, and set our prices raisonnably (or so we thought).

It turns out that they finally choose.. the most expensive company (most expensive as in around $30k -- which considering the project's complexity was frankly a robbery). Well, at the time I just thought, they preffered a probably bigger company instead of free-lances, too bad for them (hm and for us ;-).

Last week the friend that originally asked me the proposal called me back, and told me that 1) the thing was bugged and never finished, and they handled it in the meantime to another company, that also b0rked it 2) that the company that got the contract originally *never* gave a proposal (THAT is fishy... I wonder who they bribed ;-) 3) and in the end, they will probably need to redo everything, so there will be perhaps an opportunity to step in again.

I will never cease to be amazed at the way some companies handles projects...

Re:I work for a consulting firm

[merlin_jim]

Actually that happens fairly often too.

The bottom line is, shopping on price isn't the best in this industry. Shop on philosophy. Find a development organisation that obviously has your best interests at heart. Call previous clients and references.

As far as the low end of the spectrum, let me put it this way, you need to charge 3 times your people's salary to turn a profit in this industry. That's not a hard and fast rule but its about right. So if you've got a bid that looks to be about $30 an hour, the question you need to ask yourself, is why are their programmers willing to work for $10/hour?

On the other side of the fence, there's a lot of corruption and gouging in this industry too. And a lot of big companies that couldn't care less whether you come back for more business or not later. Don't assume just because someone's charging you $100,000 for a website that you're going to get a website worth $100,000 when you're done.

I don't know how to solve it... One of the approaches I've seen is to hire multiple outsourcers; hire the one with the best project team to do the work, and hire a different one to provide project oversight for you. There are obviously some conflict of interest issues here but if you can manage those, it should provide pretty good benchmarks and performance measurements that, if you could do it yourself, you wouldn't need to outsource...

That's a fair deal

[Anonymous Coward]

American coders are faced with competition from people with access to equal education (fair so far), and a far, far lower average cost of living (unfair).

Does this mean that it is "unfair" to hire someone in Kansas, where the cost of living is much lower than New York City?

Re:That's a fair deal

[ameoba]

The difference being that the New Yorker has very little in the way of barriers involved in moving to Kansas. Moving to India, OTOH, borders on impossible.

Re:That's a fair deal

[A.Chwunbee]

Moving to India, OTOH, borders on impossible.

Kind Sahib, that would certainly be explaining the large number of my esteemed countrymen who are being your guests. I am being most surprised though, that jolly old airlines are not operating the return service; it is indeed most wasteful to be flying back empty all way to Bombay!

From another point of view.

[Anonymous Coward]

I just completed a contract for my ex-company.
We had an "acceptance" day, where I showed up, they had nothing ready and I fiddled around, made everything work and then showed them the bit I wrote.

It worked flawlessly, on their gear, on their machines at their location. They paid me days later.

It's my opinion that having the ability for the developer to show up and get it working in place is worth any saving you get by sending it to India.

Call me old fasioned, but I think having someones ass to kick in the same country is worth something.

Do you even know how to get a project done ???

[Anonymous Coward]

First things first, do you even know anything about software project management ??? Who in his/her right mind will give money BEFORE accepting the delivery of goods/services ??? Why didnt you do the acceptance testing **BEFORE** making the payment?
You say that they have taken advantage of you, no its like stealing a lolipop from a kid !
If I were your manager, you would have been fired for this serious lapse !
Get it straight - you make a project plan, you spell out the deliverables, you make clear (and accepted by the outsourcing company) the acceptance criteria. You satisfy yourself that the code is running as per acceptance criteria. You should have negotiated a guarentee of code for a few months (not all bugs get caught despite the best efforts) and last but not the least you dont deal directly with an offshore company, you deal with a US based company (who internally deals witha an offshore unit) so that you can catch them by their neck if anything goes wrong .
Hope you learned your lesson.

Re:Do you even know how to get a project done ???

[Anonymous Coward]

You said it! No one ever says the project is complete (leave alone making the payment !0 before satisfying themselves of the quality and correctness of the service / work they are paying for.

As an employee...

[Das Auge]

I laugh.

ASS...

[Anonymous Coward]

' Why are you automatically ASSuming that it's better? Are you some offshore Indian tech firm and come here shilling?'

If the quality of the work is the same, but it is much cheaper, it is a much better deal. There is no way around that. It is not an assumption: it is math.

Re:ASS...

[Altus]

It might be math... but its not business!

what happens when the quality of work turns out not to be the same and you have no legal recourse but to flush that money you spent down a toilet? Is it cheeper then? Is it "better"?

first rule of life... you get what you pay for... and one of the things that you are NOT paying for if you offshore something is having legal recourse when something goes wrong.

when you look in the mirror and see

[pair-a-noyd]

the goatse guy that MAY be a clue that you've been f*cked...

Plan ahead.

[Anonymous Coward]

"At what point do you consider they may have just ripped you off, and how do you know when to file complaints and withhold payment?"

When you first write the contract and define the milestones and deliverables.

No accent at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

" I don't have an accent"

I don't have an accent, either. Ask anyone, and they will honestly tell you that they do not either. It is always "the other guy" who "sounds funny."

Re:No accent at all.

[acidrain69]

Ok, dumbass troll, I'll bite.

I'm from Florida. I do not have a "southern twang" or a northern slant, I guess you could say I have an "american accent", which means I don't have specific slurs that you could pick out.

My customers tend to be from the west coast or central areas of the US. They can understand me fine.

My primary (and only) language is English. People who speak another primary language usually have an accent when speaking in a secondary language. Don't be stupid.

Pay before making sure it works is older than 419r

[urbieta]

You did not test the script before paying?

I, for starters, wouldn't even pay just for noticing the use of source guardian on MY script! geez!!!

Read this guys? NEVER trust ANY supplier before 50 satisfactory deliveries.

Overseas compensation? geez! give me a break! how much should THAT cost YOU?

Sorry dude, youv'e just learned the hard way.

c.c. mom (hi mom!)

Why ???

[Anonymous Coward]

"Care to post as non-AC so you could actually respond without hiding?"

Why? How can it have any thing to do with any thing?

Re:Why ???

[acidrain69]

So I can add you to my foes list for being a troll.

Quality Acceptance Process

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to outsource work, you cannot just count on people that the stuff that they send works. You should have witheld the payment until you checked the quality of the work. Now that you've sent the payment it's over. Next time, have a good quality verification process before payment is made. You should put this in your statement of work and make it clear that they won't get paid until this quality test has been completed.

Look at the contract, and get a lawyer

[smashin234]

Everyone here is talking about how you should stop payment immediatly and sue.

Both of those options are wrong without knowing all the information and without being a lawyer who may know a thing or two from going to school for so long. What is important here is what the contract says.

1. What country/state/municipality is given jurisdiction over the contract? This is otherwise known as the Governing clause and it should be in every contract. Then the laws of this location need to be explored in terms of what legal redress there are.

2. How does the contract stipulate payment occurs? If it stipulates that you pay on final delivery, you do not stop payment. If it says you pay when the software is in a state that is satisfactory to you, you may want to stop payment.

Why does number 2 matter so much? It may not be legal for you to stop payment on the contract. This depends on number 1. In addition, your stopping of the payment may make YOU in breach of the contract, and it may ultimatly mean the other side burns you.

3. What does the contract say about faulty workmanship? Usually the person who wants work done will stipulate what satisfactory code or work is. This means the person you are paying will be required to fix the code free of charge in a timely matter.

I saw someone suggest to email them and patiently ask them for a schedule and spit the contract back out at them. This is probably the best course of action, but then again it depends on what the contract actually says.

What you really need to do above all else is talk to a lawyer and have them read the contract you signed. That is your first step once there is a problem.

When you want something to go your way in business

[Sludge]

... you use leverage.

Your most likely source of leverage is contractual adherence. What does your contract say?

Use absence of language and ambiguity in the contract to your own advantage.

Place their reputation on it

[delphigreg]

While you may not be able to threaten the company with a lawsuit, you can go back to the company that referred you to them and give them negative feedback, as well as to others who listen. That could affect their future business, in which case you may be able to attract their attention and fix your current situation.

AskSlashdot is your first clue

[bokmann]

I'd say that posting a question about it on slashdot is your first clue something is wrong.

Wait... maybe thinking to turn to SlashDot for answers is your first clue that something is wrong with your management strategy.

Minimize your losses and move on

[pvera]

If the bug is not a show stopper, ask them to unlock the source in exchange for a final handoff. You get your final (which isn't) and they walk away with the money they took already.

If the bug is a show stopper, you have to see how much you spent so far and how much will cost you to fight it. The cost of fighting them over it may be higher than what you paid for the whole thing, so you may just have to take the hit.

I was in your spot at my previous job quite a few times. We tried it all but eventually in each incident we ended up pulling the plug, grabbed whatever we could recover from the project and walked away.

As for the outsourcers, don't worry about them. Eventually they will mess with someone big enough and they'll get bitchslapped for good. It is only a matter of time before they try to screw with a company big enough to have in-house counsel.

FQT clause in contract

[Johnboi Waltune]

You should have had a FQT (Formal Qualification Test) requirement in the contract. That means there is a document somewhere that very clearly qualifies what tests the software has to pass before the contractor meets their last milestone and gets paid for it.

Usually, representatives from the contractor and from our company get together, have a demo, and check off every requirement as it is demonstrated. Then everyone signs off on the document and we cut them a check.

It would be totally worth it to fly a rep from the Chinese company out to the States to follow this procedure. I've dealt with lots of Chinese people in my career and they tend to be strongly opportunistic and legalistic (but only if being legalistic can help them). It's just how their culture is. If you don't do anything to withhold payment until you get a working product, they'll think you deserve to get ripped off.

Simple solution

[Mudcathi]

Contractor: "Well, you asked for code, you paid for code. OH, you mean you wanted *working* code! Well, you should have asked for working code... that'll cost ya extra."

To prevent getting ripped off, structure your payments in a written agreement, like this:

50% at delivery
40% at one month after delivery
10% at 90 days after delivery

Specify in the payment agreement that the 40% and 10% amounts can be withheld for longer periods, at buyer's sole discretion, if flaws are found and until those flaws are resolved to buyer's satisfaction.

Many companies are willing to accept graduated payments that cover their up-front costs upon delivery, overhead costs with net 30 days, and net profit within 60-90 days. They won't like it, but most will accept it if it means getting the work or losing the contract opportunity.

Best of all, if they screw up and won't fix it, at least you have a little money left over in the budget to pay someone else to perform first aid.

Final caveat: always put in a clause allowing for disputes to be settled by an arbitrage firm, with the costs to be divided by each party. Most firms would rather correct problems than pay for half of an arbitrator's expense, even if it means hiring a competitor to mend their own defective products or services.

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

"...always put in a clause allowing for disputes to be settled by an arbitrage firm"

Good point. But I think you meant "arbitration" (arbritrage != arbitration).

Re:Simple solution

[tftp]

A contractor can send you a blank CD, collect his 50% and never ever be heard from again.

Re:Simple solution

[Stinking Pig]

I've been at a company that was driven under by that "buyer's satisfaction" clause, written by a moron of a salesweasel. He probably thought he was being a customer advocate instead of a moron, but the end result was that the customer brought new meaning to the term "scope creep". When it was all over they ended up hiring the developers that were worth anything, so I guess it wasn't all bad.

Good Outsourcing

[micromuncher]

A lot of these comments have whizzed by, but you need to take a page from OTHER engineering on construction fields when you pick a company to outsource to.

1) What is their experience (how many years they been around) and reputation (do you have references)?
2) What is your access to the work and resources?
3) Can you evaluate their work independantly?
4) What contingencies does the contract provide you if work isn't done or doesn't meet your needs?
5) What payment schedule is provided to you?
6) Who can you talk to when you have business as opposed to technical issues (accountability)?
7) What are the deliverables, and who owns them?

ANYONE that takes cash upfront to do work I'd be wary of. The cash is your ONLY bargaining chip unless you are willing to go to court.

If you pay someone to develop something for you, YOU own the code.

You should have secure and free access to anything developed for you, and that includes the right to walk into their offices (homes) and demand materials. You have, after all, paid for it.

In big outsource projects (fixed cost), companies often hold back payment 40-40-20. That means a cost is agreed to, 40 percent is paid up front for the resources, 40 percent during the estimated duration, and 20 percent for completion.

In smaller ones, that are usually time and materials, unless you know the developer/shop is reputable, it is best to work ok similar principles - that is give a retainer to start work (if they accept money to start they are legally bound), and after you figure out the hourly rate - you withhold some portion for completion. The alternative is NOT to pay biweekly or monthly (based on hours), but to pay by function points. That is, they can bill you when they provide you with a deliverable.

Re:Good Outsourcing

[Matt Perry]

If you pay someone to develop something for you, YOU own the code.

Only if you have specified that in the contract. When I develop software for people I own the code unless they are willing to pay for its release. Otherwise I retain the copyright. You think you own the logo if you pay a designer to create one? Or that you own the photograph if you hire a photographer to take a picture? Check that contract before you assume that you retain all rights.

Re:Good Outsourcing

[micromuncher]

True only if the contract states that ownership is retained. Commercial contract law (in north america) pretty much says if you contract someone to do something and pay them, then you own it. Contrarywise, if you do not get paid for something you were comissioned to write, you can claim rights or put lien against whatever your work went into. Unfortunately, if it ever got into court, any dispute usually ends up with the code being put in escrow until the judgement is made, and usually judges will give both parties rights to the date of dispute. I know this from past experience...

I don't know a lot companies that would sign a contract with a third party to develop software where the company would not get all rights.

Copyright is only a consideration inside of contract law.

Re:Good Outsourcing

[Matt Perry]

True only if the contract states that ownership is retained.

You have it backwards. The ownership is always retained unless it's specifically released in the contract. See this comment.

The problem with your doom and gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

' Of course, this does pose a problem: currently, we're using up resources on a grand scale. And if our population growth continues as the average consumption of individuals go up, we may end up seeing a problem with a shortage of resources '

The problem with your gloom and doom scenario is that we are not using up anything. Once a resource becomes scarce, the price goes up and a substitute is found.

Re:The problem with your doom and gloom

[EddWo]

Like to see you come up with a substitute for Oil. It has taken millions of years to form and is being used up at an ever increasing rate. While we might come up with alternatives for an energy source there are many products and industrial processes that depend on oil or it's derivatives.

Sometimes there just isn't an alternative to be found.

Re:The problem with your doom and gloom

[Marxist Hacker 42]

If we can make industrial diamonds, we will eventually be able to make industrial oil with close to the same process. In fact, it's very much the same process- the only difference is the purity of carbon required for the diamond, where the carbon formed by living matter is less pure.

Re:The problem with your doom and gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

Like to see you come up with a substitute for Oil.

OK Hydrogen next?

Re:The problem with your doom and gloom

[Kosgrove]

What the hell are you talking about? You can't MAKE a fuel source without putting more energy in than you'll get out. That's simple thermodynamics.

It's not running out of oil that's the problem. There are other fuel sources. The problem is that we're using more energy than sunlight is replenishing by far. (Although oil's secondary use for materials such as petrochemicals and plastics is important, we can find a way around that one.)

In simple terms: all the energy sources on this planet come from the sun in one form or another. Oil comes from dead stuff (plants and animals) that were once living. The root of all that formerly living biomass was, of course the sun. All that oil took millions of years to form, we're using up all these joules of energy in a matter of 200 or so years.

About the only solution for this one is to decrease the human population to the point where humanity can live with decent standard only from the energy provided by the sun. Anything less is unsustainable and will result in the end of our species.

Re:The problem with your doom and gloom

[Marxist Hacker 42]

What the hell are you talking about? You can't MAKE a fuel source without putting more energy in than you'll get out. That's simple thermodynamics.

And with these modern processes you don't. You store up solar energy in the plant by growing it, process it into oil and a still unknown amount of waste, and release it as kenetic energy + heat in the automobile.

It's not running out of oil that's the problem. There are other fuel sources. The problem is that we're using more energy than sunlight is replenishing by far. (Although oil's secondary use for materials such as petrochemicals and plastics is important, we can find a way around that one.)

We are? When did we start doing that then? And why haven't all the other species on the planet died off, since we're utilizing more energy than a fusion generator 500x the size of our planet can possibly put out?

In simple terms: all the energy sources on this planet come from the sun in one form or another. Oil comes from dead stuff (plants and animals) that were once living. The root of all that formerly living biomass was, of course the sun. All that oil took millions of years to form, we're using up all these joules of energy in a matter of 200 or so years.

True- but there's no reason why we can't speed up the process of making oil. All of the elements necessary are right here to begin with- they're just in an unusable form. Grow plants- or even algae and anarobic bacteria. Doesn't matter what the biomater is. Add pressure and heat and decay- millions of years worth. Diamonds and oil aren't that much different- they're both carbon, treated with heat and pressure and time.

About the only solution for this one is to decrease the human population to the point where humanity can live with decent standard only from the energy provided by the sun. Anything less is unsustainable and will result in the end of our species.

Considering the fact that we're currently using less than 1/1000th of the energy provided by the sun, and on this planet alone get 1/365th, I don't think we have that problem quite yet. Depending on whose numbers you believe- we will hit that problem in the future, but not until 15 billion at the least and 80 billion at the most.

Re:The problem with your doom and gloom

[Mark J Tilford]

What about nuclear or geothermal power?

Re:The problem with your doom and gloom

[EddWo]

Where does hydrogen come from? What process do you use to extract it? What do you use to make the containers for storing it? What do you use to lubricate your vehicles?

What I meant was you can't just think of oil as an energy source, it is also a vital part of practically every other product or service, if not in the end result then at least at some point during manufacture.

Re:The problem with your doom and gloom

[ckaminski]

Oil is a petrochemical formed from biological matter, with heat and pressure applied. Anything we can make with oil, we can generate from biomass. It's just a matter of cost and time. And if oil is no longer cheap ($200 USD/bbl), then biomass will step in to fill in the gap.

Re:The problem with your doom and gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that what he meant was that substitutes are much easier to find than most people think.

For instance, you said that "[oil]is also a vital part of practically every other product or service, if not in the end result then at least at some point during manufacture." Well, for hundreds of thousands of years, we got by without oil. Farmers didn't use it. Smiths didn't use it. Carts didn't use it. Horses didn't use it. It's only necessary because we make it necessary - there are always substitutes or alternate methods available, you just have to look hard enough, and be willing to make the sacrifice.

Re:The problem with your doom and gloom

[Phurd Phlegm]

If we can make industrial diamonds, we will eventually be able to make industrial oil with close to the same process.

Excellent. That should make even less sense than gasohol. If it takes the energy equivalent of three barrels of oil to make a barrel of oil, we're in the position of that guy in the old gag: "I'm losing money on each unit, but I make it up on volume!"

