The money that the companies save was already going into the economy in the form of employees' salaries. The difference is that now instead of putting a dollar into the economy, they are putting in 67 cents. I fail to see how that benefits the economy.
While I do agree that it is important to have a standing military of some sort, I don't think that standing military needs to be anywhere close to it's current scale.
I want to use the same blender for 20 years. More specifically, I don't want to have to buy another for 20 years. Why the fuck do you want to buy the same things repeatedly?
I'm not an economist. But, is the basic point of what the reports states is that for every dollar outsourced we see the following return:
Savings to US investors/customers - $0.58 Import of US goods/services by India - $0.05 Transfer of profits by US providersin India to US - $0.04 Adding these up gives the total direct benefit to the US as $0.67
Then, for US labor reemployed another $0.45-0.47 Making the grand total - $1.12-1.14 dollars returned for every dollar spent outsourcing.
It looks like we are getting a sweet deal. The only problem I have with this is where they get the $0.45-$0.47 for reemployment of US labor. I don't quite understand it. It appears to be explained in the following paragraph:
More than 69 percent of workers losing jobs to imports were reemployed. Among those reemployed the mean wage capture was 96.2 percent. Since the wage loss for every dollar spent offshore is 72 cents, these levels of reemployment and recapture translate into an additional 45 to 47 cents of value recapture for the economy, even taking into account the typical period of unemployment bfore a worker is reemployed.
What precisely does this mean?
Here is the way I interpret their numbers. In the US we get the direct "benefit" of 67 cents for every dollar offshored. I think the 45-47 cents recaptured by reemployment comes out of said 67 cent benefit. The way it seems to me is that the only way these people could be reemployed is if the 67 cents savings were reinvested into the economy. I don't see how the wages the reemployed people make from that reinvestment could possibly be termed as value recapture. As far as I can tell, 20 cents of every dollar spent offshore is pocketed by the execs and and shareholders.
90% of the people in the stock market exist for the sole reason of giving their money to the other 10%. I don't even want to think about what would happen if we were all to try to make our living off of the stock market.
I have often tried to explain this to people, but have never been able to put it quite so well as you. I also harbor no resentment to the Indians. I and many others are truly happy that they are doing well for themselves.
I hope that the Indians who read your post take note. These companies are not outsourcing to India because they want to help the Indian economy, or because the quality of work in India is higher than in the States. They are doing it to save themselves money. As soon as they realize that they can get "adequate" work done cheaper somewhere else they will move somewhere else. Enjoy the boom while it lasts, but save your money. You'll need it when these companies pull out of India. In the meantime, I hope that the Indian economy can grow enough to absorb most of the impact when these companies do leave. Good luck!
Outsourcing has been proven created more jobs in the original country in the medium to long term, which are higher skilled and higher paid.
I'd really like to read the proof. I can understand both sides of the argument, but so far all I have heard are different theories about how outsourcing affects the economy. That's not entirely true. I did see one report from NASSCOM a while back (too lazy to look it up now) but automatically discount that report because of the source.
I dont like the US for just that attitude youre showing. "We are on top of the world".
Let me explain something that a lot of people don't seem to understand. Most people in the US don't think about other countries much, not even to gloat that we are better. We worry about our own lives and let the rest of the world worry about their lives. Your dislike of the US because of the "you're just jealous" attitude is about as silly as the "you're just jealous" attitude.
...you didn't even bother reading the post to which you are responding.
If you had read BOTH articles as argmanah suggested, you would see how they contradict each other. One says he demanded $300,000. The other says that he did not ask for the money he spent previously, but said he could not continue to provide the service for free and pulled the plug when the sheriff's office wouldn't agree to help cover the costs. Basically, one article paints the guy like an asshole and the other makes him look like a saint.
Put aside the amount for a minute and ask yourself a question that argmanah posed. Which is more likely to happen? The guy operates the site for three years and then demands backpayment or the guys says that he can't continue eating the cost. I can't be certain, but I would guess that a guy that had poured that much effort and time into the web site for 3 years would probably be more reasonable than to demand the money or shut down the site.
The guy probably started it hoping to draw attention and generate more business. I don't see anything wrong with that. It apparently didn't bring in enough business to justify the expense of maintaining the site. So, the guy tells the sheriff that he can't pay for it anymore. I don't see anything wrong with that.
The problem is that we will probably never know for certain which article is closer to the truth. I would guess that he didn't demand the money simply because three years is a long time to wait until you start extorting money out of them.
