Discussion on:
View:
Show:
"Global work force" is usually a phrase that precedes another unpleasant phrase: "Precipitous wage decreases."
The analogies don't account for jobs physically moving geographies. Going to a specialist down the street for your car has no analog to going to India for your IT support.
Also: "...a danger that we try to cling onto jobs as they exist today. It has not stopped evolving. We need to be looking at the jobs for tomorrow. Maybe the greater danger is that employers stopped evolving. Wouldn't the evolution include the company sustainability to bring the good people already working for you up to what you need then offshore the jobs to devolved countries?
Also: "...a danger that we try to cling onto jobs as they exist today. It has not stopped evolving. We need to be looking at the jobs for tomorrow. Maybe the greater danger is that employers stopped evolving. Wouldn't the evolution include the company sustainability to bring the good people already working for you up to what you need then offshore the jobs to devolved countries?
We can't really get reliable info with this numbers:
"one piece of research claiming 750,000 jobs in finance, IT and other areas will be offshored by 2016, while a second predicts a total of 225,000 jobs will be created in cloud computing by 2015."
So, how many cloud computing related jobs will be created in UK VS how many offshore in IT (and no other areas like finance). Maybe... 224,500 offshore and 500 in UK. And of course, somewhere between 1 and 750,000 offshored. So bye bye english staff guys, it's been very nice that you know so little about economics.
"one piece of research claiming 750,000 jobs in finance, IT and other areas will be offshored by 2016, while a second predicts a total of 225,000 jobs will be created in cloud computing by 2015."
So, how many cloud computing related jobs will be created in UK VS how many offshore in IT (and no other areas like finance). Maybe... 224,500 offshore and 500 in UK. And of course, somewhere between 1 and 750,000 offshored. So bye bye english staff guys, it's been very nice that you know so little about economics.
So I should be happy that all the domestic IT jobs are no longer local but all the way overseas? So can I get a job overseas? Why should I or any other IT pro in the states get paid for less when we bust our asses, why should we be penalized cause someone else will do it for less cause their cost of living is lower than ours?
No to mention the lack of personality or trust or measure of work / quality being done isn't an issue, right?
No to mention the lack of personality or trust or measure of work / quality being done isn't an issue, right?
...Remember the '70s? When the mighty American Manufacturing Industry was suddenly outsourced to Japan? The same griping and arguments were around then. They managed to survive somehow.
The "mighty American Manufacturing Industry" has outsourced itself to everywhere, leaving almost nothing behind except Caterpillar and GE Locomotive.
One other solution is to open work visa for people wanting to join G8 countries. You'll keep jobs onshore if if want hard to get a visa.
Some 4th world countries citizen look up to live in your country: your country is good then.
Let people come in.
You dont: they try another way: they try to convince to offshore.
Some 4th world countries citizen look up to live in your country: your country is good then.
Let people come in.
You dont: they try another way: they try to convince to offshore.
Sounds like a bunch of hired shills for corporate America who have no loyalty to their fellow Americans and are just willing to exploit the third world. They probably have no problem selling the United States technological secrets for foreigners hell bent on destroying us.
The founding fathers of this country not only believed in political independence but economic independence. The U.S rose from a colony to a super power by having no income tax on Americans but protecting it's jobs with a trade tariff. This meant we weren't only politically idependent but economic independent and much more free. We have abandoned this policy by raising taxes on Americans and then eliminating tariffs pushing jobs overseas and destroying our standard of living. Now we are at the mercy of third world dicatorships. When their economy collapses, so doe ours.
Screw outsourcing, any company who engages in it and any government that engages in policies that encourage it, are traitors to their own people.
The founding fathers of this country not only believed in political independence but economic independence. The U.S rose from a colony to a super power by having no income tax on Americans but protecting it's jobs with a trade tariff. This meant we weren't only politically idependent but economic independent and much more free. We have abandoned this policy by raising taxes on Americans and then eliminating tariffs pushing jobs overseas and destroying our standard of living. Now we are at the mercy of third world dicatorships. When their economy collapses, so doe ours.
Screw outsourcing, any company who engages in it and any government that engages in policies that encourage it, are traitors to their own people.
Sorry adamsprivey... But the very top it lists UK IT experts.. Not US ones. Given, I agree with the rest of the rant.
Not to mention that despite what I've heard 'experts' say, the quality of offshoring talent is severely lacking. Which then results in failed SLA, overages in working on basic problems, which then ends in high costs to the company because they couldn't live up to their SLA promises.