Re:The problem with your doom and gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... an obviously flawed statistic shot down by a two digit ID using numbers so unrelated, they might as well have come from a low end random number generator.

I hope by "we", you mean "you", because I'd really like to live that long.

I am not an professional astronomer, physicist, biologist, mathematician, or a linguist, so my statement might be innacurate and contain some ommisions.

Re:The problem with your doom and gloom

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Excellent. That should make even less sense than gasohol. If it takes the energy equivalent of three barrels of oil to make a barrel of oil, we're in the position of that guy in the old gag: "I'm losing money on each unit, but I make it up on volume!"

Which would be true if we actually were still in the position of losing energy in the production of gasohol (we haven't been there since gasohol was made with corn instead of the much more energy dense sugar cane). And the article I linked to elsewhere in this discussion about what a small South Pacific nation is doing with coconuts is even less energy intensive.

Re:The problem with your doom and gloom

[Marxist Hacker 42]

They are unrelated. The first (15 billion people) came from The Rome Project, and the second (80 billion people) came from a more recent study commissioned by the LDS Church. You may live to see the first- but I rather doubt it as the current stats say that we're topping out at 7 billion due to infertility and disease problems (and it took us twice as long to get there as it should have by the Rome Project numbers back in the 1970s). 80 billion? Even with current asymtopic growth you'd have to live to be 3000 before we saw those kinds of numbers on this planet.

Re:The problem with your doom and gloom

[EddWo]

But would you want to sacrifice your PC? Would people be willing to sacrifice the efficiencies we gain from all our technology?

Re:The problem with your doom and gloom

[arkulkis]

Sorry, EddWo, but the fossilized dinosaur fat theory of petroleum is considered a huge joke by EVERYONE in the petroleum industry...even by the Russians.

Oil does not take millions of years to create. There is no evidence to support such a theory (extrapolating from coal = fossilized wood is rediculous. Oil fields tend to be VERY deep...and if the source was decaying animal matter, it would be at MUCH higher geological strata than where it is actually found.

By the way, the Saudis discovered (and announced a couple weeks ago) a new oil field... more than twice as large as any previously discovered oil field. We now have KNOWN OIL RESERVES good for the next 70 YEARS... Since the oil industry only considers it urgent to even look for oil when known reserves fall below a 30-year supply, this indicates that there is still a LOT of un-looked at portions of the earth that also hold a hell of a lot of petroleum.

You didn't outsource ...

[JohnQPublic]

... you funded someone else's development. If you didn't conctract for full ownership of the result and all the source, you're just a funding source.

Success in outsourced development is strictly tied to the quality of the contract and to your oversight of it.

Good luck, but you're going to court and that's gonna suck.

Simple contract issue.

[Frobnicator]

When we hire contract programmers, we set the damn terms. Term 1 is "we get full source code". Term 2 is "you get the last payment when we're sure it works". If the outsource won't agree, don't hire them. Doing otherwise is a big fat casino gamble. The poster's project manager has failed at his job

Exactly.

This is just a simple contract dispute issue. The manager botched it, either through having a bad contract, or not properly following the terms of the contract, or not following up on remedies given in the contract.

If the contract doesn't have a section about what to do in resolving disputes, then the manager (or whoever hired them) only has themselves to blame. If it does, you simply follow the steps in the agreement.

It a shame there is all the knee-jerk reaction of "India and China are teh evil". Globalization is not the same as outsourcing. Pretty much every big project, from software to home building, involves outsourcing (contracting) of something. It's a fact of life: deal with it people.

frob

Re:Simple contract issue.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

*Big* difference here- contracts are simply unenforceable internationally- so even if there's a section about resolving disputes, if you contract overseas there isn't word one you can do to actually enforce that contract.

Re:Simple contract issue.

[Frobnicator]

*Big* difference here- contracts are simply unenforceable internationally- so even if there's a section about resolving disputes, if you contract overseas there isn't word one you can do to actually enforce that contract.

Not at all. The Story does not say it was international. It was only outsourced, which is to say, contracted to a third party. The poster said nothing about offshore/international outsourcing. Too many people hear "outsource" and immediatly think of India or China.

It is no different than hiring a contractor to build my house, or hiring a contractor to manage the company payroll, hiring a contractor to transcribe my dictations, or hiring a contractor to take pictures at my wedding. Each of these is outsourcing, and happen all over the world, thousands of times every day.

Even if the parties are international, it is still just a contract. There are procedures for enforcing contracts, such as the jurisdiction. That is all stated in the contract, or should have been. If it wasn't in the contract, then it is their own fault -- something so expensive and critical to the company should have been reviewed by a lawyer.

I say again, this is a simple contract dispute issue. The company hired a contractor, and they have a problem with the final work. The contract should specify a course of action. Even if it doesn't, there are procedures in place for that in every nation.

It certainly isn't worthy of a /. home page entry.

frob

Re:Simple contract issue.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Do a search on the original poster's name- he admitted in the discussion that the contract was indeed international, and did indeed deal with India.

I say again, this is a simple contract dispute issue. The company hired a contractor, and they have a problem with the final work. The contract should specify a course of action. Even if it doesn't, there are procedures in place for that in every nation.

But there aren't, at least, not for international contracts. I'm sure the WTO will be overruling the sovereignity of contract law soon in their bid to enslave everybody to the multinational corporations, but it hasn't happened yet.

Re:Simple contract issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was domestic he'd just GO to the location, dipshit. If it was domestic the solution would be simple, call a lawyer. If it was domestic they'd be in court next week.

Re:Simple contract issue.

[Frobnicator]

Do a search on the original poster's name- he admitted in the discussion that the contract was indeed international, and did indeed deal with India.

I say again, this is a simple contract dispute issue. The company hired a contractor, and they have a problem with the final work. The contract should specify a course of action. Even if it doesn't, there are procedures in place for that in every nation.

But there aren't, at least, not for international contracts.

Then it falls under the first half of my post above. I said: This is just a simple contract dispute issue. The manager botched it, either through having a bad contract, or not properly following the terms of the contract, or not following up on remedies given in the contract.

It would appear, then, that the manager botched it, and dug his own hole by signing a contract without understanding the risks and issues involved.

Did he include a jurisdiction clause requiring the foreign contractor to submit to U.S. (or whatever country he's in) jurisdiction? Did he ensure that the company could be held to it? Did he specify the choice of law in the contract? Finally, did he ensure that the goods were of the required quality before issuing payement, or releasing payment from escrow? Since the answer appears to be 'no' on all of these, it's his own fault, and he doesn't have much recourse.

So it is the same thing, a simple contract dispute issuse. He made several mistakes, any of them could keep him from getting what he wants in the end. He made a mistake by not researching all the issues and risks of the contract. He made a mistake by (probably) either not having a competent lawyer reveiw the contract, or not taking the advice. He made it much harder for himself by paying them before inspecting the goods. Even so, there are international groups like CIRDA that will, for a relativly small fee on large disputes, help with international mediation or arbitration. Finally, if he didn't include a clause about arbitration or mediation, he shot himself in the foot when he signed the contract, not after.

frob

Define the project scope in stages

[Gruneun]

Pay them only upon successful completion of a predefined stage of the project. Let them know that the next stage hasn't been awarded (i.e. they don't get compensation) until the previous stage has been approved. Be firm.

This allows you to verify that they are adhering to the timeline, you can evaluate the work-in-progress, and your risk is minimized. It should be immediately clear to them that they benefit by your adherence to a payment schedule, they can make sure you give reasonable evaluations (minimizing project creep), and their risk is minimized.

Of course, these are the ground rules you set at the beginning of the project.

Please, look in your mailbox.

[hummassa]

I want to help you. I'm going home now, and tomorrow in the morning, I will check my e-mail again. I'm not from India, but I don't want people to be "bitten" by bad outsourcing experiences, as it hurts *my* business too.

Outsourcing

[ksc]

Outsourcing is the devil. Don't export jobs, a lot of the times, you get shitty work.Please keep the jobs within the borders.

Re:Outsourcing

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I am thinking...

Yo momma!

I sure know what you are talking about.

[AtariAmarok]

"It's about the same with delivery chinese food. I listened to a friend tell the order taker his street name"

Reminds me of the time I tried to order a pizza:

Me: I want a pepperoni pizza with thick crust.
Guy on phone: Xrefg? Xrefg zuzug xxf?
Me: Never mind. Just make it the daily special.
Guy on phone: Mubbud xuf.
Me: The address is 123 Mayfield Street
Guy on phone: Zuzug quug? Dsbypp? Foo!
....

Re:I sure know what you are talking about.

[Prong_Thunder]

Dude, all you needed to say was "Speak Common!"...

Why did you pay them?

[Jamesie]

Not much to go on in your description.

Did your contract specify source code?
Did the contact specify this "source guardian" app?
Did you have a contract at all?
Why did you pay them if you hadn't tested the software?
Is this someone or a company?
Can you sue them?

How do you tell?

[Smilin]

Simple: They have your money.

Q: How does a buy-here-pay-here used car salesman tell when he's dealing with a sucker?
A: The person walked onto the lot.

Q: How do you tell when a lawyer is lying?
A: His lips are moving.

Q: How do you tell when email is spam?
A: It says it isn't.

for next time...

[the-build-chicken]

I know this is kind of a matter of closing the gate after the horse has bolted...but next time, make sure you specify major and minor milestones, and not just the option of withholding payment, but write financial penalties into the milestones. If we're late on a delivery, our company has to deduct previously agreed amounts from our fees...If we continue to be late, we can completely erode the profit in the project. You'd be surprized how many software development contracts are structured this way.

Hate to say it

[kilodelta]

You can pretty much kiss the money goodbye. Let this serve as a lesson that payment should NEVER be made until product received and tested per prior contractual agreement.

If this in fact was outsourced to a firm in another country it will be damnably difficult to get your funds.

Never be afraid to beat up a vendor contract. I found this out a few years back. You'll be surprised how much more flexible a contract comes the higher the total cost of the contract.

Another Country?

[XopherMV]

the author hasn't made it at all clear which country their firm is located in

Business schools train their bachelor's level students to know the legal requirements and options of their own country. Presumably, if the original poster was dealing with another business in his own country, then his manager would already know what to do to remedy the situation and we wouldn't be here writing about it on Slashdot.

From that alone, I think we can reasonably imply that he's using a firm based in another country.

no sympathy

[fred fleenblat]

"Recently we have been referred to an outsourcing company to finish customization on a script that the author had no time to complete..."

(a) the person(s) who did the referring should be notified, so that they don't try referring other projects into the same fate.

(b) if you paid the original author the money that you spent on outsourcing, he probably would have *found* the time to complete it. One likely scenario is that the original author got annoyed with you or your company management and just plain left.

(c) why on earth would you have allowed it to be shrouded/obfuscated? work for hire should be delivered in source form.

(d) you specifically called it a script not a program. this gives (me at least) the feeling that it wasn't a very ambitious or important project, more like a proof-of-concept that got blown out of proportion. if it was intended to serve a real business need, it should have been taken more seriously.

(e) it's sounds like you're less interested in getting the script to work than you are in getting your company's money back. the thing is, the lawyers will charge $250/hour, so it's probably best to just chalk it up to experience, let your manager chew you out for screwing it up, and accept the lessons life has taught you.

Re:no sympathy

[dieScheisse]

regarding (d):

When he refers to 'script' he means a php script as Source Guardian is a php code encrypter/obfuscator. So don't think that just because he used the word 'script' that the project was not ambitious or important, didn't serve a real business need, or was not taken seriously.

I agree with (c), though. I would NEVER agree to that. If I pay someone to develop customized software, the software source comes with it and belongs to me.

Re:no sympathy

[fred fleenblat]

It wasn't just that it was a script as opposed to C++ or something, but that he referred to it as a single script not plural. Even modest software projects benefit from modularization--the contractor's failure to do even that was yet another red flag. However, your point is well taken.

Re:no sympathy

[Xphox]

a) The person has been notified, and is just as shocked as I am. They are working with me to get the project completed.

b) You have no idea what you're talking about. Yes the software author had no time to take our customization and refered us to a company he's work with in the past for. The original author was asked and could not take the project for a while, and that would have put us too close to our deadline. I didn't have a problem paying him more money, it wasn't done to save money. It was done so that the project would be finished by end of year. (Budget Reasons)

c) The original software purchased was encrypted. Who cares? Do you get source code for all your products? I don't see how this is a valid point. Because the company I was refered to had the unprotected code, they would modify it, and send it back encrypted.

d) The application was an online processing system. It is very important, as this was an upgrade to the already exisiting version what is live and running. FYI: It's the upgraded version of the same software package that we have been running for thre e years simply a newer build.

e) Your damn right we would like our money back. But my main goal is to have the project completed. It needs to be finished.

Re:no sympathy

[vadim_t]

Whoa. Just think about what you said.

You have an online processing system, something you say is very important, and you don't have the source. You yourself might have no use for it. But think of this:

1. You're in a vulnerable position. They have the keys to part of your business, so to speak. That's bad.

2. Continuing with the first point, if you ever need to change this system later, and they refuse, or go bankrupt you'll be in big trouble.

3. You don't know what's in that code, nor can find it easily. It doesn't have to be malicious, but it could be very incompetently written, with lots of security problems. The obfuscation will prevent you from seeing that, or from having somebody else fix it.

4. Don't outsource critical infrastructure! If the company sells something, then it should do the selling itself, not trusting somebody else not to screw up that.

Re:no sympathy

[Xphox]

1. We have been running the same software for 3 years with no problems. We have had the source code to the earlier release, and after spending a lot of money for it, we realized it wasn't needed as we never made changes. It's not a key part to our business, it's a concept design system which is going to replace something already running. There is no need to get into details as to why I did what I did. I only did what was "approved" my management, and stuck with my budget. 2. Yes, I agree with you on that, but you must have contracts with companies as well. What if they go under? Your right, IBM probably won't go out of business, but what about your ISP, or hosting provider. Same thing. At what point do you take your tin-foil hat off? 3. You don't know what code is in most applications. You're telling me you only run open source applications? 4. It's not critial infrastructure. It's important, yes, but we won't loose sale revenue due to this. We simply wanted to add another 3rd party gateway instead of PayPal. We can always stick with the original payment gateway.... service charges and all! This was simply an alternative gateway to an already existing online processing gateway.

Here's what:

[jafac]

You stand back, and laugh like a monkey at the SUCKER who trusted his livelyhood to cheap, outside help.

The lesson to be learned from outsourcing:
If you want something done right, do it yourself.
If you want something done cheap, then ask yourself if you REALLY want it done right.

You have a contract, right?

[All Names Have Been]

With ANY type of work done by an outside party, you need to have a clearly defined contract that specifies when payment(s) will be made and under what conditions. This needs to include such "trivial" things such as specifications on exactly what the software is supposed to do and penalties when it doesn't do them. I have been under such contracts (writing the software) and wrote such things (when outsourcing to another company). They're reasonably complicated, long, boring documents. But without them, you get fucked more times than not.

Money is the only thing you can hold over contractor's heads. If you don't use this leverage from the beginning (with a well-worded contract/specification) you WILL be hosed.

And what the hell are you doing paying them before testing is complete? Stuck with a product that is useless? Sounds like you have no business doing any sort of development work. Period. Do you pay your car mechanic when he hands your car back to you in 200 pieces?

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like hiring Indians, then do not hiring them. It's that simple. Make your choice. but do not force your choice on others. Let each person involved decide what is "fair."

Re:So?

[PitaBred]

I think it's fair that I get to take your stuff. You don't? Too bad. Don't force your morality on me.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why equate theft (in which one person violates another's rights) with a fair trade (in which two people make a decision together that is to the benefit of both)?

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like hiring Indians, then do not hiring them.

Hello, my name is.. Bob... How might I be helping you this mor... ah... evening, thank you please!

Outsourcing

[Run4yourlives]

has nothing to do with a country, or its borders.

The term you're looking for is offshoring.

legal experience

[Anonymous Coward]

I was a lawyer for years advising high tech clients. I must have said a million times: all work to be done must be specified as milestones in an appendix to the contract; all payments to be made on YOUR testing and acceptance of each milestone.

They never learned and always came back later whining about their problems not having followed any of my advice. I got sick of them so I quit. Some things just aren't worth the money no matter how much it is.

Some advice: lawyers aren't an outsourced magical fairy, ok? They give you advice. Use your own brain to make it happen. These techies piss on anyone who doesn't secure their SERVER but THEY dont bother securing their BUSINESS DEALINGS!

Re:Go public. Not a good idea.

[blanks]

The problem with going public specifically to defame them could land you in court.

I had to do this about 2 months ago. My hosting provider had very bad support. I posted my feelings about them on some hosting websites and later that night had all my hosting accounts disabled and had threats of lawsuites for basically posting publicly my opinions of the company, which I guess if you don't have money to defend your self is illeagle.

Feel the karma

[Anonymous Coward]

That's karma, baby. Feel the burn. Enjoy it. You earned it. Learn your lesson and hire people next time around.

Take a stand, then.

[TigerNut]

Without getting caught up in titles, having local talent is a prerequisite for both doing in-house design and implementation, as well as for doing due diligence on outsourced product. If you're being put in a position of having to screen outsourcing vendors and their product, and you don't like it, then let your upper management know, and get out as fast as you can. Within the next couple of years, the real economics of outsourcing will become apparent to the upper management across North America, because the new-product release dates for everything the outsourcers make are going to lag behind the dates that in-house developement can achieve.
Spending less on development does not equate more money in sales or profit. You still get what you pay for, and that's never been more true than it is in today's workplace.

International commercial code applies

[flashbang]

There is an international commercial code, similar to the US' Uniform Commercial Code. This code has been accepted by the UN, check to see if India has signed on.

It doesn't matter that you have received the product from them (in this case a service). You found it to be defective in a reasonable amount of time and have notified the company.

Basically you need to have your companies lawyer(s) check over your contract for the work you hired out. You do have remidies according to this internation code, but your lawyer should do the work.

Good luck.

hahahaha

[phek]

hahahahhahahahaha

That's Why

[Greyfox]

Every big company currently doing outsourcing also has private squads of commandos who can be deployed to enforce contracts made with foreign outsoucing firms. They're usually expensed on the balance sheet as "Sund. Explns."

Re:That's Why

[ari_j]

Why not just lease a commando squad from Ross Perot?

Re:That's Why

[Anonymous Coward]

Ross Perot is my hero. For those who don't know what the parent post is referring to, Ross Perot had the honor of being in the Guiness Book for the world's largest jailbreak. A few employees at EDS were imprisoned as suspected spies in (Iraq?). Perot tried to negotiate for their release via diplomatic channels. When that failed, he hired a group to liberate the employees from the prison. The walls of the prison were destroyed, and in the resulting chaos, some 3,000 prisoners escaped. The employees were flown back to the US on a private jet.