I even play sports in a couple recreational leagues because they are a lot of fun, but I don't take them nearly as seriously as people in the more competitive leagues. What I'm not ok with is a group of people saying that they can compete in the competitive league, finding out that they can't compete, and then telling the organizational body that they have to form another league for the less competitive people. If those people want to form their own less competitive league, I wish them luck. But, it doesn't fall on the organization's shoulders to do so.
One more hypothetical, just out of curiosity. If you do end up creating the men's and women's leagues because the women are not competing, do you let the less competitive guys into the women's league?
If you want to perform an experiment before deciding which way to go with the leagues, go for it. But don't form leagues around the assumption that girls are equal and then change the leagues when they can't compete.
Suppose you decide to put them all in one league (based on your experiment) but find that the women just aren't competing well. Are you going to form separate leagues for them then? Are you going to form separate leagues for the guys that suck?
If there are a lesser number of women participating, probably makes sense to let them win some matches and encourage them to play more, maybe?
No! No! No! Play them straight and may the best person win. If you lose, suck it up, tell her she played a good game and move on with your life. If you win, tell her she played a good game and move on with your life. You don't have to rub it in her face that you're a "big, strong man", but you don't have to apologize for it either.
I have to disagree. I don't play video games, so I don't honestly know how well the women are received in the community. And, I don't really care if they play in the same league or separate. But, what you are suggesting is complete shit.
If you are going to have them playing in the same league, then have them play in the same league. But, don't switch afterward if you find out that they all finish in the bottom quarter. If the women find that they can't compete, they can always stop playing and form their own league, but it should not be the responsibility of whoever runs the current league. Then again, if they decide to separate the leagues to begin with, I wouldn't have any problems with it.
What it boils down to is this: If you want me to treat you as an equal, I'll treat you as an equal. But, don't come crying to me when you can't compete and say that you want me to give you special treatment!
We don't begrudge the fact that you are doing better for yourself or and that it's a good thing for India. I'm happy for you. We just wish there was some way to do so without losing our own jobs.
I don't think it will be too long before you start to see more Indian software companies making their own products instead of outsourcing. You should be able to find yourself a job that's a little more exciting than grunt work then. Good luck.
I can understand the reason for it though. You don't even have to leave the computer to get your nicotine fix. I started dipping when I was 15, before I had really started using computers. But I know two other people who switched to dip from smoking because their boss didn't like them taking frequent smoke breaks.
I was a dipper for about 8 years. For a couple of those years I was a can a day person. I quit last year. One day I just decided that it was time to quit. The second and third days were a little tense (headaches, lack of energy). But, after that it was pretty easy. I still get cravings once or twice per month. I did notice that my caffeine and sugar intake went up a bit after quitting.
My advice to you is:
1. Don't try to quit thinking it's going to be difficult. If you do that, then you won't be able to quit. You'll end up concentrating on the nervousness and headaches, and you'll consider them a valid reason to take a dip just this one time. Keep your eyes on the prize and not on the things that can stop you from reaching it.
2. Don't try to quit for any reason other than that you want to quit. I know people that have tried to quit because their wives asked them to, and they always had a tough time with it. Those same people didn't really have any more problems than I did when they (not their wives) decided to quit.
3. Waiting until you have a week off is a good idea. You should be able to get by with just a long weekend though. Have plenty of things planned for the time. Don't leave yourself with free time that you will just use to think about nicotine. Have other people help you keep busy for three or four days.
Aside from saving money, 24-7 operations find it useful to have a call center where the time's half a day ahead of the U.S.
If they are running 24-7, what difference would it make to them if the call center is half a day ahead of the US? They're going to be operating any time people call.
Bling bling? Don't you just laugh when you hear that? Or want to injure someone? It's not a word, it's just stupid.
Don't feel bad. I, too, get homicidal urges when I hear someone use bling-bling in a sentence. Even worse is when someone ends a normal word with 'izzle'. What the fuck is that about?
A few years ago, the analysts prdeicted that the number of programmers will skyrocket. And, it will. They just won't be employed here in the US. This article is pointing out that there will be fewer programmers in the US. The total number of programmers will increase, while the number in the US decreases.
The numbers, however, are completely made up. Never trust an analyst's numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
The money that the companies save was already going into the economy in the form of employees' salaries. The difference is that now instead of putting a dollar into the economy, they are putting in 67 cents. I fail to see how that benefits the economy.
While I do agree that it is important to have a standing military of some sort, I don't think that standing military needs to be anywhere close to it's current scale.
