Discussion on:
View:
Show:
A pair of studies paint decidedly different pictures of the outsourcing landscape. A report published this week by Gartner indicated that outsourcing may not be as widespread as some think, with lower-cost sites accounting for less than 3 percent of money spent on global technology services. A more bullish view comes from consulting firm NeoIT, which predicts a big year for offshoring in 2005. NeoIT believes more than 80 percent of Global 2000 companies will have an offshore presence by the end of the year. Which prediction do you support?
Our clients are adamantly opposed to sending our traffic to India.
One customer, in response to SBC sending DSL support to India is pondering pulling $800k of telco business out of SBC to a provider who is domestic.
His customers demand it. He demands it of us. We will not outsource to India.
The customers are adamant against it.
Hence, we are too.
Charles Hagen
CEO
Hagen Information Technologies, Inc.
http://www.hagenit.com/
http://www.yourcontactcentral.com/
One customer, in response to SBC sending DSL support to India is pondering pulling $800k of telco business out of SBC to a provider who is domestic.
His customers demand it. He demands it of us. We will not outsource to India.
The customers are adamant against it.
Hence, we are too.
Charles Hagen
CEO
Hagen Information Technologies, Inc.
http://www.hagenit.com/
http://www.yourcontactcentral.com/
They keep calling me to switch to SBC DSL. I definitely won't now, not that I had actually considered it.
So, rather than giving us a summary saying, "This is good for you, just accept it!", please let us know exactly HOW (with details) exactly outsourcing benefits the US economy!
Many of the outsourced jobs are going to outsource contractors/agencies who charge a premium to gain access to their workforce. Like agencies here, what the agency charges for the worker is hugely different from what the worker is actually paid.
Another middleman to be cut out!
I can envision some US companies opening branch offices or divisions in these "remote" sites, such as Bangalore, Bombay or elsewhere, saving yet more money over the long run, and then closing up shop when it is no longer feasible.
Maureen
Another middleman to be cut out!
I can envision some US companies opening branch offices or divisions in these "remote" sites, such as Bangalore, Bombay or elsewhere, saving yet more money over the long run, and then closing up shop when it is no longer feasible.
Maureen
Offshore may be short live, especially when 5th
generation development systems will appear in the market. The 5th generation development systems with requirement one tenth of the time to develop applications from your conventional methods.
generation development systems will appear in the market. The 5th generation development systems with requirement one tenth of the time to develop applications from your conventional methods.
Companies are not investing in their employees. This is very true for older employees.
By utilizing off shore resources and ignoring the experience of older workers, we are dumbing down our worker force and cutting their spending power/jobs. Who is going to buy all of those wonderful products when income and high-paying jobs disappear? The US cannot keep up our trade deficit forever.
By utilizing off shore resources and ignoring the experience of older workers, we are dumbing down our worker force and cutting their spending power/jobs. Who is going to buy all of those wonderful products when income and high-paying jobs disappear? The US cannot keep up our trade deficit forever.
To what degree is your company involved in offshoring. Has outsourcing activity increased during 2004?
Would rather go out of business before offshoring.
People who offshore should be subject to same taxes as those who keep jobs local.
People who offshore should be subject to same taxes as those who keep jobs local.
My company is a small in house IT shop; most business critical systems have been outsourced but to on-shore companies that specialize in this business. The in-house IT shop maintains in house applications that involves heavy interaction with business users.
This company will not be offshoring anytime soon.
This company will not be offshoring anytime soon.
My previous company was been aquired by a mulit-billion $ company. In addition to trimming the fat by laying off a 3rd of the staff for now and more later when SAP is in place, they have also off-shored a couple of internal services and the like to India. IT has also been outsourced to several companies but at least these companies have all been within the states.
Some basic concepts to remember, especially for those of us working in technology fields.
In Econ 101, we learn the basic production function:
Y=K+L+T+M
Y is output or "return", and in a capitalist society such as ours, the return on production goes back to capital; the owners of production, i.e., the stockholders.
K is Capital, or the money put into the production of a good or service
L is Labor
T is technology, which refers to ingenuity, knowledge, new techniques, etc.
M is land, natural resources, etc.
Put them all together in production and they ?produce?, creating a return, or profit, that goes back to capital (stockholders).
The idea is to maximize Y using as little of the available inputs as possible. The trend with technology since the industrial revolution has been to reduce labor costs. That is what is continuing with outsourcing. Sorry to say that we are in an industry who?s sole purpose is to reduce the need for labor, land, and capital in the production of goods and services.
The argument that states that, as people are replaced by technology, they can be retrained and rehired to build the technology that replaced them, is fallacious. In the economy as a whole, capitalism (buyers, or the owners of production) is not going to spend money (hiring more people) to build machines to replace labor unless there is a net savings. That net savings means the reduction of salaries or the loss of jobs throughout the economy.
During the 50s and 60s, the rise in production was a boon for many workers, creating new industries and opportunities for employment and growth. However, as technology improves, it becomes easier and more cost-effective to hire workers on the other side of the planet, without moving them here, without paying them comparable wages, without offering them the benefits we have won in the US. That trend will continue unless a governing body intervenes to make changes. Just because a company abandons it?s plans to outsource to India only means that the workers and companies supplying those workers will have to work a little harder and develop better language and social skills (to satisfy American consumers).
Outsourcing will continue to grow in the coming years and more and more back office and middle management jobs will be outsourced. Indians, Chinese, Turks, Russians can all learn accounting, data entry, PowerPoint design, coding, tech support. They can be just as good at those jobs as we can, and often better.
We have decided that it?s OK for capital to move around the globe with the click of a mouse, but we have restrictions on the movement of labor.
It?s an interesting time to be alive, isn?t it?
In Econ 101, we learn the basic production function:
Y=K+L+T+M
Y is output or "return", and in a capitalist society such as ours, the return on production goes back to capital; the owners of production, i.e., the stockholders.
K is Capital, or the money put into the production of a good or service
L is Labor
T is technology, which refers to ingenuity, knowledge, new techniques, etc.
M is land, natural resources, etc.
Put them all together in production and they ?produce?, creating a return, or profit, that goes back to capital (stockholders).
The idea is to maximize Y using as little of the available inputs as possible. The trend with technology since the industrial revolution has been to reduce labor costs. That is what is continuing with outsourcing. Sorry to say that we are in an industry who?s sole purpose is to reduce the need for labor, land, and capital in the production of goods and services.
The argument that states that, as people are replaced by technology, they can be retrained and rehired to build the technology that replaced them, is fallacious. In the economy as a whole, capitalism (buyers, or the owners of production) is not going to spend money (hiring more people) to build machines to replace labor unless there is a net savings. That net savings means the reduction of salaries or the loss of jobs throughout the economy.
During the 50s and 60s, the rise in production was a boon for many workers, creating new industries and opportunities for employment and growth. However, as technology improves, it becomes easier and more cost-effective to hire workers on the other side of the planet, without moving them here, without paying them comparable wages, without offering them the benefits we have won in the US. That trend will continue unless a governing body intervenes to make changes. Just because a company abandons it?s plans to outsource to India only means that the workers and companies supplying those workers will have to work a little harder and develop better language and social skills (to satisfy American consumers).
Outsourcing will continue to grow in the coming years and more and more back office and middle management jobs will be outsourced. Indians, Chinese, Turks, Russians can all learn accounting, data entry, PowerPoint design, coding, tech support. They can be just as good at those jobs as we can, and often better.
We have decided that it?s OK for capital to move around the globe with the click of a mouse, but we have restrictions on the movement of labor.
It?s an interesting time to be alive, isn?t it?
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