Of course, then he sold EDS and eventually walked away from the company due to arguments with the new owners over the way they treated employees.

I wish I had known about it when he ran for president. Anyone that committed to protecting Americans abroad would be an excellent Commander in Chief.

Re:That's Why

[ari_j]

Ross Perot could probably find a way to make the US military financially self-sufficient. Here is the quote from his Wikipedia article, with grammatical errors and all:

Just prior to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the government of Iran imprisoned two of his employees in a contract dispute. Ross organized and sponsored a successful rescue. The rescue team was led by retired U.S. Army Special Forces Colonel Arthur D. ('Bull') Simons. When the team couldn't find a way to extract their two prisoners, they decided to wait for a mob of pro-Ayatollah revolutionaries to storm the jail and free all 10,000 inmates, many of who were political prisoners. The two prisoners then connected with the rescue team, and the team spirited them out of Iran via a risky border crossing into Turkey. The exploit was recounted in a book, On Wings of Eagles by Ken Follett, which became a best seller.

I just learned something else about him, though. The next paragraph in the article states:

In 1984, Perot bought one of the original signed copies of the Magna Carta, one of only a few to leave the United Kingdom. It is now on loan to the National Archives in Washington, D.C., where it is on display with the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

Ross Perot is a respectable man who doesn't forget those who enable his business sense to truly blossom - the men and women who work for him and the United States of America.

Re:Contracts with payment milestones and inspectio

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. I'm on the outsource side and we live and die by contractual Service Level Agreements. If we missed a deadline this month, a monetary penalty must be deducted from our invoice at the end of the month.

Goobacks...

[TibbonZero]

When people come from the future....

Ok everyone, back in the pile..

Pffft...

[cfulmer]

I'll admit that it's been a few years, but the last time I checked, Software Engineers really do not have professional exams the same way say civil or mechanical engineers and are not generally legally licensed. (At least in the US.) There is no software equivalent of the PE exam.

And that should not be all that surprising -- software is a relatively young field and the people who are good at it are often closer to craftsmen than engineers. Heck, even the nature of software is different: When does 'design' actually end in software? While you want the large majority of design to be done up front, it's not really finished until you're done with the code. Would a civil engineer similarly say they're done designing when the bridge is finished?

Even the legal responsibilities are different -- the methods that physical engineers use are fairly standardized and change relatively slowly, in an incremental fashion. How about software engineers? How long as OO development been around? How about rapid prototyping? Let's say somebody gets hurt by buggy software -- do we have enough knowledge for a court to say "the reasonable person would not have used extreme programming here?"

Every software engineer learns by him/herself. You need to interact with a new type of system -- do you pick up the manual and read it or do you wait for an ISO 9001 certified training class? Heck, all good engineers learn things by themselves -- that's why we have things like trade journals and conferences. In fact, I'd argue that engineers have an ethical responsibility to keep up.

All that said, I fully agree that as a rule, there's a huge difference between those who go to some 2-year programming school and those who actually get a 4(+) year Bachelor's degree from a quality CS school.

Re:Pffft...

[GoofyBoy]

>Software Engineers really do not have professional exams the same way say civil or mechanical engineers and are not generally legally licensed. (At least in the US.)

http://www.computer.org/certification/

This is given by the IEEE.

>software is a relatively young field

Yes I agree and that leads to problems that you mentioned about standards and level of quality. Yet its still is "regulated";
http://www.computer.org/tab/seprof/c ode.htm

Re:Pffft...

[GileadGreene]

All that said, I fully agree that as a rule, there's a huge difference between those who go to some 2-year programming school and those who actually get a 4(+) year Bachelor's degree from a quality CS school.

Neither of which would actually be a software engineer. Yes, even the CS grad is most likely not an engineer. There's a difference between science and engineering. The fact that so many "software engineers" are graduates of science programs goes a long way towards explaining why "software engineering" as a discipline is still such a mess.

For a good discussion of the differences between CS education and SE education see either David Parnas' excellent paper Software Engineering Programmes are not Computer Science Programmes, or Steve McConnell's comments on why software engineering is not the same as CS.

Re:Pffft...

[Altus]

Not only that, but not every engineer has taken the PE exam. My girlfriend is a mechanical engineer... she has not take the PE... she has taken the precursor... the EIT... after a few more years of work (under a PE) she can then choose to take the exam and become a PE herself...

many engineers (and they are engineers... even if they are not Professional Engineers) choose not to become PEs because of the increased burden of insurance that you must cary privately to protect yourself... even if you work for a larger company.

even given that... it is not necessary for every company to even HAVE a PE... while it is necessary for defense or civil contracting, it is not necessary to be a PE if you design say... the packaging for that new razor (who do you think designs those... are they not engineers?)

I realize the parent poster wasnt disagreeing with me... but this comes up a few times a year on slashdot and Ive been over this too many times.

Re:Pffft...

[Anonymous Coward]

even if they are not Professional Engineers) choose not to become PEs because of the increased burden of insurance that you must cary privately to protect yourself... even if you work for a larger company.

Source? I've never heard of that.

Re:Pffft...

[Altus]

humm... cant find a good online source so I asked my girlfriend (who works with PEs)

apparently I was a little mistaken on the details. PEs do have to have personal liability insurance (I suppose you could go without but if you ever built a bridge and it fell down you would be personally liable and would probably loose everything you owned... Its not that different from homeowners liability insurance in that way... or medical malpractice)

However, apparently larger firms often do pay for the insurance for their PEs so its not always your direct concern. Of course I assume that you wouldnt get paid as much if you were not covering your own insurance costs.

Like I said, I have no concrete source... and I suppose you could operate without insurance, but you would do so at your own risk.

Anyone got any more info to back this up?

Tips for next time

[jasno]

I've been on both sides of the fence, working as a consultant and as a engineer dealing with outsourced work. Outsourcing can really pay off but you have to follow some simple rules.

1. Generate a clear statement of work that lists everything you want accomplished in unambiguous terms.

2. Generate a comprehensive acceptance test document that exercises all aspects of the product. It should detail testing procedures that can be used by both parties to ensure compliance.

3. Get a good lawyer to draw up a contract that neither screws you or the consultant. The last place I worked, the big boss 'visionary' CTO blew 1.25 million on outsourcing because our contract never actually required them to deliver anything.

4. Maintain good communication and have weekly conference calls between your engineers and theirs.

5. Make damn sure your people know this isn't about replacing their jobs. The consultants may need a lot of advice from your guys unless they already have a good understanding of your industry. Poor attitudes and bitterness can screw up a project beyond repair.

With a clear idea of what needs to be done and what it means to be done, you'll have a much better chance of avoiding problems.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing

[CmdrGravy]

If nothing else you can learn some lessons from this experience, first of all don't pay anyone until all the work has been completed to your satisfaction and secondly to use contracts which cover these circumstances and which you are confident you can enforce if needs be.

Since you have already paid for this contractors work he has no real reason to do any further work fixing it for you except the benefit of a positive recommendation if you speak to any other of his potential clients. It depends on your relationship with him and the market he works in whether this will give you any leverage.

Since he has sold you a closed source program he may be hoping for some work in the future from you upgrading it or whatever which again can be used for leverage.

Perhaps offering to upgrade so you get the source code as well may induce him to offer you that at a reduced price and finish the outstanding work, he'd get some more cash and you could rescue your work and ensure you can go to someone you trust next time it needs work done to it.

Ultimately though depending on the exact contract you were using a positive resolution is either down to his goodwill or whatever you can force through the relevant courts.

It is a light punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

..."Wow, you're right... getting a brutal dictatorship to torture and kill people who send you unwanted emails is *awesome!*..."

These are spammers we are talking about. Going out of your way to harass millions of people thousands of times? Such punishment is too light. How about one stroke of the cane for every spam sent? Hmmm???

Argh, outsourcing hell

[olivercromwell]

My experience is not quite on the same track, but it has been hellish. HP has been outsourcing it's field engineer force. Over the last six months service levels have been abhorrent. I work for a largish company that produces a complex network application, and we sell the hardware to run it as well as the app itself. We originally were a "Compaq" shop, but, thanks to the merger, are now in the grips of HP. Our contracts for support call for 24/7 4 hour call out. Well, thanks to their new, more efficient outsourcing model, it is often 48 hours before parts and engineer arrive to fix the hardware. And, more often than not, the FE screws it up. We have customers that now refuse to let specific engineers into their premises. yeah, outsourcing is great.

The proper way to win back american jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote Libertarian for every level of the government in every election. They have the perfect solution to get the Jobs to stay and to come back. That is elimnate all unconstitutional Gov Programs, minimum wage, and they definately balance the budget on Federal, state, and local levels. Remember, it's the Overtime pay, minimum wage, forced benefits laws that are having the jobs move overseas to begin with.

On top of that, the over taxation is causing them to pay more to their employees, at the same time, they are having to pay taxes to support the Worthless in this nation through double taxation.

Once the Libertarians take power, then there will be more jobs available in this country and people will have more money to spend, until then, this country will go down the shit hole b/c of shitty politicians similar to George W Bush and Bill Clinton that are busy fucking their intern or getting drunk. "You don't think Bush choked on that pretzle, do you, if you do, you're one very naive fucktard". The republicrats don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves

To be honest, I think the Republicans and Democrats are really the same party, their "bickering" is really nothing more than an illusion, so the clueless, naive sheep of this country can continue to be divided, listening to lies that fit their bias "whether it's Rush Limbaugh/Pat Robertson/Robert Novak or Howard Stern/Jessie Jackson/Peter Jennings"

________________________________________________ __
For More Information, visit the Libertarian Party's Website at lp.org

good

[suezz]

anybody who outsources to foreign countries that pay way below the proper wage and gets burned by it deserves it. you were wanting to something for nothing but got nothing for nothing and deserve it.

Re:good

[Xphox]

Perhaps you should read things before you assume. Yet again, it was not to save money, but to meet a dealine. The guy who wrote the software was up front with me, and said he had no time to do my request, but knew someone who could. That's why I went with this outsourceing company to begin with.

The magic word - INSOURCING - it works...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats right - screw outsourcing.... hire local programmers. And if programmers (USA based) would realize that rosy pre-2000 wages they USED to be getting, and start competing with foreign outsource wages, and make it more attractive to hire locals, perhaps outsourcing can be a thing of the past.

It's always best to have less of something, then all of nothing, at least it pays the rent. So, drive a Toyota instead of a BMW...

here is your problem:

[geekoid]

"...we made the final payment. Upon testing the new install script... "

you reversed those.

I wish I said this...

[gone.fishing]

The other day a co-worker was reading an article and chuckled at one of the comments: "Outsourcing is like a bad habit, fun at first but it'll eventually kill ya."

I couldn't agree more.

mod this up, people

[irritating environme]

Dead On. My only comment: for those free-traders frothing over how everyone wins with free trade, recognize that the American worker's standard of living suffers greatly in the averaging of equalization, then relies on the global growth rate, which means that in our lifetimes, barring life extension, things look gloomy for most working classes, blue or white collar.

Re:mod this up, people

[Intellimonkey]

Call me a frother I guess. Unless that means I want totally open free trade TODAY. Long term, it's best for everyone. Every single statement converse to that seems to be flawed terribly with one or more of the following:
-ignoring benefits to lowered costs shared by consumers
-bad assumptions
-hypocrisy in caring about general human welfare
-kneejerk reaction to natural evolution of business
-being extremely egocentric about this little slice of time we live in.

You have a bad assumption: Your statement implies that the sum total standard of living on earth not only is not increasing, but remains constant! If one goes up, another must go down, etc.

I sense the kneejerk flaw there too... so many Americans see some factory close, a mom and pop storefront close, all out of inability to compete. Devestating to those groups, sure. But it's small, and isolated. It is also natural evolution of business ANYTIME efficiency is increased. It's been that way throughout civilization. You don't see many blacksmiths around anymore do you? There are hundreds of examples, but you get the idea. The answer is NOT to subsidize the blacksmith, unless of course the phase out is unnaturally fast or large scale, in which case subsidizing is justified.

A factory closing here and there or non bloated engineering wages are not significant enough signs to convince me that the US is currently outsourcing beyond the danger threshold.

Re:mod this up, people

[greenhide]

I'd agree with most of your comments except the one about the mom and pops.

Often, a Walmart will approach a city or regional planning board and play them a little song and dance about tax revenue for that region going up from their sales (as well as an increase in jobs). The local government generally helps subsidize the building of the Walmart and gives it a few tax breaks for the first 1-2 years or so.

Well, guess what. Research has shown that in the long run, Walmarts have either a neutral or negative effect on the economy of that region.

Walmart also frequently will build a store, then build a larger SuperStore in a municipality just down the road. This way, they get the same initial perks they had at the last place. Then, they close the old store down.

Local businesses put more money into the local economy than non-local businesses. According to some calculations, a dollar spent in a local business effectively becomes 5 dollars because the local business in turn purchases goods and services locally as well. When you spend a dollar at Walmart, most of that money goes directly towards the Walmart corporation, not the local community.

Walmart isn't the only big box engaged in these practices, but it is the biggest, and that's why it gets the most attention.

It's true that prices are better at Walmart pretty much across the board. It's also true that there are times when being able to provide a good at the lowest price does not make you necessarily the best company to purchase that product from. In the long run, I believe that big box stores will have a negative effect on our economic health, quality of life, and the environment.

There are some changes that are natural developments of the changing economy, and others that are forced through.

-being extremely egocentric about this little slice of time we live in.

I know everyone since Plato has been saying everything is going to hell in a handbasket and that things are getting worse, but I think that there is evidence that the economic progression that is currently occurring is not 100% positive in nature.

Basically, I think that capitalism when unchecked can really put a large group into a seriously miserable condition.

If you look at the Industrial Revolution, it was pretty much terrible for everyone but the factory owners for quite a while. Now, of course, we understand that the industrialization of the world is an overall benefit to society. The reason it didn't stay bad was, basically, labor. They mandated positive working conditions, rules against child labor, and the 40 hour week. Without these things, the Industrial Revolution would still be something that was mostly bad for most people.

I think while we are watching these changes occur around us, we need to continue to watch how people are being negatively affected and what we can do to absorb or alleviate those effects. And we need to stay aware of instances where business practices are negative or dangerous, and oppose those practices.

Re:mod this up, people

[Intellimonkey]

Another "Walmart is evil" disciple. While I'm not with you, you're certainly not alone. A couple points: First, Walmart hasn't even existed for any "long run", so there is little anyone can claim about it. Next, you're right- local businesses re-invest in other local businesses more than Walmart does. Walmart is more efficent, and they pass this on to consumers. A penny saved IS a penny earned, by the way. Furthermore, efficiency improvements anywhere are usually bad for those doing things "the old way". Yet, they're good for the masses, and good for the long run. History has proven that in clear terms. It would be pretty naive of me to suggest that our economic progression is %100 percent positive, but that's why I don't say it. I think you're right about unchecked capitalism too. American capitalism appears to me to be well checked though... many times over checked. Standards and rules are great, and certainly necessary. We just need to be careful and remember to consider the big picture, natural evolution, and ALL possible benefits of every situation instead of simply focusing on the popular emotional negatives. If in 5 decades, we had nothing but Walmart and Xmart which carried all products, at lower and lower prices all the time... that's not necessarily a bad thing. If job positions get eliminated along the way to greater efficiency, it's natural and good. This is true even if it creates isolated "adjustment struggles" for some people along the way. e.g. The evolution from the 5 acre farm w/ horse drawn plow to the 5000 acre farms of today. Thousands of people, families, etc. on the wrong end of the evolutionary curve in that industry have been forced through a struggle, and eventually have no place at all in the industry. But would we be better off today had we made sure evolution due to efficiency increases didn't occur? That seems to parallel with the case most Walmart haters seem to make. It's emotional, short sighted, and egocentric about the current state of affairs.

Re:mod this up, people

[greenhide]

Well, while scalability might work on most farms, it doesn't on hog farms. Basically, hog farms right now are a scary, scary source of pollution, and recommended practices there are neither adequately regulated or enforced. If they were, the hog factories would be unable to sell pork at a lower price than the small, more ecologically sound family farms.

In my opinion, efficiency is only one reason that larger companies/organizations are able to add similar services or goods for reduced prices. Cutting corners is another. Evading normal regulation is another. Special subsidies, tax breaks, or investment from government is another. Engaging in unethical business practices is another.

I don't debate that big boxes are excellent places to buy something for 43 cents less than anywhere else in town. What I object to is the idea that the economy is effectively a level playing field, that all companies that are successful must be so only because of free market competition, and that all this economic growth is necessarily a positive thing.

Re:mod this up, people

[Intellimonkey]

Again, you make an assumption that the environmental issues are a direct result of greater scale an efficiency. If a corporate farm is irresponsibly dumping hog waste in the North Carolina wetlands, that is not a direct result of more scalable hog farming. That is a problem with the standards set which regulate the industry. Think carefully before jumping to any conclusion that that type of irresponsibility doesn't occur on a smaller scale! I guess it's too late... you already called family farms "more ecological". Hogwash!! I grew up on a small family farm myself, btw. It was surrounded by other family farms. Out of all of them, I can't think of a single one that wouldn't have had the EPA climbing all over them at one point or another had the EPA been all knowing. I guess small scale atrocities, albeit thousands of them, don't compare to the "evil corporation" tactics, huh?

I absolutely agree that big business is more cut throat however, and that it partially contributes to it's success. However, I would hardly be ready to generally categorize the small family farms as "more ethical". I don't think it's ethical to take a handout from the government to preserve "MY" personal way of life. Sure, I don't find it nearly as pleasant or satisfying to move into a city. My first choice would be to live out my life how I grew up, which would require everyone else to subsidize my existence. Don't you think that's a bit selfish though? How ethical is that? How widespread is that selfishness today?

The economies of scale are undeniable, and as a society we would be idiots not to try to take advantage of them. That in no way implies that it should go unregulated per environmental concerns of course.

this varies

[geekoid]

In a lot of states,when you do 'work for hire' the person paying owns that work.

Re:this varies

[jackbird]

Yes (actually everywhere covered by the Berne Convention, not just 'some states'), but it has to actually say 'work for hire' on the contract, or you have to be a full-time employee of the commissioning company in order for that to kick in:

---------- From COPYRIGHT FAQs © Claudia Karabaic Sargent 1996

What is "work-for-hire"?

A "work-for-hire" is a work in which the creator of the work has contractually signed away his/her rights, and thus no longer enjoys any of the rights of authorship, including copyright.

There a two ways in which an original creative work can become a "work-for-hire".

(1) An employee creating a copyrightable work within the scope of his/her employment is creating a work made for hire, in which his/her employer will be the author of record (unless the employee has a contract which specifically states otherwise).

(2)An independent contractor creating a specially commissioned copyrightable work in one of several very narrowly drawn categories (as specified in the Copyright Act of 1976), where the artist has signed a contract specifying that the work being created is a "work for hire" or "a work made for hire."