I want to use the same blender for 20 years. More specifically, I don't want to have to buy another for 20 years. Why the fuck do you want to buy the same things repeatedly?
I'm not an economist. But, is the basic point of what the reports states is that for every dollar outsourced we see the following return:
Savings to US investors/customers - $0.58
Import of US goods/services by India - $0.05
Transfer of profits by US providersin India to US - $0.04
Adding these up gives the total direct benefit to the US as $0.67
Then, for US labor reemployed another $0.45-0.47
Making the grand total - $1.12-1.14 dollars returned for every dollar spent outsourcing.
It looks like we are getting a sweet deal. The only problem I have with this is where they get the $0.45-$0.47 for reemployment of US labor. I don't quite understand it. It appears to be explained in the following paragraph:
More than 69 percent of workers losing jobs to imports were reemployed. Among those reemployed the mean wage capture was 96.2 percent. Since the wage loss for every dollar spent offshore is 72 cents, these levels of reemployment and recapture translate into an additional 45 to 47 cents of value recapture for the economy, even taking into account the typical period of unemployment bfore a worker is reemployed.
What precisely does this mean?
Here is the way I interpret their numbers. In the US we get the direct "benefit" of 67 cents for every dollar offshored. I think the 45-47 cents recaptured by reemployment comes out of said 67 cent benefit. The way it seems to me is that the only way these people could be reemployed is if the 67 cents savings were reinvested into the economy. I don't see how the wages the reemployed people make from that reinvestment could possibly be termed as value recapture. As far as I can tell, 20 cents of every dollar spent offshore is pocketed by the execs and and shareholders.
I really, truly would love an explanation.
90% of the people in the stock market exist for the sole reason of giving their money to the other 10%. I don't even want to think about what would happen if we were all to try to make our living off of the stock market.
I have often tried to explain this to people, but have never been able to put it quite so well as you. I also harbor no resentment to the Indians. I and many others are truly happy that they are doing well for themselves.
I hope that the Indians who read your post take note. These companies are not outsourcing to India because they want to help the Indian economy, or because the quality of work in India is higher than in the States. They are doing it to save themselves money. As soon as they realize that they can get "adequate" work done cheaper somewhere else they will move somewhere else. Enjoy the boom while it lasts, but save your money. You'll need it when these companies pull out of India. In the meantime, I hope that the Indian economy can grow enough to absorb most of the impact when these companies do leave. Good luck!
Outsourcing has been proven created more jobs in the original country in the medium to long term, which are higher skilled and higher paid.
I'd really like to read the proof. I can understand both sides of the argument, but so far all I have heard are different theories about how outsourcing affects the economy. That's not entirely true. I did see one report from NASSCOM a while back (too lazy to look it up now) but automatically discount that report because of the source.
I dont like the US for just that attitude youre showing. "We are on top of the world".
Let me explain something that a lot of people don't seem to understand. Most people in the US don't think about other countries much, not even to gloat that we are better. We worry about our own lives and let the rest of the world worry about their lives. Your dislike of the US because of the "you're just jealous" attitude is about as silly as the "you're just jealous" attitude.
We have laws against cruel punishments in this country.
...you didn't even bother reading the post to which you are responding.
If you had read BOTH articles as argmanah suggested, you would see how they contradict each other. One says he demanded $300,000. The other says that he did not ask for the money he spent previously, but said he could not continue to provide the service for free and pulled the plug when the sheriff's office wouldn't agree to help cover the costs. Basically, one article paints the guy like an asshole and the other makes him look like a saint.
Put aside the amount for a minute and ask yourself a question that argmanah posed. Which is more likely to happen? The guy operates the site for three years and then demands backpayment or the guys says that he can't continue eating the cost. I can't be certain, but I would guess that a guy that had poured that much effort and time into the web site for 3 years would probably be more reasonable than to demand the money or shut down the site.
The guy probably started it hoping to draw attention and generate more business. I don't see anything wrong with that. It apparently didn't bring in enough business to justify the expense of maintaining the site. So, the guy tells the sheriff that he can't pay for it anymore. I don't see anything wrong with that.
The problem is that we will probably never know for certain which article is closer to the truth. I would guess that he didn't demand the money simply because three years is a long time to wait until you start extorting money out of them.
I even play sports in a couple recreational leagues because they are a lot of fun, but I don't take them nearly as seriously as people in the more competitive leagues. What I'm not ok with is a group of people saying that they can compete in the competitive league, finding out that they can't compete, and then telling the organizational body that they have to form another league for the less competitive people. If those people want to form their own less competitive league, I wish them luck. But, it doesn't fall on the organization's shoulders to do so.