What are the disadvantages to the artist of "work for hire" contracts?

When an artist signs a work-for-hire contract, the artist is renouncing all authorship rights that s/he once enjoyed as the creator of an original work of art. By signing a work-for-hire contract, you are saying that the other party is the author of the work; that they own the copyright; that they can use it, change it, make other works out of it, do whatever they want with your creation, because you are no longer the creator. In signing a work-for-hire contract, you become an employee for copyright purposes only; it doesn't mean that you are entitled to any employees' benefits from the commissioning party; you're still going to have to pay ALL the income taxes (and self-employment tax!) on the money you earned; AND you may not even retain the right to display the work in your portfolio (Remember, you're not the author any more. You signed away ALL your rights). If you ever become a "star" in the art world, you won't be able to benefit financially from earlier work you did as works made for hire; you don't own them anymore. Period.

How does a work become a "work-for-hire"?

In the case of independent contractors (also referred to as freelancers), the statute as written makes clear that there must be a written agreement between the parties that states that the work in question is a work made for hire, and that this contract must be signed by both parties prior to the commencement of the work in question. Recent court decisions have altered this to some degree-- the waters can now be muddied if the freelancer endorses a payment check from the client with a "work-for-hire" legend on the back; likewise, some megalithic corporations are attempting to tie up their freelance talents' PAST AND FUTURE contributions by having them sign blanket contracts that deem as "works made for hire" not only the current project, but ALL PAST AND FUTURE WORK that that client may have previously or may, at some indeterminate future date, assign to the freelancer.

The reverse is true with employees (as "employee" is defined legally--a person who works for a salary, with benefits, a set place of work, and a schedule and working conditions that are controlled by the employer); everything an employee creates for his/her employer within the scope of his/her regular employment is a work made for hire, UNLESS the employee has a contract with the employer that reverts the rights of authorship back to the employee.

How can an artist avoid the work-for-hire trap?

As a freelancer, NEVER sign ANYTHING that has the words "work for hire" on it. If your client insists, offer them the alternative of exclusive rights for their particular need. Join the Graphic Artists Guild, which is doing great work trying to eliminate this gross unfairness from the field of graphic arts (http://www.gag.org). As an employee, try to negotiate your rights back from your employer (be sure to do so in writing, or it doesn't count).

What Do You Do When Outsourcing Goes Bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dig a hole to China.

Elementary my dear Watson!

[Anonymous Coward]

"At what point do you consider they may have just ripped you off, and how do you know when to file complaints and withhold payment?"

You been ripped off the moment you got involved with those dotheads. You should always withhold payment to any Indian company, and should not have gotten involved with them to begin with.

"Tested and Delivered" - ROTFL!!

[Mandatory Default]

An outsourcing company I used to work for (completely US based) had a standard contract that all bugs found from testing would be fixed before each milestone was delivered. Development wasn't going well, so the project manager simply stopped testing. No bugs found, no bugs fixed! Instead of getting in trouble, the manager was praised for "sticking to the contract" and "increasing profits by not performing unnecessary testing."

I resigned shortly after this happened.

My opinion is that if you are going to hire an outsourcing group, you must have both a contract negotiator and a project manager who know the tricks of outsourcing groups. Otherwise, save yourself a lot of aggravation and just flush the money down the toilet.

A Good Software Engineer

[geekoid]

never tests there own work.

Re:A Good Software Engineer

[glenrm]

True.

This is why "source code escrow" is vital.

[johnnys]

For next time: http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2000/hollander-200 0-08.html

Note: IANAL.

Software Engineering

[Exousia]

On the contrary. "Computer Software Engineer" is described on the U.S. Dept of Labor website and makes a distinction between software engineering and programming, which is a subset:

"Software engineers first analyze users' needs. Then they design, construct, test, and maintain the needed software or systems. In programming, or coding, they tell a computer, line by line, how to function. They also solve any problems that arise. They must possess strong coding skills, but are more likely to develop algorithms and solve problems than write code."

See http://www.bls.gov/k12/computers04.htm

So there.

Re:Software Engineering

[micromuncher]

Ok ok ok...

So WHERE IS MY RING? Why didn't I get invited to some masonic Order of the Ring event?

Until recently ABET fought against accrediting software engineering as a real discipline, and I think only a handful of "institutions" are now accredited.

I still meet ASME or AIChE members who scoff at me when I say I'm a software engineer; I worked at a [engineering] company that wouldn't let me have the [bloody] title because "I wasn't a real engineer", and our provincial engineering body went so far as to harass me because my company web page claimed we did "Software Engineering following SEI-CMM and ISO principles"...

Re:Software Engineering

[pipingguy]

So WHERE IS MY RING? Why didn't I get invited to some masonic Order of the Ring event?

From: http://www.order-of-the-engineer.org/history.htm

The Order of the Engineer
Order and Purpose

The Order of the Engineer was initiated in the United States to foster a spirit of pride, individual integrity and responsibility in the engineering profession, to bridge the gap between training and practice; and to present to the public a visible symbol identifying the engineer.

The first ceremony was held on June 4, 1970 at Cleveland State University. Others like it have since spread across the United States at which graduate and registered engineers are invited to accept the Obligation of the Engineer and to wear a stainless steel ring. The ceremonies are conducted by Links (local sections) of the Order.

The Obligation is a creed similar to the oath attributed to Hippocrates (460-377 B.C.) that is generally taken by medical graduates and which sets forth an ethical code. The Obligation likewise, contains parts of the Canon of Ethics of major engineering societies. Initiates, as they accept it voluntarily, pledge to uphold the standards and dignity of the engineering profession and to serve humanity by making the best use of Earth's precious wealth.

The Order is not a membership organization; there are never any meetings to attend or dues to pay. Instead, the Order does foster a unity of purpose and the honoring of one's pledge lifelong.

The Obligation of the Order of the Engineer is similar to the Canadian "Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer" initiated there in 1926. In the Canadian ceremony, engineers inducted into the Order received a faceted ring during a private ceremony and accepted the engineer's oath based on writings by Rudyard Kipling. The extension of the Ritual outside Canada was prevented by copyright and other conflicting factors. The basic premise, however, was adapted for the creation of the Order of the Engineer in the United States in 1970.

See also http://www.ironring.ca/, http://www.eng-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=2, http://me.queensu.ca/undergraduate/activities/iron Ring/jj-ring.asp, etc.

your friend is an Idiot.

[geekoid]

When it didn't work, he shuold have complained all the way up the chain.
Now he screwed the company and the workers.
well done.

Based on the information your manager had, he made a good decision.

My helpful suggestion

[Magickcat]

Here's my suggestion - choke on your problems and die you outsourcing fool. Oh, that or learn Hindi.

Re:My helpful suggestion

[Xphox]

Your kidding right? Why don't you read things before you talk, and waste bandwith. It's not like I outsourced to save money. I did it because the author of the software was too busy to do my customization by end of year, and he referred me to someone he's worked with. So before you go ranting on how I've stolen someone else's job, take a moment to understand what your talking about.

Re:My helpful suggestion

[Magickcat]

If you outsource particularily overseas, you're usually headed for trouble. I don't have any sympathy for you, sorry. It looks like you are infact the one who'd wasting things at the moment too incidentaly. The job should have stayed in the USA regardless of your motivations, financial or otherwise.

The IT industry is suffering because of bad decisions like yours, and if you haven't figured out by now that outsourcing offshore is more costly in the long term when things go wrong, then tuff.

Spare me your indignation. You handed a project to someone that you didn't know, and I bet you didn't do a contract (of any kind) either. Of course you'd be hard pressed to deal with the company in an American court anyhow. You didn't stipulate that you wanted the source, and so now you've realised that your leaned over a table. You didn't hire a good tester either. Essentially your cheap and nasty job has come back to haunt you.

Well, had you employed someone who knew what they were doing, even to manage the project, you wouldn't be in this position. Next time, contract someone to manage the project properly. If it's important enought to want it, it's important enough to hire someone to do it properly in your own country.

Good luck with your Hindi lessons. Until clutzs like you figure it out, our industry will just have to struggle on. But we'll be happy to overcharge you when you return to Western programmers.

Your Indian company will probably get around to finishing the job - but if they don't, bad luck.

Re:My helpful suggestion

[Xphox]

Wrong again. 1. I could nerver of had the source code for the project, because the package was purchased closed source. 2. Because only a few companies can modify the software package, I had to choose from one of the companies "partners" who had the source. All of these companies are located in overseas. 3. Yes there is a plan of action, guideline, contract, and even invoices with detail breakdowns. And your right, I didn't know them... But I knew the company who sent me to them. Because they created the software. You would tend to think you would listen to them when they suggest programmers to you? Before you try to flame me in my public try to understand the facts. Then again posting for advise on Slashdot is bound to turn up comments like these.

Re:My helpful suggestion

[Magickcat]

Well if you have a firm and legally valid contract, I'd simply remind them of it. From there, it up to your lawyer if you don't get it fixed within a reasonable timeframe. I'd also inist on a reasonable and mutually agreed upon deadline. Document everything just in case as you go because you might need it later.

Next time, I'd insist one someone local regardless of whether they are approved or not. Finding an commercial but open source alternative might be a good idea too.

I'm not delighting in your problem, but I really hate to see jobs going off shore.

Re:My helpful suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

> I really hate to see jobs going off shore.

Why? (honestly curious. no kidding!)
If someone else can an as-good job than you for a better price, shouldn't he get the job? Isn't what capitalism, free-market, and - gosh - america is all about? (Yes, sometimes the quality is low, but don't dismiss all, there are lots of cases where quality is as good a outsourcing to a usa company).

Re:My helpful suggestion

[Magickcat]

I'm okay for jobs to go off shore, just so long as politicians are happy to operate in the same free market system. For instance, I think the whole public service should be shipped off to India. The courts can go to China. They'll be able to spend tax dollars much more efficiently. Instead of having public buildings, you can have a phone number. Public libraries, public sporting arenas etc should be abolished, public parks too - make absolutely everything user pays. The fire brigade should carry credit card facilities - if you don't have the money, your house can burn. Ambulances should carry eftpos and take all major credit cards.

The army should be outsourced to Indonesia - it would save the country money, and after all, we're in a free market system aren't we. Doctors and Lawyers too - get them to call into the client by phone from Vietnam.

Politicians should be paid according to the economy's performance - if the country is in the red, then they don't get paid. That's the free market way too after all. Russia might have some spare ones.

Not likely is it.

Re:My helpful suggestion

[Xphox]

I do agree with you, but I really didn't have the choice of switching software packages.

I had two choices, both involved overseas.

Whats the problem?

[josh253]

Give yourselves bonuses, then lay off some US workers. Problem solved. What? You're not an executive?

Experiences

[Brandybuck]

Slightly off topic, but apropos to the whole idea of "you don't know what you're getting in Bangalore until it's too late." Last week I did my first code review for some code developed in Bangalore by my company's new team of whiz-bang offshored developers. During the pre-coding phase we were quite happy with them. The rumours that Indian developers are great process people are true. They produced the required process documentation in record time, specifications were complete, and there was enough UML to cause several PHBs to burst into spontaneous song.

But now I have actual product in my hand, and I am reviewing it. It's a minor component written for a complex system. A single developer wrote it. It's not horrible code, but not excellent. Slightly above mediocre. It's good enough for other companies, but it's not good enough for ours. So I log my findings and send them off. The next day I get my response.

Except for the suggestion to use more comments, the developer REFUSED to fix anything. Among the things the developer refused to do include: using the company standard API for error reporting; use try/catch blocks instead of those weird BEGIN, END, FAIL macros that were used instead; stop using hungarian notation per our coding standard; etc. The developer even refused to consider the use of constants in place of single-element enumerations. In every case (but the comments) the developer has some stupid excuse ("but that's how I learned it in school", or "but the other developers aren't doing that!")

Needless to say, we are not going to accept this developer's code. But this is only the first bit of code we've gotten back. It's all going to start coming in soon for this one project, and we're sitting here with clenched buttocks hoping beyond hope that this one particular developer is a fluke.

Be patient

[Anonymous Coward]

Xphox, don't worry, the job will eventually get done and you'll love it. My guys are still working on it and it is our top priority.

You traitors will get

[Anonymous Coward]

what you sow : shitty products made by aiming
for profit before the well-being of your fellow
countrymen.

Social dumping does exist!

Try backing off first..

[MikeFM]

Coding isn't a linear thing. Sometimes it takes a lot longer to do one part than to do all the rest put together. Sometimes real life just comes up and you have to take a week off to do something else. Sometimes clients get so uptight with wanting to know every little thing that is going on that you spend more time answering email than coding. Also remember that unless you're paying your contractor fulltime that they may have other projects they're working on at the same time so yours may get pushed to the back burner for a few days. Try backing off a little and see if it helps. Nagging and threats should be left until you're pretty much sure the contractor has decided not to complete the job. Usually if they start the project they intend to finish it especially if they can't collect the total of the money until they've finished. Just don't pay more than half in advance.

Re:Try backing off first..

[Xphox]

They've already been given a 3 month extension. I did back off.. that just caused more of a mess.

Re:Try backing off first..

[MikeFM]

I just wanted to say that the way your xphox page looks is really cool. Did you use a special program to generate that?

Re:Try backing off first..

[Xphox]

Actually I borrowed this from someone long long ago. I can't remember the origin of it.

You now own a writeoff

[po_boy]

At what point do you consider they may have just ripped you off?

Sometime between when you receive code obfuscated by Source Guardian and when you ask Slashdot about it.

The blindingly Obvious?

[fatgeekuk]

Can I just ask what on earth you where doing outsourcing product development.

Outsourcing is for your restaurant, your rubbish disposal, office cleaning, any other non-essential work.

Anything that is NOT CORE BUSINESS!

Product development IS core business.

Outsourcing that is just paying to build a competitor.

Let Ed Yourdon know...

[SuperBigGulp]

He can use the material to "revise" the information presented in his most recent book. Follows the time-tested formula:

• Step 1: Spread FUD
• Step 2: Profit
• Step 3: Wait until things don't pan out. Write a book explain what really happened.
• Step 4: Profit

Re:Let Ed Yourdon know...

[hax4bux]

Oh, ya... I feel a seminar coming on. Hmmm... How about "The Second Coming Of The American Programmer"?

I'm sure Ed can fit that in after his next appearance on Art Bell.

Three words

[Anonymous Coward]

Better Business Bureau. I had a friend who went to DFI's tech support to get an RMA or whatever because his motherboard went bad. I swear the lady had some sort of script and didn't speak English. She said, "Just fax us the serial number." My friend replied, "I don't have a fax machine." She said again, "It's ok, just fax us the serial number." He sent the mobo back eventually, and it the same mobo came back not fixed. I told him to go BBB, but he never got around to it, and I can't exactly file for a friend.

Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Better hurry up with the fusion plants because
I'm pretty sure any process up to now for making energy spends way more than the amount produced.
Without mentioning radioactive crap to dispose of.

Re:Hmmm

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I'm pretty sure any process up to now for making energy spends way more than the amount produced.

Actually, Argentina and Chile are having good success with sugarcane-based ethanol. And Vanuatu is having good success with coconut oil. So there is some success from the ethanol/biodiesel method....

What Do You Do When Outsourcing Goes Bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Laugh and say I told you so?

Truth in Flamebait

[bADlOGIN]

Despite the tone, I couldn't agree more. You're not building widgets, and jobs lost to the sick corporate malevolence that is offshore outsourcing don't come with a 6 week retraining courses available. So now it's you who's hurting, eh? Turning to /. folks for advice? Look elsewhere, pal. Oh, and you might want to update your McManagement skills soon too.

call them?

[dioscaido]

too obvious?

Allright!

[Safety Cap]

Wow, you're right... getting a brutal dictatorship to torture and kill people who send you unwanted emails is *awesome!*

I don't think our future Attorney General Alberto Gonzales cares about going after spammers when there are "terrorists' under every rock 'n' tree to catch and wire up...

Re:Allright!

[alienmole]

Wow, you're right... getting a brutal dictatorship to torture and kill people who send you unwanted emails is *awesome!*

I don't think our future Attorney General Alberto Gonzales cares about going after spammers when there are "terrorists' under every rock 'n' tree to catch and wire up...

Now, now. The U.S. is not a brutal dictatorship. It's a compassionate conservative dictatorship!

Bluffing is free

[Anonymous Coward]

Following through on lawsuits is expensive.

I'd guess they were doing the former; but I don't really know enough about your situation to be sure.

It probably was stated somewhere that they could shut down your account for overly vague reasons.

In general, defamation must be done very carefully and with documented factual backing. At which time they will start blustering and may even start legal proceedings, but the courts must hear your case and you have freedom of speach to back you.

Re:Bluffing is free

[blanks]

Yeah I think they were under the idea that they could threaten me to keep me from posting my opinions of their services.

Luckly I had my laywer go through the documented problems I had (about 40 emails from customers and clients whos sites I had hosted) along with what I had posted and how the situation was handled on their side and mine.

I contacted them about all this information and never heard from them again (I guess they realized my lawyer was more expensive then theirs).

Funny side note is that after the cancled my accounts they continued to try billing me, and kept sending emails to peoples sites I hosted about problems with their accounts, everyday for 3 weeks.

ummmm wait?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only been 9 days right?

Well, from what you described ...

[ninewands]

go see your corporate counsel (lawyer) Right Fscking Now!

Laugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Laugh. Laugh an evil, bubbling laugh, softly at first rising until the shortsided manager realizes this was how it had to be...

OP: Let this be a lesson to you.

[Glonoinha]

At what point do you consider they may have just ripped you off?"

As soon as you decided to outsource it to Gooks'lvania.

and how do you know when to file complaints and withhold payment?"

Withhold payment? Hehe - you already paid that one and they have already cashed that check.

You not only got fucked, but you asked for it and even paid for it in full. And you agreed to give up control of the source, just handed it over. Maybe next time give them all your databases too, let them data-mine all your data for other ways to exploit all your customers and employees.

Let this be a lesson to you.
Outsourcing is bad, Bad, BAD.

I'm starting to think I've just been taken advantage of.
Ya THINK?

Client-Side Problem

[coffeefrog]

Why outsource without meaningfully tracking or managing progress? Doing this management internationally is harder than people think, even when you are part of the same company. Its VERY hard when its another company.

Why didn't you get the source? Is the IP really the property of the outsourcer? That sounds more like a software purchase than an outsource.

Acceptance test? How was that left out of the payment schedule?

It sounds like you got burned because you aren't experienced in dealing with commercial development. The outsourcer got his money and presumably met the contract conditions (delivering working software is not a condition, its a wish because its not quantifiable). Quantifiable conditions describe what bugs are, how they are tested for and how many is an acceptable number. The payment schedule must follow the quantifiable criteria.

Payment Milestones

[archilocus]

I concur with some of the other posters - once you've let the money go you have no leverage. This applies to any vendor and not just offshore ones. Offshore vendors are just harder to sue...

Once concept we've used with a level of success is a warranty milestone. As someone else has suggested we do a 40-40-20 split with 40% of payment coming after deliver, 40% after testing concludes and 20% is held in a bank guarantee for a warranty period of one month.

If we don't get any production issues after one month they get their money. If we do and it costs to fix it, it comes out of their money (theoretically - but actually we negotiate).

You've got to share the risk...

Re:Sorry, but I have NO sympathy

[symbolic]

As an adjunct to what you've stated...

If you want to outsource? Fine, then go outsource. But please don't come back whining and crying when things go horribly wrong. Perhaps one of the questions people will be asking more and more often: "is it worth the risk?"

when that happens

[Anonymous Coward]

I laugh and say "I told you so" then I get online looking for jobs in India.

So...

[Paracelcus]

Does it feel better to be ripped off by a fellow countryperson?

Clear letter of intent

[hesperant]

When you made contract with the outsourcing firm was it clear that "Finished package" = "Final Payment"? If so than it is clear, the package is not finished, the payment should not be forthcoming. In the future remember to test drive it before you dish out the big bucks and say thank you.

In the mean time, decode their obfuscated code

[Anonymous Coward]

Eventually, the code is deobfuscated before being parsed by the php engine. You could hack around and dump this to disk yourself or it appears someone has hacked something up to make this quite easy:

http://www.astalavista.com/?section=dir&cmd=file &i d=1097

--VR

Re:In the mean time, decode their obfuscated code

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct link: http://www.astalavista.com/?section=dir&cmd=file&i d=1097

What Do You Do?

[Rai]

Laugh your ass off as you send your new consulting rates to your former bosses.

Name the company

[pasta_here]

I am from India and I work for a company which is in software services. I think you should name the company you are dealing with in public, so that people are more cautious in dealing with them in future. Lots of company here in India do pretty good job with outsourced projects. But I must admit there are a few who are not providing sufficient value to the customer. Name them and let the market decide. I am pretty sure if it happens repeatedly they are out of business.

Re:Name the company

[The MESMERIC]

No disrespect to the great country of yours and culture.

But I kept saying GUI Programming is *not* a talent for the East.

It's almost like getting French art-noveau architects to build the Taj Mahal.

The mindsets are different - the aesthetics are different - cultural perceptions are different.

A western person can immediately tap into his own knowledge of current affairs and public consensus and deduce what is best for the client and customers. Without the 12 hour difference.

Again a eastern person might understand concepts a hardened westerned brain can't : like the principles of non-duality or following a 13-beat cycle. Abstract concepts which made you produce great mathematicians and physicists.

Programming these days requires too many westernized parameters: cushy ergonomics, fashion trends and icons.
You won't get it - unless you want to sacrifice more and more of the essence to westernization.

Re:Name the company

[pasta_here]

Not sure about the GUI programming or the aesthetics and mindsets needed to do that. Never tried my hands on it :-). But always believed that contributions in programming or computer scinece in general require intelligence, innovation and persistence. And every country has its share of sharp minds.

Re:Name the company

[The MESMERIC]

that I agree.
but for example I am in England - and we have the worse doctors in the world and cooks.
If I needed treatment I would go some place else.
Doctors here kill their own patients and Plastic Surgeons disfigure people for life.
Each country and culture leans towards some talent of a kind.

He stated the country here

[Anonymous Coward]

LOOK LIKE HE DID: http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=136733&thr eshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=185&tid=98&tid=4&mode=t hread&pid=11422072#11423055

India, you'll always be the Haji to my Jonny Quest

Maybe I'm Ignorant...

[ThisIsFred]

...but I don't understand this question. The outsourcing deal has gone bad when the subcontractor has failed to deliver on any one of the specifications that should have been part of the contract. Any sort of work should be delivered around a solid set of specifications, a time of delivery, and an agreed cost. If the time of delivery has come, and it's either not meeting the specs or is over cost, then don't pay. They can take you to court, but your company has the contract, right?

Unless of course you don't have a signed contract, had either non-existant or ambiguous specifications or had an open-ended project schedule. In which case your options are either pay them for the work so far and split, or continue paying in the hopes that it is done at some point.

Here's what's funny:

[mcrbids]

I've worked as an outsourced programmer for years. I've also worked with outsourced programmers with reasonably good results.

I see lots of recommendations to "get it in writing" and "make sure they finish BEFORE you pay them..."

I've never, ever, not even ONCE seen things work that way! Trying to adhere to fiction will get you fictitious (and painful) results.

1) Write your contract so that venue is the location of the outsourcer, and all legal hassles happen there.

2) Demand ownership of all sources. It's OK to cross-license rights to use sources in other non-competetive ventures - nobody wants to think you own their thoughts!

3) Demand a reasonable NDA - don't try for everything under the sun and moon. If your NDA is too severe, you generate ill-will without much benefit, and that never helps.

4) Provide a development server, and require them to work on it remotely via SSH or VPN. That leaves you with all the cards, but still prevents the IRS from considering them as "employees" since they have to provide the keyboard and monitor. It also lets you see what they do and how often, and in real time. Perform backups of this work on a regular basis, and keep backups going back in time that they cannot access.

5) Pay promptly and frequently, maybe even weekly. It's easy to cancel a contract that's not going well when there's not $60,000 on the line. That also keeps both sides a little on edge as there's no big, fat lever to screw each other with.

6) It's a relationship. Be friendly! It never works well if somebody resents your contact. If it gets cold and uncomfortable, say so, and demand immediate correction or leave. You don't have to like each other personally to work well professionally. If you leave, do so quickly and without delay.

7) Forget extensive spec development before beginning. Scope creep always arrives at the party, and software is *NEVER* "done" - it's always a work in progress. Spec development, and change the spec as anticipated needs change. It's OK to pay by the hour since you have the source anyway - You can leave and go somewhere else if you don't like things.

In short, arrange the contract so that if your contractor decides to flake, you have options.

At this point, you've pretty well shot yourself in the foot, since you don't have sources. Big mistake! Your only options are:

1) Cajole them into doing the fix (which hasn't worked so far)

2) Have the work redeveloped, or

3) Sue for a fix in a guaranteed timeframe and or access to source code, and financial losses.

Sorry you're in this situation, but never EVER outsource software development without sources. Never. Just don't do it. Can you imagine a tractor company investing in huge, million-dollar tractors, and not ensuring that there's a backup copy of the key?

Neither can I.

I LAUGH my Head OFF !!

[The MESMERIC]

@ YOU
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Well done IDIOT!!
We did warn you - now pay the price!!
I can't stop laughing :)

The Mythical Man Month

[Sam Nitzberg]

One of the best books ever written on Software Engineering is the Mythical Man Month, by brooks. In it, he also discusses the causes of failure (and some approaches to their solution) of large-scale software projects. If I remember correctly, the basis for this was his work on the IBM Sytem 360/370 Operating System.

He also discussed how many software projects fail. Many project still fail. Many software people [and managers] don't or won't understand formal models, specification methods, and critical review mechanisms. It can be hard to develop good software with proper requirements, specifications, and controls - even in your own building. Moving development half-of-a-world-away doesn't get rid of the fundamentals of software engineering.

You can outsource software - but it's still your job to know and specify what you want built, to ensure that your 'partner' in the project is up to the task, and that milestones are developed and followed. Don't do this, and you won't be any better than if you threw out the money on the project right here at home.

You deserve it, dumbass.

[jlseagull]

"Everything was going fine until recently. At what point do you consider they may have just ripped you off, and how do you know when to file complaints and withhold payment?"

If you got this far into the outsourcing process without having asked yourself these questions first, you're an idiot, you deserve all the financial loss you incur as a result, and your company deserves to fold because of your incompetence.

Dumbass.

Re:You deserve it, dumbass.

[Anonymous Coward]

With this kind of mentality about outsourcing, I'm surprised American companies are even in business still. MBAs lack commn sense but now they lack education, intelligence, and need someone to hold their hand? Outsource managers for a change.

Re:You deserve it, dumbass.

[arkulkis]

Unfortunately, the asshole managers control who/what gets outsources, and ... surprise surprise, no matter how many times THEY screw up, it's always EVERYONE ELSE who is getting outsourced.

someone

[psyph3r]

When I was fired from gateway and my job given to a 1000 people somewhere is the eastern pacific ocean I pretty much lost all respect for any company that outsourced( yea a little biased)...majority of people I know and serve hate outsourced products...they are usually third grade pieces of crap. Take, for instance, the product gateway outsourced: Phone tech support. I was a knowledgeable English speaking level 2 technician for them. I could pretty much fix any problem a computer had over the phone within 15 minutes (minus hardware problems or reloads). I have had my own business for about 8 years now and I am "competing" with gateway. Frequently I will call gateway technical support for a customer (to get their warranty fulfilled)....5 out about every 8 calls is to someone that does not understand what I am saying....does not know anything about computers, and continually reads from a script. You outsource.... you get crap, but for a little bit while you ride your reputation, you will make a lot of money, but you will run your reputation into the ground. Gateway, gladly, has started doing this defaming of their brand name...the only thing that gateway had on me was the 24/7 monkey to answer their questions about their computer...now they realize that the monkey is still there, it just throws shit at you instead. Hence, since gateway has started outsourcing, dell as well, my business has had an increase of 16% over projected growth percentages the last two years...may just be a coincidence. Basically clientele don't like it when they hire a middle man...especially a middle man to hand the shit that the outsourced company gave to you. What is the moral of the story? Realize that you made a mistake...take your losses...and hire a real programming team to get your software done right...don't ride what rep you have into the ground, otherwise your customers will smell the shit and go elsewhere. Good luck to you

An Expert Witness's Tale

[__aabjlj9081]

I get called by senior management when they suspect that their outsourced project is going off the rails. Sometimes its too late to fix things up, and the CEO wants me to help build a legal case for them, other times they need leverage in order to renegotiate the contract so that it has a chance of succeeding. Outsourced projects that go wrong have cost many senior managers their jobs, and caused many smaller companies to go out of business.

Most projects that I see are not good candidates for outsourcing in the first place.

Some contractors are better at selling than delivering. A favorite tactic is to 'bait and switch' - dazzle a prospective client with the contractor's best people, then put drones on the job.

By the time I get called in, the mistake(s) have already been made, and some hard choices need to be made:

• continue to put more money into the project with the current contractor and possibly force the contractor to shake up the development team and the process
• consider how much more money this project merits, and press the contractor to complete it on a fixed time and cost budget
• flush the project and walk away
• flush the project and sue for damages
• hire another team (or take it in house) and possibly sue for damages

• • BTW, a contractor that claims CMM Level 3+ certification carries a high overhead, and is unlikely to provide good ROI unless you are building a space vehicle or a nuclear submarine.

    Once management realizes what the criteria are for a successfully outsourced project, I think we'll see development projects being done locally... for the same reasons that many managers don't want programmers to telecommute 100% of the time.

Withhold payment first

[michaelpward]

The obvious problem is that you made final payment before testing the script. With that payment you gave away all your leverage. The time to worry about getting ripped off is now. The sqeaky wheel gets the grease, so squeak loud and repeatedly. Do it in public if they ignore you for long. In the future, don't begin a project without a clear and detailed scope of work in writing that details payment terms. Ensure that the majority of the money is payable only when the scope of work is complete and code has been tested to your satisfaction. If a vendor won't agree to those terms don't do business with that vendor.

be vewy, vewy quiet...

[grikdog]

Oh, let me see.... 60 hours a week without overtime, 401K, medical, dental, prescription eyeware, PC and peripherals, cubical space next to a window, subscription to compiler updates and libraries, paid vacation, unemployment insurance... Sounds fair to me.

Tricky business

[quilgy]

To the original poster, yes things have gone bad by the looks. Where I work they outsource 100% of all their IT needs to other companies. It's a tricky business because it makes it much more difficult to just barge into the office/cubicle/hovel of the programmer or his boss to talk over why the script is taking so long to complete. With outsourcers you have to make sure you have a tight spec, agreed timelines, costs and develop some user acceptance testing plans which when passed will act as a payment milestone. I would also be asking for some kind of warranty from the outsourcer, even if it's something basic like free fixes for 2 weeks after delivery (and I mean fixes not changes).

Contracting observations

[dnnrly]

I see a lot of people here have been having a go at off-shoring work, especially Indian companies. As a software engineer for a company that does contracting almost exclusively, here are some things that I've seen/noticed:

• The location of the workers has less baring on the success of a project than the strength of the project management. Yes you need able programmers but it's up to the PM to communicate with the team in a language they understand and allocate the resourses properly.
• Don't be surprised at who's a pleasure to work with and who isn't - even within the same company. I've worked on projects for HUGE blue chip companies (who shall remain nameless). With some of the code I saw from them, I am actually surprised that business unit is still in business. I've seen large multi-million euro projects die a nasty death because of a couple of bad managers from the clients. On the other hand I've also seen some nice pretty code that's a pleasure to work with from the same company, from an equally large business unit who understood that writing software takes time.
• If you don't have a contract in place before you start the work, the longer you go on without a contract, the more risk to the project. More specifically, the more risk of getting burned. A little work before hand is alright if it helps bring the sale in but you have to know where the line is.

I have to say that the the guy was a little naive in paying while the work was on and not on condition of meeting certain milestones (I'm guessing here - he didn't say specifically but it sounds like he just gave them a sum of money every month for x months). He was more naive by making the final payment before full acceptance tests (the format of which agreed in the contract and the tests agreed to during the project by a process agreed to in the contract). All I have to say is - lesson learned, he probably won't do it again. I hope he won't use the same company again and make sure that in future that if he doesn't have direct control over he is able to get regular interim deliveries (of code, executables, design and test docs), status reports and milestone revies. If things are going bad, there should be a provision to take the entire project off them including both and code documents and giving it to someone else. As someone who does the contracting, a client that has all this in place is less of a risk to your reputation and bank balance (it works both ways you know), we've had companies not pay for work we've done in good faith).

As for the guy's current situation, I wouldn't recommend 'IcePick' Vinnie, try the law first, if that doesn't work just pass the word around and hope for the best.

cheaper = better

[Anonymous Coward]

' not better.. "cheaper" '

The same deal fur a much lower price is.. a lot better.

Not likely because it makes no sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians are supposed to be local. Programmers are not: C++ knows no boundaries. Libraries? Another very bad analogy.

Tax breaks are not subsidies

[Anonymous Coward]

' The local government generally helps subsidize the building of the Walmart and gives it a few tax breaks for the first 1-2 years or so. '

A tax break is not a subsidy. It is not a gift or subsidy when you get to keep your own money.

No source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good god - you outsourced something and then didn't maintain rights to the source code? Or did this just slip by?

If not, well, that was kinda stupid.

Cost savings on outsourcing is mostly a myth anyway.

There has to be a ....market

[Anonymous Coward]

' Big fat deal. It darn well refuted the assertion that if one guy can walk away, it's a fair market, which was the intention '

You forgot one little thing: the word "market". If you have just one vendor, that is not a market anymore. Your analogy basically describes socialism, where it has happened that the one food vendor kept food from the "buyers", who starved in the tens of millions in the USSR and China.

Re:There has to be a ....market

[Hognoxious]

You forgot one little thing: the word "market". If you have just one vendor, that is not a market anymore.

Says who? By that logic it's impossible for $UNIQUE_THING [1] to have a market value since, as there is only one of it, there can be only one seller. There could, of course be several potential buyers competing for it, which would be the case if it were to come up for auction. Looks like a market to me.

[1] e.g. the Mona Lisa.

Re:There has to be a ....market

[Anonymous Coward]

' 1] e.g. the Mona Lisa.'

You are going out on a limb. The Mona Lisa is one of many paintings. If it is a unique market, then so is each worker. This analogy is rather pointless.

Re:There has to be a ....market

[Hognoxious]

Beh. You're playing semantics. As you're such a genius, you'll understand the economic concept of substitution, and that there is a continuum of varying degrees of substitutability. Bud light is an exact substitute for ... well, most other US beers actaully, since they're all piss. The Mona Lisa, on the other hand, is a pianting. So is the Night Watch, but they are not exact or even particularly close substitutes, even if one is thinking in investment terms.

Re:There has to be a ....market

[Anonymous Coward]

' Beh. You're playing semantics '

Pointing out analogies that are not apt is not a semantic game.

' The Mona Lisa, on the other hand, is a pianting. So is the Night Watch, but they are not exact or even particularly close substitutes, '

Trying to bring this somewhere near the topic, a C# programmer is a programmer. So is a GW Basic programmer, but they are not exact or even particularly close substitutes. Since your analogy of paintings is so disconnected with this situation, I have no idea if making this "on topic" helps or hurts your argument.

What is wrong with the freedom for two people to make deals, especially when it comes to programmers in India?

Re:There has to be a ....market

[Hognoxious]

Trying to bring this somewhere near the topic, a C# programmer is a programmer. So is a GW Basic programmer, but they are not exact or even particularly close substitutes.

Did I point out that there is a spectrum of substitutability? Yes I did. Ergo, your point is redundant.

What is wrong with the freedom for two people to make deals, especially when it comes to programmers in India?

Sigh. From playing semantics to a strawman.

Re:There has to be a ....market

[Anonymous Coward]

' Sigh. From playing semantics to a strawman '

That is the original subject, and your opposition to free trade.

Why didn't you

[FirefoxUser]

1. Make sure that the contract specify that all disputes would be resolved in YOUR state/location? 2. Withold final payment till final testing or 30/60/90 days after final delivery. 3. Sign a contract where you don't get unobfuscated source code? 4. Not do source code escrow? BTW, if they _are_ foreign and you can't get to them, presumably you are in a country with free speech (ha!), just publicize their name, address etc anyway.

Re:Worst doctors

[byoung]

Um, I think you forgot dentists.

There's a reason that the English have what they call a socialized smile =).

But dude, I'm with you on the cooking. It's all bad.

Re:Worst doctors

[The MESMERIC]

i would never ever in my entire life here
go to a dentist

there is always Brazil for that
superb dentists and brilliant doctors
crap webdesigners and MS programmers tho :/

Outsourcing TO the US

[Sun Rider]

The quality and speed of American techs is impressive. I work at a factory in the Mexican side of the border with the US, and after being burned with local companies doing PBX work, we went to an American Company in Tucson for our next project. The hourly rate was four times as expensive, but they would finish a job successfully over a weekend instead of the several weeks it would take the local company, and the workmanship and professionalism was excellent. It helped these guys had an excellent attitude, were willing to cross into Mexico, cope with lack of suppliers, and were very patient with our bureaucratic procedures. It's a matter of economics. The American company was far more cost-effective.

False "crisis" health insurance.