One more hypothetical, just out of curiosity. If you do end up creating the men's and women's leagues because the women are not competing, do you let the less competitive guys into the women's league?
If you want to perform an experiment before deciding which way to go with the leagues, go for it. But don't form leagues around the assumption that girls are equal and then change the leagues when they can't compete. Suppose you decide to put them all in one league (based on your experiment) but find that the women just aren't competing well. Are you going to form separate leagues for them then? Are you going to form separate leagues for the guys that suck?
If there are a lesser number of women participating, probably makes sense to let them win some matches and encourage them to play more, maybe?
No! No! No! Play them straight and may the best person win. If you lose, suck it up, tell her she played a good game and move on with your life. If you win, tell her she played a good game and move on with your life. You don't have to rub it in her face that you're a "big, strong man", but you don't have to apologize for it either.
You do realize that these females are not going to sleep with you either, right?
I have to disagree. I don't play video games, so I don't honestly know how well the women are received in the community. And, I don't really care if they play in the same league or separate. But, what you are suggesting is complete shit.
If you are going to have them playing in the same league, then have them play in the same league. But, don't switch afterward if you find out that they all finish in the bottom quarter. If the women find that they can't compete, they can always stop playing and form their own league, but it should not be the responsibility of whoever runs the current league. Then again, if they decide to separate the leagues to begin with, I wouldn't have any problems with it.
What it boils down to is this: If you want me to treat you as an equal, I'll treat you as an equal. But, don't come crying to me when you can't compete and say that you want me to give you special treatment!
Christ is God in flesh, whether you believe it or not.
I would like to see the evidence that led you to such a strong belief.
We don't begrudge the fact that you are doing better for yourself or and that it's a good thing for India. I'm happy for you. We just wish there was some way to do so without losing our own jobs.
I don't think it will be too long before you start to see more Indian software companies making their own products instead of outsourcing. You should be able to find yourself a job that's a little more exciting than grunt work then. Good luck.
then I'm baffled why California managed to screw itself up so much
Obviously, you've never met anyone from California.
and I'm just as willing to sell F-16s to India as to Pakistan. How many would you like?
Given any luck, you can shoot down those Paki bastards so they have to buy more!
I know I'm not participating unless "fuck it" is the official battle cry of this movement.
I second this motion!
I can understand the reason for it though. You don't even have to leave the computer to get your nicotine fix. I started dipping when I was 15, before I had really started using computers. But I know two other people who switched to dip from smoking because their boss didn't like them taking frequent smoke breaks.
I was a dipper for about 8 years. For a couple of those years I was a can a day person. I quit last year. One day I just decided that it was time to quit. The second and third days were a little tense (headaches, lack of energy). But, after that it was pretty easy. I still get cravings once or twice per month. I did notice that my caffeine and sugar intake went up a bit after quitting.
My advice to you is:
1. Don't try to quit thinking it's going to be difficult. If you do that, then you won't be able to quit. You'll end up concentrating on the nervousness and headaches, and you'll consider them a valid reason to take a dip just this one time. Keep your eyes on the prize and not on the things that can stop you from reaching it.
2. Don't try to quit for any reason other than that you want to quit. I know people that have tried to quit because their wives asked them to, and they always had a tough time with it. Those same people didn't really have any more problems than I did when they (not their wives) decided to quit.
3. Waiting until you have a week off is a good idea. You should be able to get by with just a long weekend though. Have plenty of things planned for the time. Don't leave yourself with free time that you will just use to think about nicotine. Have other people help you keep busy for three or four days.
Aside from saving money, 24-7 operations find it useful to have a call center where the time's half a day ahead of the U.S. If they are running 24-7, what difference would it make to them if the call center is half a day ahead of the US? They're going to be operating any time people call.
Bling bling? Don't you just laugh when you hear that? Or want to injure someone? It's not a word, it's just stupid.
Don't feel bad. I, too, get homicidal urges when I hear someone use bling-bling in a sentence. Even worse is when someone ends a normal word with 'izzle'. What the fuck is that about?
What would make you think the collective stupidity in the US is any worse than the collective stupidity in China or India?
A few years ago, the analysts prdeicted that the number of programmers will skyrocket. And, it will. They just won't be employed here in the US. This article is pointing out that there will be fewer programmers in the US. The total number of programmers will increase, while the number in the US decreases. The numbers, however, are completely made up. Never trust an analyst's numbers.