[Anonymous Coward]

' Most of these people are saving negative money (i.e., they're in constant debt), don't have health insurance '

So what if they do not have health insurance? This means nothing. It has nothing to do with whether or not they have health care. Or, do you think that it is a crisis that 100% of Americans lack the basic protection of "food insurance"?

How do you know?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the have Indian accents then, yes, you've been ripped off.

Outsourcing going bad

[Ham_belony]

You know when it has gone bad? When you have to cough up more money and you still have to do it on your own. One golden rule when outsourcing is to take into account those people really don't care about any of your business and the result you are trying to accomplish. If you find a company that also takes that into account you might consider working with them else it is just lost time.

Maybe I Can Help

[LifesABeach]

'it happens.

I'm a software contractor, done this type of stuff for over 20 years. Its not the Universe's vengence upon you. It just poor planning; On everyones part.

If you really need help, respond to this Post;

We'll go to step 2. And just to let you feel better, there are about 600 senior programmers out of work that can help you; Now. So don't worry about a lack of expertise.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

Outsourcing != Offshoring.

Yet

[Anonymous Coward]

' Therefore Microsoft wouldn't have a monopoly because copyright wouldn't exist. '

Since Microsoft has no monopoly at all, we have a free market, right? (If you have to even think about this while you are reading this on Firefox on Linux, you have no idea what monopoly means).

Stupid Yankee

[Anonymous Coward]

' Considering that the TV was invented in America- I doubt it. '

Doubt it? Yes, Americans suck at making TVs. If we didn't we'd all have Philco's and Magnetboxes in our living rooms still.

' It's more that the price is cheaper if you use southeast asian slave labor to build it. '

That is why I prefer my imports from countries like Taiwan and Thailand (where there is no slavery). China is run under marxism and is indeed a slave-labor country.

' Anybody who would make that "choice" willingly is an idiot who doesn't know where his job comes from ' (to get a car from Mexico)

I make that choice willingly because I appreciate good work. Jobs? It has everything to do with who can do the job better.

' We invented the car- should be easy to do, right, since you claim we have the "choice"? '

What kind of ugly American are you? A few European countries had cars before America did.

' I choose to drive a Ford, don't I have the right to drive one where the car parts are made by people I trust? '

You have the right to hold out for such a racially-pure Aryan automobile, but as there are few such bigots in the country, the market will be small and Ford will likely not serve you. It is the democracy of the free market. I'm sorry, you will have to put up with cars made by people you can't "trust" like sneaky japs and spics, right?

Re:Stupid Yankee

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Doubt it? Yes, Americans suck at making TVs. If we didn't we'd all have Philco's and Magnetboxes in our living rooms still.

Uh, we do- Sony and Magnavox bought them out and use their designs.

That is why I prefer my imports from countries like Taiwan and Thailand (where there is no slavery).

Ah, another stupid idjit who doesn't realize that just because a country outlaws slavery doesn't mean that there is no slavery in that country. http://www.distributism.org/wageslave.htm ought to set you straight. Then you'll be wondering what country is actually FREE anymore...

China is run under marxism and is indeed a slave-labor country.

Not much worse than the United States itself- but let's face it- it's a matter of cheap, not better.

I make that choice willingly because I appreciate good work.

If you truly appreciated good work, you'd still be buying American, not Mexican, where they skimp on everything they can.

Jobs? It has everything to do with who can do the job better.

No, it has to do with who can do the job CHEAPER, which is usually WORSE. Which is why you have to buy a new car every few years because the last piece of crap fell apart.

What kind of ugly American are you?

The kind that appreciates the idea that if I buy to give my neighbor a job, then he won't rob me.

A few European countries had cars before America did.

Yeah- but what pieces of shit they were indeed.

You have the right to hold out for such a racially-pure Aryan automobile, but as there are few such bigots in the country, the market will be small and Ford will likely not serve you.

Actually, there were plenty of people still buying American automobiles when the market went oversease.

It is the democracy of the free market.

You mean the oligarchy of the manufacturers.

I'm sorry, you will have to put up with cars made by people you can't "trust" like sneaky japs and spics, right?

Nope, I mean by people who do not have the best economic interests of my country at heart. Nothing to do with racism, EVERYTHING to do with knowing who your enemies are.

Cheap is better

[Anonymous Coward]

' Uh, we do- Sony and Magnavox bought them out and use their designs '

That's what happens when you build better.

' Ah, another stupid idjit who doesn't realize that just because a country outlaws slavery doesn't mean that there is no slavery in that country" '

There are documented instances of slavery in the United States, did you know that? Never buy from Americans again! I ignored the link you gave because it contained the contradictory term "wage slave". Slaves do not earn wages. The term is used, typically, by those who think that someone who earns below an arbitrary wage level is a "slave".

' it's a matter of cheap, not better '

A deal that costs less is a better deal.

' If you truly appreciated good work, you'd still be buying American, not Mexican, where they skimp on everything they can.'

Because they are all shifty spics, right?

' No, it has to do with who can do the job CHEAPER, which is usually WORSE '

It is usually better, since you get a much better deal.

' The kind that appreciates the idea that if I buy to give my neighbor a job, then he won't rob me '

You give people jobs? As gifts? They don't earn them by doing them well? That is one nasty neighbor you have: he will steal you unless you give him a gift. He should go out an earn a job.

' Which is why you have to buy a new car every few years because the last piece of crap fell apart. '

If I was concerned about that, I'd never buy American. Even the Koreans make better cars now than Americans.

' A few European countries had cars before America did. Yeah- but what pieces of shit they were indeed '

Do you know nothing of the elegant and groundbreaking early Benz?

' Nope, I mean by people who do not have the best economic interests of my country at heart '

You certainly do not have their best interests at heart if you want to deny them economic choices, and force them to get inferior overpriced goods. Unlike you, I trust Americans to make these decisions themselves.

' You mean the oligarchy of the manufacturers '

No, I am talking about decisions made by individuals.

' Nothing to do with racism, EVERYTHING to do with knowing who your enemies are. '

'Dja know WW2 is over?

Re:Cheap is better

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That's what happens when you build better.

Uh, same is same- NTSC is NTSC no matter how you slice it.

There are documented instances of slavery in the United States, did you know that? Never buy from Americans again! I ignored the link you gave because it contained the contradictory term "wage slave". Slaves do not earn wages. The term is used, typically, by those who think that someone who earns below an arbitrary wage level is a "slave".

No- it's a term that indicates anybody who needs to earn a wage to survive is actually a slave- that just because "slavery" has been replaced with "wages" doesn't make a damn whit of difference to the lifestyle of the poorest people in the country- they're STILL slaves.

You give people jobs? As gifts? They don't earn them by doing them well? That is one nasty neighbor you have: he will steal you unless you give him a gift. He should go out an earn a job.

Don't know the first thing about the social contract do you? By buying local, instead of imports, you create jobs in your own community which pay you back many times the ammount that the item cost you extra. You should ALWAYS buy local first.

A deal that costs less is a better deal.

Not when it's for worse quality, and takes away the job of your neighbor so that he robs you.

If I was concerned about that, I'd never buy American. Even the Koreans make better cars now than Americans.

Every Korean car I've seen falls apart as soon as the warrenty ends.

Do you know nothing of the elegant and groundbreaking early Benz?

I know that the Ford Model T was a much better car for the money.

You certainly do not have their best interests at heart if you want to deny them economic choices, and force them to get inferior overpriced goods. Unlike you, I trust Americans to make these decisions themselves.

The price of a good is a symbol of it's quality- cheap is always worse.

No, I am talking about decisions made by individuals.

Individuals are not allowed to tell the oligarchy where the factories go.

'Dja know WW2 is over?

But the economic war is still going strong- and America, by the looks of the $661 billion trade deficit posted for 2004, is losing.

Re:Cheap is better

[ces]

It is usually better, since you get a much better deal.

Performance, quality, price. Pick any two.

It applies to pretty much everything from computer hardware and telecommunications to cars and airplanes.

Re:Cheap is better

[Anonymous Coward]

' Uh, same is same- NTSC is NTSC no matter how you slice it. '

If someone is building an NTSC set of the same quality for half the price, they are building better.

' No- it's a term that indicates anybody who needs to earn a wage to survive is actually a slave '

So, anyone who needs to do something productive to survive is a "slave"?

' Don't know the first thing about the social contract do you? '

The "social contrast" has nothing to do with giving a lazy thief something or else he will rob you.

' Every Korean car I've seen falls apart as soon as the warrenty ends. '

That's great, since the Korean warranties typically are 10 years. That has the Korean cars lasting 6 years longer than the American ones.

' The price of a good is a symbol of it's quality- cheap is always worse. '

This is not the case.

' Individuals are not allowed to tell the oligarchy where the factories go. '

They are not allowed to talk to Elvis, either. He is just as real as this "oligarchy".

Re:Cheap is better

[Marxist Hacker 42]

If someone is building an NTSC set of the same quality for half the price, they are building better.

But it's arguably NOT the same quality when that old Philo or Zenith set lasts for 20 years; but the cheap asian crap dies after 5. Unless, of course, you're arguing quality for STOCKHOLDERS instead of CONSUMERS...where arguably lower quality manufacture leads to more sales.

So, anyone who needs to do something productive to survive is a "slave"?

The keyword there is NEEDS as opposed to WANTS. Anybody who needs to do anything at all is a slave to someone or something. The person who escapes from slavery has free will- no NEED to do anything.

The "social contrast" has nothing to do with giving a lazy thief something or else he will rob you.

But it has EVERYTHING to do with making sure your neighbor has what he needs- so that in turn he will give you what you need. Didn't you ever read the Gospels? The Tao? Any philosophy at all?

That's great, since the Korean warranties typically are 10 years. That has the Korean cars lasting 6 years longer than the American ones.

The difference being I can buy a 55-year-old Ford and still get it to run without replacing every damn bolt in it- despite the fact that it's been out-of-warenty for 54 years. But that's not quality to somebody who expects to make more money off of the consumer after 10 years.

This is not the case.

Prove it- find me a Kia that still runs after 20 years.

They are not allowed to talk to Elvis, either. He is just as real as this "oligarchy".

Except Forbes Magazine publishes a list of the Oligarchy members yearly- a list that rarely, if ever, changes.

Re:Cheap is better

[Anonymous Coward]

' But it's arguably NOT the same quality when that old Philo or Zenith set lasts for 20 years; but the cheap asian crap dies after 5 '

Is this the same Philco that takes about 20 years to warm up? :) Actually, I've got an erstwhile Samsung TV that is 20+ years old, still going strong. Best set I've ever had.

' The difference being I can buy a 55-year-old Ford and still get it to run without replacing every damn bolt in it '

How viable is this? Can everyone right now buy a 1950 Ford and serve their transportation needs?

' Prove it- find me a Kia that still runs after 20 years '

Aside from that fact that I do not know if Kia was around 20 years ago, it is also true that until just a few years ago the Kia's were crap. The company greatly improved their quality, even passing the "Big 3". The Japanese did this years ago. The "Big 3" quality improvements have been way too slow.

' Anybody who needs to do anything at all is a slave to someone or something. '

We NEED to eat, so we are slaves?

' But it has EVERYTHING to do with making sure your neighbor has what he needs- so that in turn he will give you what you need. Didn't you ever read the Gospels? The Tao? Any philosophy at all? '

I'll take you up on that. Look at the Gospels: Christ there is no gentile or Jew, no slave or free, no woman or man (Gal. 3:28). Where does it say in here that Koreans do not count? Where does it say that Japanese and Mexicans are, as you called them, "the enemy"? None of the philosophies you name have your idea that people far away are to be treated like dirt. They tend toward a "global brotherhood of man".

However, if we do take up your "neighbor first" philosophy, it means that someone in Florida should buy a car from Mexico, instead of from one of the many American car factories in California: the Mexican factories are workers are closer (neighbors) to Florida than California is.

' Except Forbes Magazine publishes a list of the Oligarchy members yearly- a list that rarely, if ever, changes.'

I've seen the Forbes list. It is quite fluid, and contains no oligarchy members.

Re:Cheap is better

[Marxist Hacker 42]

How viable is this? Can everyone right now buy a 1950 Ford and serve their transportation needs?

I've bought used cars all my life- it's pretty easy these days given the Internet.

We NEED to eat, so we are slaves?

In any given society that does not do something to service this need to the extent that everybody can afford basic nutrition, that is essentially correct. More enlightened societies divorce need from work- note that this does NOT neccessarily alliviate poverty, nor does it eliminate the fact that if one wishes to live with any luxury at all, then one should do something to earn that luxury. It just means that one's first-level Maslow needs are met simply by being a citizen- anything above that requires work.

I'll take you up on that. Look at the Gospels: Christ there is no gentile or Jew, no slave or free, no woman or man (Gal. 3:28). Where does it say in here that Koreans do not count? Where does it say that Japanese and Mexicans are, as you called them, "the enemy"? None of the philosophies you name have your idea that people far away are to be treated like dirt. They tend toward a "global brotherhood of man".

A global brotherhood of man is not possible as long as first level Maslow needs are not met. Capitalism puts groups of workers against each other- until capitalism is eliminated, it would be foolish for workers in America to give up work to workers in Mexico, or Japan, or Korea- they are the enemy in the eternal war that is capitalism. That's what COMPETITION means- that the other is your deadly enemy, and you must do whatever it takes to win. Up to and including using nuclear devices to depopulate the workers in the other country.

However, if we do take up your "neighbor first" philosophy, it means that someone in Florida should buy a car from Mexico, instead of from one of the many American car factories in California: the Mexican factories are workers are closer (neighbors) to Florida than California is.

Two different memes: Under the idea of a true, Maslow needs met, society, you are of corse correct. Under the Oligarchy of Capitalism- Florida is the neighbor of California, and both pay taxes to the federal government to defend the border and keep Mexico out. That the federal government fails quite regularly in their constitutional duty to provide for the common defense is immaterial to the fact that there is a constitutional duty to provide for the common defense.

I've seen the Forbes list. It is quite fluid, and contains no oligarchy members.

Really? Then why, out of the last 20 years, have the first 10 names been Gates, Allen, Bennet, and Walton? If the list is as fluid as you say, why haven't these names been replaced in that time? Oh yeah- because there's an oligarchy all right- and the top 25% own 75% of the real wealth in this country- and the lower 75% can't afford their own health insurance.

Re:Cheap is better

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've bought used cars all my life- it's pretty easy these days given the Internet"

You ignored the question. How viable is this? How many 1950 Fords are out there? Are there enough so that just the Toyota owners could buy them instead of Toyotas?

"Capitalism puts groups of workers against each other"

Capitalism is nothing more than workers having the freedom to make their own econommic decisions.

"until capitalism is eliminated"

Capitalism can only be eliminated with the imposition of a super-strong fascist state. In such a state, there is only one capitalist: the dictator. Otherwise, if you leave people to their own devices, you will have capitalism.

"Under the Oligarchy of Capitalism"

How many Americans are there now? 300,000,000? This is some oligarchy: it has 300,000,000 members.

"Then why, out of the last 20 years, have the first 10 names been Gates, Allen, Bennet, and Walton?"

What about the rest of the list?

"because there's an oligarchy all right"

None of these people are oligarchs. They are among the ruled, not the rulers.

"the top 25% own 75% of the real wealth in this country"

This statistic is meaningless when you realize that these 25% own wealth they created or earned themselves, and the wealth is not a zero-sum game. Just because someone has wealth does not mean someone else does not. Such statistics are used to play on jealousy and greed.

"the lower 75% can't afford their own health insurance"

Another fake crisis: health insurance != health care. Did you know that 100% of Americans lack food insurance? A crisis!

Re:Cheap is better

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You ignored the question. How viable is this? How many 1950 Fords are out there? Are there enough so that just the Toyota owners could buy them instead of Toyotas?

Not anymore- but that's exactly my point. The oligarchy by limiting production to certain low-wage areas of the world forces us into buying inferior products at inflated prices- the situation where stockholders stand to make the most profit, not the situation where the best product is made at a Fair Price for a Just Wage.

Capitalism is nothing more than workers having the freedom to make their own econommic decisions.

That's not what Adam Smith said- Adam Smith said that Capitalism was the tyranny of the means of production- those who control the means of production control the market.

Capitalism can only be eliminated with the imposition of a super-strong fascist state.

Not at all- all it takes is a reasonable limit on the accumulation of wealth, OR a significant other nation manipulating it's currency price to undercut the working class of the targeted nation in economic warfare (like China is currently doing to Mexico, Canada, and the United States).

In such a state, there is only one capitalist: the dictator. Otherwise, if you leave people to their own devices, you will have capitalism.

There's another form- the people actually VOTE for what should be done and control the means of production. The difference here being instead of a single dictator, you have the tyranny of the masses- something class warriors like you are afraid of.

How many Americans are there now? 300,000,000? This is some oligarchy: it has 300,000,000 members.

Only 2000 of those actually own anything at all- the rest are debt slaves and not members of the oligarchy.

What about the rest of the list?

A representative sample shows that while the rest of the list may move up and down, only 500 surnames are represented, and only 2000 individuals. Sometimes individuals drop off the bottom or join the bottom- but there are many surnames not represented who will never be represented, because they are not a part of the inherited oligarchy and never will be. Mere debt slaves all.

None of these people are oligarchs. They are among the ruled, not the rulers.

Bullshit- they own the "rulers", those puppets they put up for the people to vote for, bribed with campaign finance. None of the so-called "rulers" can do anything without the oligarchy- because to do so would cost them campaign financing needed to "win" elections. Of course, the oligarchy gives to both "sides" of the two party system- effectively making sure that the limited liability corporations that they control, not human beings, will be the only entities with any true rights at all.

This statistic is meaningless when you realize that these 25% own wealth they created or earned themselves,

Except for of course that they didn't- they inherrited that wealth or stole it from the workers, they did no labor to create value themselves.

and the wealth is not a zero-sum game.

That's a lie as well- there are a finite number of atoms in the solar system, and therefore wealth is finite. In any given borders, wealth is therefore limited and thus wealth is indeed a zero sum game- regardless of the fakery of the financial sector that makes it look like it isn't.

Just because someone has wealth does not mean someone else does not.

Really? You can duplicate elements so that two people can have possession of the same item in two different locations? When did you achieve this supernatural power?

Such statistics are used to play on jealousy and greed.

Any more than hiring a worker for less than he is worth does just so that you can live in luxury?

Another fake crisis: health insurance != health care. Did you know that 100% of Americans lack food insurance? A crisis!

Re:Cheap is better

[Anonymous Coward]

' Not anymore- but that's exactly my point. The oligarchy by limiting production '

Are you blaming a mythical cabal as to the reason 1950's Fords rusted into the ground?

' not the situation where the best product is made at a Fair Price for a Just Wage. '

That is how capitalism works out: a fair price for a just wage.

' Bullshit- they own the "rulers", those puppets they put up for the people to vote for, bribed with campaign finance '

Bullshit, indeed. Every one of these people is a member of "the ruled": paying a large proportion of taxes. If they were rulers, they would not pay a thing.

'Except for of course that they didn't- they inherrited that wealth or stole it from the workers'

Inherited is fair: someone decided that they were worthy of it and gave it to them. Stole from the workers? This is, in reality, earning money (and the workers got back the value of what they put in).

' There's another form- the people actually VOTE for what should be done and control the means of production '

That is a form of fascism: the government controlling a private matter that should be left to the people. Let the VOTE affect government only.

Re:Cheap is better

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Are you blaming a mythical cabal as to the reason 1950's Fords rusted into the ground?

No, I'm blaming a very real cabal for failing to continue to produce cars of that quality.

That is how capitalism works out: a fair price for a just wage.

Then how would the investors, the capitalists, ever actually get any profit? Sorry, profit must come from the difference between a real wage and an unfair price- because the difference between a fair price and a fair wage is zero.

Every one of these people is a member of "the ruled": paying a large proportion of taxes.

With the Bush tax cut of 2001, dividends can no longer be taxed at all. Sorry- these people pay NO taxes on their dividends. So this is a lie.

If they were rulers, they would not pay a thing.

And since with the Bush tax cuts they don't- then they are rulers aren't they? Not that they ever paid that much in taxes to begin with- their limited liability corporations shield them from taxes, and have since 1896.

Inherited is fair: someone decided that they were worthy of it and gave it to them

Somebody gave them money that the government printed specifically so that the masses could be fed- that is FAIR to you? I call it a gross misuse of government funds at best.

Stole from the workers? This is, in reality, earning money (and the workers got back the value of what they put in).

But as I showed in the other message- ONLY the workers put in any value at all. Investors and management are parasites on the system.

That is a form of fascism: the government controlling a private matter that should be left to the people.

How can a vote of the people not be leaving it to the people? Unless, of course, you agree that only corporations are citizens- and real human beings have no rights.

Let the VOTE affect government only.

And since corporations are a form of government- let the vote affect the corporations.

Re:Cheap is better

[Anonymous Coward]

' No, I'm blaming a very real cabal for failing to continue to produce cars of that quality. '

Whatver the nature of the car companies, have you considered what has driven so many automotive changes? Environmental and consumer groups. Yeah, that 1950 Ford might LOOK cool, but wait until you get into an accident or have to pay for the gas.

' Then how would the investors, the capitalists, ever actually get any profit? '

They risk their own money in the company, greatly enhancing it. As a result, they get a return on their investment.

' Sorry, profit must come from the difference between a real wage and an unfair price '

No, it only comes from value added by the profit earner.

' With the Bush tax cut of 2001, dividends can no longer be taxed at all.'

Under the tax cut, they are taxed once. But not twice.

' Somebody gave them money that the government printed specifically so that the masses could be fed- that is FAIR to you? '

It is very fair, since the money was owned by the giver who decided to give it to the "givee".

' I call it a gross misuse of government funds at best.'

It's not the government's money. However, if you insist on controlling "money" inheritance, and leave the rest alone, I would call it a deal. Then the giver could convert the cash to diamonds, give diamonds to givee, who them sells them for money.

' But as I showed in the other message- ONLY the workers put in any value at all. Investors and management are parasites on the system. '

See my other message about how even the smallest businesses need management. See other messages (and do some basic research) about the obvious fact that when someone gives your company a huge amount of $$$ to work with (investing), they are adding a lot of value.

' How can a vote of the people not be leaving it to the people? '

It is a difference between a government decision and a personal decision. Look at this example. Do I wear one sock or two this morning? Quite a decision. Is it left to each sock-wearer, or do we have "the people" vote on it as a whole, and force the single democratic decision of "the people" on everyone?

' And since corporations are a form of government- let the vote affect the corporations.'

They aren't. They are nothing more than cooperative organizations of inviduals.

Re:Cheap is better

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Whatver the nature of the car companies, have you considered what has driven so many automotive changes?

Certainly NOT where the cars are produced- and all of the changes could have been done without hampering quality.

They risk their own money in the company, greatly enhancing it.

Ah, but it's not their own money, it's the government's money. Billy Gates' face is not on the $1 bill. Also- I would say that any company that needs investment has been badly run from the begining.

As a result, they get a return on their investment.

And since they did no actual work- that return is stolen from the workers.

No, it only comes from value added by the profit earner.

And since investment adds only negative value- by giving up control over the company and removing that control from the workers- there should be no profit.

Under the tax cut, they are taxed once. But not twice.

Read it again- they're not taxed AT ALL.

It's not the government's money.

If it was anybody else's money, their signature would be on it. But no- only the Treasury Secretary of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

However, if you insist on controlling "money" inheritance, and leave the rest alone, I would call it a deal. Then the giver could convert the cash to diamonds, give diamonds to givee, who them sells them for money.

At which point we release the laws restricting the diamond market, and the bottom falls out (the only reason diamonds are valueable AT ALL is because the market is restricted).

See my other message about how even the smallest businesses need management.

I did- and from my own experience, the only small businesses that need management are those being run by idiots.

See other messages (and do some basic research) about the obvious fact that when someone gives your company a huge amount of $$$ to work with (investing), they are adding a lot of value.

Ah, but NO value is added to the product- just to the company. Thus no dividends should be taken from the sales of the product, just from the sale of the assets of the company.

It is a difference between a government decision and a personal decision.

You cannot make a "personal decision" that affects other people- at that point it becomes a government decision.

Look at this example. Do I wear one sock or two this morning? Quite a decision. Is it left to each sock-wearer, or do we have "the people" vote on it as a whole, and force the single democratic decision of "the people" on everyone?

Non-sequitor; a business decision is never a personal decision because it affects other people.

They aren't. They are nothing more than cooperative organizations of inviduals.

No- that's a cooperative. A corporation is a governmental body made up of investors who control a means of production and wish to create an underclass. Totally different animal.

The ludicrous wage-slave test

[Anonymous Coward]

I just spent time looking at this test. According to this test you linked to at this link, you are a Wage Slave if you:

have two people in the family working (i.e. you are a Wage Slave unless the woman is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen)

send your kids to public school.

spend a lot of time volunteering for charities

do not run their own small business (i.e. if you partner with another, you are a Wage Slave.

live in an apartment

are a child

Missing from any of it is being s slave.

The web link goes on to say "Freedom-wise, you are placed BELOW the average 13-century peasant, who possessed all the above!", forgetting that this is the glory time of serfdom, in which the answer to 1,2,3,5,7 is NO.

After looking at this, the term "Wage Slave" makes even less sense.

Examples!

[Malevolyn]

Want an example of outsourcing gone bad? Call Dell's tech support and say your RAM has gone bad.

It is a positive thing

[Anonymous Coward]

' that all companies that are successful must be so only because of free market competition, and that all this economic growth is necessarily a positive thing '

It is true that not all companies are successful because of free market competition, but it is true for the overwhelming majority of companies.

Health insurance statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

' the top 25% own 75% of the real wealth in this country- and the lower 75% can't afford their own health insurance. '

According to US census reports from 2002, less than 20% lack health insurance. This is less than 1/3 of the 75% you named. What is the reason for this gross error?

Re:Health insurance statistics

[Marxist Hacker 42]

According to US census reports from 2002, less than 20% lack health insurance. This is less than 1/3 of the 75% you named. What is the reason for this gross error?

3 reasons:

You're coparing apples to oranges- I said that "the lower 75% can't afford their own health insurance", not that the lower 75% didn't have health insurance.

The January 2005 Medicaid/Medicare reform act limited benefits to those making 45% of poverty level, which lost a lot of people their last hope for medical care of any sort. Since this just happened this month, your 2002 census report is out of date.

If you haven't noticed, the health insurance market is currently in a hyperinflationary state. What was a $300/month policy in 2002 is now a $600/month policy, which prices a larger percentage of people out of the market on the top end.

Profit 101

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's put "profit" into simple terms, to dispell the notion that it is theft.

Let's go back to a quant mediaval town somewhere in the middle of Europe....

There's a tinker who makes and repairs tin cups, lanterns, and the like. He likes to make them, and has poor personal skills and would be bad at selling his own wares.... Along comes the peddler. He pays two crowns for each cup from the tinker, and walks to the next village and sells these cups for 3 crowns. Considering the small cost of shoe wear, he's making nearly a crowns profit on those tin cups. Do you argue that this profit is stolen from the tinker?.

Now, in the same village, we have a mill. It would not be much of a mill if not for the nice big millstone that is rented from the quarrier. The quarrier gets a rental payment for making the mill possible with this nice large mill-stone. Do you think that the quarrier's rental payment is stolen from the miller?.

Up the stream from the mill is a large house. The builder has scraped and scrivened and has built from nothing what many nobles would accept as a decent manor house. However, he is getting on in years. He has decided to give this house he built to his son. Do you think this gift is not fair?"

Re:Profit 101

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Let's put "profit" into simple terms, to dispell the notion that it is theft.

Ok, you can try.

There's a tinker who makes and repairs tin cups, lanterns, and the like. He likes to make them, and has poor personal skills and would be bad at selling his own wares.... Along comes the peddler. He pays two crowns for each cup from the tinker, and walks to the next village and sells these cups for 3 crowns. Considering the small cost of shoe wear, he's making nearly a crowns profit on those tin cups. Do you argue that this profit is stolen from the tinker?.

Yes it is. The tinker could get the same rate merely by going to the next town himself- no value was added, thus it is undue profit. And in fact, would have been illegal under guild law in medival Europe- the tinker's guild would have hunted down the pedler and forced him to return the crown stolen.

Now, in the same village, we have a mill. It would not be much of a mill if not for the nice big millstone that is rented from the quarrier.

Rent, too, was illegal in midevial Europe.

The quarrier gets a rental payment for making the mill possible with this nice large mill-stone. Do you think that the quarrier's rental payment is stolen from the miller?.

Yes, because the miller's guild would have paid the quarrier for the millstone outright, not rented it, as rents were illegal.

Up the stream from the mill is a large house. The builder has scraped and scrivened and has built from nothing what many nobles would accept as a decent manor house. However, he is getting on in years. He has decided to give this house he built to his son. Do you think this gift is not fair?"

The son should build his own house- not live in the house of the father. A real man creates his own home. Plus, under mideval law, you could only will to the Church or the Government, not to your children.

All three of the above were illegal examples under guild economics. Only Adam Smith, who wished to replace the monarchy with an oligarchy, changed this in the 1700s.

Re:Profit 101

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, you shoo away three examples of someone earning something due to their own effort as being illegal under an oppressive theocratic State.

Anyone else would recognize someone receiving a fair reward for their work. It is pretty clear to see why Marxism is a perverse and unnatural pseudo-religion that only has extremely disastrous results when applied to the real world. That is how disconnected it is.

Re:Profit 101

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Interesting, you shoo away three examples of someone earning something due to their own effort as being illegal under an oppressive theocratic State.

Worse than that- in each of your three examples, the worker involved was not the *only* victim- other victims are other workers in the same guild/industry whose work was displaced by your nefarious activities.

Anyone else would recognize someone receiving a fair reward for their work.

NONE OF YOUR THREE EXAMPLES DID ANY WORK! The first subverted local production illegally. The second, charged rent and stole from the worker the right to own the means of production. The third example of leaving property to a good-for-nothing son who did nothing to earn that property speaks for itself. No actual work was done in any example, therefore there can be no FAIR reward.

It is pretty clear to see why Marxism is a perverse and unnatural pseudo-religion that only has extremely disastrous results when applied to the real world.

Too bad you're wrong about that too- my counter examples were all drawn from Catholicism, not Marxism, and stood as the standard for a thousand years until some atheists destroyed it.

That is how disconnected it is.

Morality is the only thing that yeilds truth.

Re:Profit 101

[Anonymous Coward]

"Worse than that- in each of your three examples, the worker involved was not the *only* victim"

In my three examples, there were NO victims. There were people agreeing to make amicable trades.

' NONE OF YOUR THREE EXAMPLES DID ANY WORK '

Two of them did. The peddler traipses all over the countryside knocking on doors. The guarry guy quarried that stone.

' The first subverted local production illegally '

He subverted nothing.

' charged rent and stole from the worker the right to own the means of production '

He charge for the results of his labor. He stole nothing from the miller: the miller still owned his mill and the quarry guy owned his rock.

' No actual work was done in any example, therefore there can be no FAIR reward. '

All examples were fair, even the last one with the son. Only the father and the son were involved. How dare someone not in the family whine and cry about it. In fact, the same problem with outsider busybodies applies to the other fair deals.

Re:Profit 101

[Marxist Hacker 42]

In my three examples, there were NO victims. There were people agreeing to make amicable trades.

Then they were idiots.

Two of them did. The peddler traipses all over the countryside knocking on doors. The guarry guy quarried that stone.

The peddler is doing an illegal act. The quarry guy is legally entitled to SELL his wares, not RENT them.

He subverted nothing.

He sold in the next town, stealing business from that town's tinkerer, did he not?

He charge for the results of his labor.

He would have if he had SOLD the rock.

He stole nothing from the miller: the miller still owned his mill and the quarry guy owned his rock.

The mill is useless without the rock- unless the miller owns both he is not the owner of his means of production.

Should the blacksmith also have rented the chisel to the quarry guy?

All examples were fair,

No, not by the law of the day- and I say that law should never have been changed. We've been in slavery ever since.

even the last one with the son

Stealing land from the monarch?

Only the father and the son were involved.

Not by the law of the day which restricted inheritance to the Church or the Monarch.

How dare someone not in the family whine and cry about it.

Nothing is done in a vaccum- society provided the means.

In fact, the same problem with outsider busybodies applies to the other fair deals.

No outsiders are involved at all- Society allowed the tinkerer, the miller, and the builder to have a business to begin with, thus society has the right to pick an economic system that is advantageous to the largest number of people. Independance doesn't exist.

Re:Profit 101

[Anonymous Coward]

' The peddler is doing an illegal act. '

What a nasty place this was, and you seem to like it. Poor ol Granny has to walk all the way to the next village and bother the tinker at his work, because someone has banned door-to-door peddlers.

' The quarry guy is legally entitled to SELL his wares, not RENT them. '

Why not both? If it makes you happy, the quarry guy has given in to your wishes. He smashed the rock because you have meddled. The miller has no millstone, and everyone's teeth get worn down on really course bread.

' He sold in the next town, stealing business from that town's tinkerer, did he not? '

Nothing was stolen. Try to have some sort of connection between words and meaning, eh?

' The mill is useless without the rock- unless the miller owns both he is not the owner of his means of production. '

The "means of production" term is meaningless in the real world. It is property like any other.

' No, not by the law of the day- and I say that law should never have been changed. We've been in slavery ever since. '

It is a pretty complex, totalitarian, and oppressive law. You seem to defend every aspect of it. The removal of such laws have made us much more free.

' Stealing land from the monarch? '

Always the one to defend the power and privilage of the ruling class?

' Nothing is done in a vaccum- society provided the means. '

Yesh, and the builder paid everyone good money for the materials.

' No outsiders are involved at all '

None except for the Monarch, and the bully-boys who crack the heads of peddlers who dare to help people. No one at all.

' Society allowed the tinkerer, the miller, and the builder to have a business to begin with, thus society has the right to pick an economic system that is advantageous to the largest number of people. '

There is a name for such an advantageous system: capitalism.

Re:Profit 101

[Marxist Hacker 42]

What a nasty place this was, and you seem to like it. Poor ol Granny has to walk all the way to the next village and bother the tinker at his work, because someone has banned door-to-door peddlers.

Uh, no- because she's got her own tinkerer just down the street to go to- because the peddler wasn't allowed to put Granny's tinkerer out of business with foreign wares.

Nothing was stolen. Try to have some sort of connection between words and meaning, eh?

Then why was the next town's tinkerer denied the right to a Just Wage at a Fair Price, when the peddler stole his customer?

Why not both?

The right of a worker to own his own means of production is "Why not both". A right you casually toss asside.

If it makes you happy, the quarry guy has given in to your wishes. He smashed the rock because you have meddled.

At which point his guild kills him for gross incompetance and replaces him with a quarry guy who knows his rights and RESPONSIBILITIES to society.

The miller has no millstone, and everyone's teeth get worn down on really course bread.

Until the new quarry guy SELLS him a millstone, as the first one should have if he had remembered that he was not an individual, but part of a society.

The "means of production" term is meaningless in the real world. It is property like any other.

True- and the miller has a right to own the property neccessary to be a miller. No more- and NO LESS. NOBODY else has the right to own that property and "rent" to him. NOBODY else has the right to steal his Just Wage for the sake of "return on investment".

It is a pretty complex, totalitarian, and oppressive law.

Not at all- only three laws are required: The right to OWN one's property. The right to a Just Wage. The right to sell at a Fair Price and not be undercut by some meddling peddler. All else flows from those three very simple laws.

You seem to defend every aspect of it. The removal of such laws have made us much more free.

Denial of rights is not freedom, much as you would like it to be.

Always the one to defend the power and privilage of the ruling class?

More- the monarch "owns" the land on lease from God- and I'll defend God to you atheists any day.

Yesh, and the builder paid everyone good money for the materials.

Which he was allowed to do by having good money to begin with- which he wouldn't have had without the monarch protecting that money, which the monarch would not have been able to protect without the soldier...it goes on and on and on and NOTHING is ever private.

None except for the Monarch, and the bully-boys who crack the heads of peddlers who dare to help people. No one at all.

Neither of these are outsiders- these are neccessary members of society.

There is a name for such an advantageous system: capitalism.

Then why do we have 8 million people unemployed and 20 million illegal aliens if your "advantageous system" works so well at providing advantage to the LARGEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE?

Re:Profit 101

[Anonymous Coward]

' Uh, no- because she's got her own tinkerer just down the street to go to- because the peddler wasn't allowed to put Granny's tinkerer out of business with foreign wares. '

Aside from the fact that you are describing a tinker putting himself out of business by not working as well, you keep ignoring the situation of forcing a lame old lady to traipse all over to get stuff which can be delivered to her door.

' Then why was the next town's tinkerer denied the right to a Just Wage at a Fair Price, when the peddler stole his customer? '

The peddler stole nothing. The "right" you are referring to is a "right" to something the person did not even earn. The peddler earned this costumer by providing what the customer wanted. There is no theft ever involved in mutually-agreed upon deals.

' The right of a worker to own his own means of production is "Why not both". '

If the worker buys it or creates it or earns it, he has a right to own it. He has no "right" to own something that belongs to someone else (i.e. miller and the rented quarrier's rock; or Ford's auto worker and the factory he is a guest in).

' A right you casually toss asside.'

That is because it is not a right: it is a greedy coveting of something that was never earned.

' At which point his guild kills him for gross incompetance and replaces him with a quarry guy who knows his rights and RESPONSIBILITIES to society. '

The first one knew his responsibilities, and served society well. Except a thug with an arrow did not agree.

' Until the new quarry guy SELLS him a millstone. '

What if he wants to rent it, and "society" is fine with it?

' True- and the miller has a right to own the property neccessary to be a miller. '

He does not have a right of greed to own someone else's property.

' NOBODY else has the right to own that property and "rent" to him. '

Certainly they do, as long as they are renting their own property.

' NOBODY else has the right to steal his Just Wage for the sake of "return on investment". '

That is why the renter earns his pay, and steals nothing.

' Not at all- only three laws are required: The right to OWN one's property. '

You deny that right repeatedly.

' The right to a Just Wage. '

The wage you demand is not just, since it is arbitrarily determined by outsiders and has nothing to do with the value of anything.

' The right to sell at a Fair Price and not be undercut by some meddling peddler. '

The price is not fair at all if you have blocked someone from selling at a more fair (lower) price.

' More- the monarch "owns" the land on lease from God- and I'll defend God to you atheists any day. '

I defend your right to believe in this God, but I strongly deny your right to force what you imagine His edicts are on to those who do not believe in Him.

' Which he was allowed to do by having good money to begin with- which he wouldn't have had without the monarch protecting that money '

This is all taken care of by him paying his tax to the monarch for this protection.

' it goes on and on and on and NOTHING is ever private. '

Without privacy, there is nothing. No human dignity.

' Neither of these are outsiders- these are neccessary members of society. '

The are strangers; intruders: meddling in private matters that are not their business.

' Then why do we have 8 million people unemployed and 20 million illegal aliens if your "advantageous system" works so well at providing advantage to the LARGEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE? '

Because it provides better than any other system that has been existed or imagined. (The mention of "illegal aliens" is irrelevant and perhaps hurts your argument: many of them are in the U.S. because the U.S.'s more capitalistic system serves their basic needs better than the system in Mexico).

Re:Profit 101

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Aside from the fact that you are describing a tinker putting himself out of business by not working as well, you keep ignoring the situation of forcing a lame old lady to traipse all over to get stuff which can be delivered to her door.

Why would sticking with a single set of customers put the tinkerer out of business? He's got his OWN town to look after.

The peddler stole nothing. The "right" you are referring to is a "right" to something the person did not even earn.

It's a God-given right, your rights end where the next human being's rights begin. Of course, if you're a stinkin' atheist then we have no use for you in such a society.

In fact, I think I'll end there, since it is obvious that you're an atheistic, greedy troll who wants to trample other people's human rights instead of having the responsibility of living in a society.

Some specifics...

[Anonymous Coward]

' And in fact, would have been illegal under guild law in medival Europe- the tinker's guild would have hunted down the pedler and forced him to return the crown stolen '

This one requires some elaboration. Are you saying that peddling was illegal in medieval Europe? That a tinker would be forced to traipse all over the place to sell his wares?

Re:Some specifics...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

This one requires some elaboration. Are you saying that peddling was illegal in medieval Europe? That a tinker would be forced to traipse all over the place to sell his wares?

More along the lines that the guilds controled the area one was allowed to sell one's wares- selling in the next town over would have been subverting the tinkerer of the next town over- stealing work from him as surely as stealing food from his children's mouths. The central idea of distributism is that GOODS SHOULD BE PRODUCED AS CLOSE TO THE END CONSUMER AS POSSIBLE and that MIDDLE MEN (RETAILERS) ARE IMMORAL. Only the worker has the right to set Just Wages and a Fair Price- and if his work is pleasing to Man and God, it will sell to those who need and want it. It's a far simpler model than your capitalism- for it is based in justice, not in greed.

Re:Some specifics...

[Anonymous Coward]

' stealing work from him '

How can this be conceived as theft?

' Only the worker has the right to set Just Wages and a Fair Price '

Everyone involved in the trade has the moral right to set value.

' It's a far simpler model than your capitalism '

Capitalism is nothing more than letting the people work out these simple interpersonal matters themselves. This is much more simple, and much more just than the alternative of government control of everything.

' for it is based in justice, not in greed '

Capitalism is based in justice: people can act on what they think is just. Your alternative is based in greed: greedy people you justify trying to steal the results of work or investment they did not do. There is also the elephant in the living room: the greedy ruling class that gets much more power when you take "our" decisions and make them "the government's" decisions.

As for the tinker example, "the next town" spoiled it. What if the peddler sells in the same town, the same street?

Re:Some specifics...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

How can this be conceived as theft?

Human labor has been in surplus since we settled down and started working agriculture. There's only so much work to go around. A fair system allows the largest number of people possible to work.

Everyone involved in the trade has the moral right to set value.

Ah, but morally- only the worker and the end consumer has the moral right to be involved in the trade to begin with. NOT the salesman.

Capitalism is nothing more than letting the people work out these simple interpersonal matters themselves.

WRONG. Capitalism is a system of laws for the establishment of corporations that allow people to invest in the means of production.

This is much more simple, and much more just than the alternative of government control of everything.

But does NOT meet the basic requirement of an economic system- to provide a living to the largest number of people possible.

Capitalism is based in justice: people can act on what they think is just.

What people THINK is just, usually isn't- that's the whole purpose of morality to begin with.

Your alternative is based in greed: greedy people you justify trying to steal the results of work or investment they did not do.

Really? What did the tinkerer do to be able to sell his wares elsewhere?

There is also the elephant in the living room: the greedy ruling class that gets much more power when you take "our" decisions and make them "the government's" decisions.

Hint: In a democracy, WE are the government.

As for the tinker example, "the next town" spoiled it. What if the peddler sells in the same town, the same street?

Then he is directly stealing, not from the tinkerer, but from the customer- who could simply walk to the tinkerer and get a better price. The robbery is still happening when the peddler charges an unfair price. There is simply NO room for middle men in a guild economy at all.

Ask the government before you break up.with gf

[Anonymous Coward]

' Certainly NOT where the cars are produced- and all of the changes could have been done without hampering quality. '

You mean being produced by the "enemy" in Japan and Mexico?

' Ah, but it's not their own money, it's the government's money.'

A technicality. Let them convert it into diamonds and invest that if it makes you happy. Regardless, it is something they created.

' Billy Gates' face is not on the $1 bill. Also- I would say that any company that needs investment has been badly run from the begining. '

That is your decision. Most small businesspeople disagree with it.

' And since they did no actual work- that return is stolen from the workers. '

Ask the workers if it is stolen. Ask the law. No-one will agree with you. But back to the main point: investment is very valuable to a company.

' And since investment adds only negative value- by giving up control over the company and removing that control from the workers- there should be no profit.'

Control should only lie with those qualified to make decisions.

' At which point we release the laws restricting the diamond market, and the bottom falls out (the only reason diamonds are valueable AT ALL is because the market is restricted). '

Good point. Replace it with real estate or another scarce valuable item.

' I did- and from my own experience, the only small businesses that need management are those being run by idiots.'

So, a small software company with a "project manager" to help organize tasks is foolish?

' Ah, but NO value is added to the product '

A lot of value is added to the product

' You cannot make a "personal decision" that affects other people - at that point it becomes a government decision. '

Spoken like a true fascist. According to this, all decisions that involve another person should be the government's business. Want to break up with your girlfriend? All Uncle Sam before you call Sue: this is a decision that affect someone else. This is not far from how things are done in North Korea, which is one of the most strongly Marxist countries around.

' Non-sequitor; a business decision is never a personal decision because it affects other people. '

The sock story is simply changed to: "Do I give Sue one rose or two?". Then, according to you, it is the government's business. Or, as you said regarding the mediaval house example, Sue should get her own rose.

No- that's a cooperative.

A corporation is completely cooperative.

The big question is, two people are interacting. Do we trust them? Or since it is not "personal" anymore, should the government control all interaction between them?

Re:Ask the government before you break up.with gf

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You mean being produced by the "enemy" in Japan and Mexico?

I'm saying that Ford could have done an equal job, for a Fair Price and a Just Wage, without resorting to going external to the country.

A technicality. Let them convert it into diamonds and invest that if it makes you happy. Regardless, it is something they created.

Really? Do they control the government printing press? Do they control the stock market? No, they only control the MEANS of production- unless you want to claim they created the workers.

Good point. Replace it with real estate or another scarce valuable item.

Valuable items are only scarce because the Corporate Government limits their availability.

That is your decision. Most small businesspeople disagree with it.

Then they are fools- and they're losing control of what they built to the investors, who are getting a share without working for it.

So, a small software company with a "project manager" to help organize tasks is foolish?

A small software company that uses more than ONE person at all is foolish- adding programmers to a late project only makes it fail.

A lot of value is added to the product

Nope- that's the worker adding the value not the manager, who only takes away from value.

Spoken like a true fascist. According to this, all decisions that involve another person should be the government's business.

Or a true democrat- for whom there is no difference between the people and the government.

Want to break up with your girlfriend? All Uncle Sam before you call Sue: this is a decision that affect someone else.

Yep- it affects her family and friends- and their friends and their friends' friends'. Ripples in time- nobody is an island. EVERYTHING you do should reflect your responsibility and rights in society.

The sock story is simply changed to: "Do I give Sue one rose or two?". Then, according to you, it is the government's business. Or, as you said regarding the mediaval house example, Sue should get her own rose.

That works too....

A corporation is completely cooperative.

No it isn't- it's one person with control of the means of production insulating themselves from responsibility by using a second person to oppress a third.

The big question is, two people are interacting. Do we trust them?

Given the actions of those we've given that trust to in the past, why should we?

Or since it is not "personal" anymore, should the government control all interaction between them?

As I see it, it's the only way back to trust- but there are many forms of potential control here and there's no need whatsoever to go beyond brainwashing.

Another example....

[Anonymous Coward]

Try this example.

I sell baseball cards from my old collection on eBay. It is time consuming and tedious, Now there opens up in town one of these "drop box" stores that sell stuff on eBay for you, give you a cut, and make a profit. I go ahead and do this. I am quite happy with my cut, and the drop box guy is happy with the profit.

Are you going to let us be? Or will you swoop in, whining about the "means of production" and "profit theft" while you jail us for making a mutually satisfactory deal?

Re:Another example....

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I sell baseball cards from my old collection on eBay. It is time consuming and tedious, Now there opens up in town one of these "drop box" stores that sell stuff on eBay for you, give you a cut, and make a profit. I go ahead and do this. I am quite happy with my cut, and the drop box guy is happy with the profit.

E-bay is neither time consuming nor tedious- he stole from you.

Are you going to let us be?

E-bay shouldn't exist to begin with.

Or will you swoop in, whining about the "means of production" and "profit theft" while you jail us for making a mutually satisfactory deal?

Jail isn't necessary- a fair system would correct this by taxing the drop box guy and giving the profit to you.

Liar

[Anonymous Coward]

' E-bay is neither time consuming nor tedious- he stole from you. '

Another example where you know nothing about matters. I know from experience how tedious it is. The claim of "theft" is a lie. I have not used such a service, but I have considered it. Anything he earns is something he earns through his effort, it is not "theft". I have no problem at all with him doing so. He earns every penny by doing something I am too lazy to do.

' E-bay shouldn't exist to begin with '

Why not?

' Jail isn't necessary- a fair system would correct this by taxing the drop box guy and giving the profit to you '

This system you want of stealing unearned profits and giving them to me would not be fair to me and the drop box guy, so it would really not be fair at all. No wonder the black market proliferates in situations like this.

Re:Liar

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Another example where you know nothing about matters. I know from experience how tedious it is.

What kind of idiot do you have to be to call 10 minutes of work tedious?

The claim of "theft" is a lie. I have not used such a service, but I have considered it. Anything he earns is something he earns through his effort, it is not "theft". I have no problem at all with him doing so. He earns every penny by doing something I am too lazy to do.

And there is another mortal sin- being lazy. Greedy and lazy- man you're really headed for hell aren't you?

This system you want of stealing unearned profits and giving them to me would not be fair to me and the drop box guy, so it would really not be fair at all. No wonder the black market proliferates in situations like this.

Black marketeers and other profiteers should be killed- along with their children to remove the moral sin from the genome.

Hint

[Anonymous Coward]

' Hint: In a democracy, WE are the government '

No, "we" never are. This is propaganda by those who want an all powerful oppressive State. It might work a few times once you vote with the majority, but once you disagree, you will find out that government is "them" and always is "them".

' Ah, but morally- only the worker and the end consumer has the moral right to be involved in the trade to begin with. NOT the salesman '

Why not let them decide for themselves?

' WRONG. Capitalism is a system of laws for the establishment of corporations that allow people to invest in the means of production '

WRONG. Capitalism exists just fine without corporations.

' Then he is directly stealing, not from the tinkerer, but from the customer '

Hint 2: If there is no theft, there is no stealing.

' who could simply walk to the tinkerer and get a better price '

Your irrational opposition to the traveling salesman has now forced the poor anti-social tinker in this example to turn his shop into a factory outlet. After realizing that he is poor at sales, but must be a store clerk in order to sell his tin cups, he gives up his lifelong passion to work with tin. You have deprived him of the means of selling his cups. Now he is at the quarry smashing millstones for the quarryman (the same stones you have forbidden him to take to the miller).

' There is simply NO room for middle men in a guild economy at all '

What a nasty place where the craftsman is forbidden to have someone help him out with sales.

What is the matter with you? Did some Fuller Brush man beat you with a camel-hair comb when you were a child?

Re:Hint

[Marxist Hacker 42]

No, "we" never are. This is propaganda by those who want an all powerful oppressive State. It might work a few times once you vote with the majority, but once you disagree, you will find out that government is "them" and always is "them".

Sounds like somebody who doesn't want to be a part of the majority- and would be happier living in a dictatorship of one.

Why not let them decide for themselves?

Because salesmen are con artists- looking to cheat society rather than learn an honest trade. Parasites cannot be suffered to live.

WRONG. Capitalism exists just fine without corporations.

So why bother with corporations? Why not make them illegal?

Hint 2: If there is no theft, there is no stealing.

And since there was theft of one of the three basic economic rights (right to a Fair Price, or right to a Just Wage, depending on if you're the tinkerer or the customer), then it was stealing.

Your irrational opposition to the traveling salesman has now forced the poor anti-social tinker in this example to turn his shop into a factory outlet.

No such thing as an anti-social person in a society that supports human beings. Social and anti-social are the language of class warfare.

After realizing that he is poor at sales, but must be a store clerk in order to sell his tin cups, he gives up his lifelong passion to work with tin.

Why would he have to be a store clerk to sell his tin cups? What's wrong with simply sticking to his Just Wage, and letting whomever comes into the factory set their price? Why let a true outsider take advantage of him?

Now he is at the quarry smashing millstones for the quarryman (the same stones you have forbidden him to take to the miller).

I didn't forbid him to take them to the miller- he can sell them all he wants, he just can't RENT them.

What a nasty place where the craftsman is forbidden to have someone help him out with sales.

Why should he give up a part of his just wage to have somebody "help him out with sales"?

What is the matter with you? Did some Fuller Brush man beat you with a camel-hair comb when you were a child?

Middle men have been stealing from me all my life- I'm just saying we should go back to a time when we didn't have them.

Re:Hint

[Anonymous Coward]

' So why bother with corporations? Why not make them illegal? '

"Why not make it illegal" seems to be your answer to just about anything, isn't it?

' No such thing as an anti-social person in a society that supports human beings. Social and anti-social are the language of class warfare '

By "anti-social" I meant that the tinker in the example was shy and would rather work with tin than deal with customers all day. Your totalitarian system would force him to be a salesman when he would rather be a tinker. You would force every craftsman to be a salesman, and you would force every salesman to be a craftsman.

' Middle men have been stealing from me all my life- I'm just saying we should go back to a time when we didn't have them '

You won't find such a time, unless perhaps if you go back 10,000 years! (Consider the ancient Native American traders who moved copper from Michigan to the Yellowstone). For all of your demands to get rid of retailers (and have someone go to 19 factories to fill a grocery bag instead of go to one store), you are forgetting some basics of economic geography: materials and goods are not evenly distributed.

Let's say you want to work gold in Florida as a goldsmith. There's no gold in Florida, so you have to deal with a middleman to get it to you. Want salt in Switzerland to put on your cheese? Same thing. Want to sell Swiss cheese to dairy-free Tahiti? Same thing. These "middlemen" add great value to just about anything through their hard work. Back to the example, without middlemen to bring the tin to the tinker, he would have nothing to work with. I think this fits in with your wishes: since you want the tinker to spend all his time selling, it is not as if he has time to work with tin anymore!

' Why should he give up a part of his just wage to have somebody "help him out with sales"?'

Because he wants to. Who are you to stop him?

Re:Hint

[Marxist Hacker 42]

"Why not make it illegal" seems to be your answer to just about anything, isn't it?

Anything that harms society, YES.

And since your form of economics harms society, why should I put up with it? My system eliminates the need for salesmen entirely- you go to your local person for everything. Your system requires a bunch of liars (salesmen) to be in charge of everything.

Is that you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Marxist Hacker: MacHeath, is this you???

Re:Is that you?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Nope- don't know MacHeath and this is the only account I have on slashdot.

Black market

[Anonymous Coward]

' Black marketeers and other profiteers should be killed- along with their children to remove the moral sin from the genome '

Totalitarian economic systems such as the one proposed here do not work at providing for the needs of the populace. The black market is necessary in such situations in order to make life bearable.

God

[Anonymous Coward]

' In fact, I think I'll end there, since it is obvious that you're an atheistic. greedy troll '

Excuse me that I don't think it is very Godly to force an lame old lady to traipse all over town to fill one grocery bag because you have killed the retailer "in the name of God". Nor is it very godly to force a craftsman like the tinker to waste his time all day being a salesman because you have killed someone who actually WANTS to be in sales, also in the "name of God".

' It's a God-given right '

You are forcing your religion on people to the extent that you justify denial of basic rights by this "God" of yours. Denying your evil god is not the same as denying God.

Re:God

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Excuse me that I don't think it is very Godly to force an lame old lady to traipse all over town to fill one grocery bag because you have killed the retailer "in the name of God".

Thus showing yourself to be an atheistic troll who denies God, right? :-) You just don't get the idea of economic success without profit, so give up right now.

Mr Torquamada, we meet at last!

[Anonymous Coward]

' Of course, if you're a stinkin' atheist then we have no use for you in such a society. '

Welcome to Slashdot, Mr Torquamada! I trust your good friend the Ayatollah will be joining us soon. I trust that you will have a solution to the Pagan problem as well? We're waiting, Waiting to cut out the deadwood, waiting to clean up the city, waiting to put on a black shirt, waiting to weed out the weaklings, waiting to smash in their windows and kick in their doors. Waiting for the final solution.