Not to mention that despite what I've heard 'experts' say, the quality of offshoring talent is severely lacking. Which then results in failed SLA, overages in working on basic problems, which then ends in high costs to the company because they couldn't live up to their SLA promises.
..."Swedish gaming developer" (cough*DICE*cough); they know what their team is worth: 3 off-shore workers EACH, and he claimed *they* were the ones who needed to 'change their thinking about Indian et al IT staff'! It "ain't broke" (they're arguably the world's premiere game studio, with an 'environment engine' unrivalled by any but Unreal, and in use by others), but the article recommends they send their work to a place that would require 3 times the manpower, so they can live in daily dread of the "phone call" when 'something goes wrong'....
UK/US software companies would do well to ignore this article and follow the example of companies such as the "Swedish gaming developer" that do their own work, pay a decent salary by local standards, and turn out an outstanding product. The dreaded "phone call when there's a problem" is not part of a 'solution' as the article maintains; it's the beginning of a ultimately self-inflicted nightmare---one of (as I quote you) "...failed SLA, overages in working on basic problems, which then ends in high costs to the company because they couldn't live up to their SLA promises." That's the new 'global reality' that he expects Digital Illusions CE, and other successful 'on-shore' companies to embrace. DICE is actually the perfect example of why NOT to outsource (We'd STILL be waiting for Battlefield 3 if they'd sent their work out!).
UK/US software companies would do well to ignore this article and follow the example of companies such as the "Swedish gaming developer" that do their own work, pay a decent salary by local standards, and turn out an outstanding product. The dreaded "phone call when there's a problem" is not part of a 'solution' as the article maintains; it's the beginning of a ultimately self-inflicted nightmare---one of (as I quote you) "...failed SLA, overages in working on basic problems, which then ends in high costs to the company because they couldn't live up to their SLA promises." That's the new 'global reality' that he expects Digital Illusions CE, and other successful 'on-shore' companies to embrace. DICE is actually the perfect example of why NOT to outsource (We'd STILL be waiting for Battlefield 3 if they'd sent their work out!).
But they are protecting the producers of sugar, corn, wheat, and other agricultural products.
And it ain't the family farm that gets the bennies, it's Monsanto, ADM, and other "big ag" consortia.
And it ain't the family farm that gets the bennies, it's Monsanto, ADM, and other "big ag" consortia.
individual farmer from owning farmland and growing those 'commodities'. Their Legislature must not be for sale, as ConAgra, ADM, et al surely have the dough to buy one.
allegiance to a country, unless the country is willing to give them helping hands, handouts, subsidy, and bailouts, and even then the companies might still say "We have no moral initiative to help you" in return.
In short, they are multinationals, looking out for themselves, and will lobby every sales pitch to promote an idea that serves them - not any country itself, but any country they can use.
In short, they are multinationals, looking out for themselves, and will lobby every sales pitch to promote an idea that serves them - not any country itself, but any country they can use.
The reporter didn't think we should know the membership of the BCS... or he didn't know and didn't think to ask. Nor did he ask on what basis any of them could be considered "experts", but merely made the assertion or passed it along from BCS themselves.
He mentions a debate, but did not report on the actual, you know, debate. What were the precise hypotheses being debated? Who got to choose the hypotheses and their wording? What arguments were put forth on each side? What data did they bring to bear on each side?
The reporter didn't think (or bother) to look into the percentages of STEM workers -- in the UK (perhaps broken down into Ireland, Scotland and England) and Germany and the USA (and all the rest of the developed world) -- who are unemployed, or under-employed (in non-STEM survival jobs). He didn't look into the percentages of German and American and Irish and Scottish and British STEM grads in recent years who have been unable to land STEM jobs, or how many have been squeezed out of STEM work after 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years. (But then, these TechRepublic/Ziff Davis/CBS guys prefer to toss around the irritatingly vague, amorphous term "IT" instead of STEM which, while still overly broad, at least has an objective meaning. Nor does "IT" in any way compare to BLS industry classifications. OTOH, most of the time they seem to be refering to "house geeks" in businesses whose primary products are not computer software or hardware, and, even in such firms with their "bidness process" groups rather than actual hardware or software product groups.)
He mentions a debate, but did not report on the actual, you know, debate. What were the precise hypotheses being debated? Who got to choose the hypotheses and their wording? What arguments were put forth on each side? What data did they bring to bear on each side?
The reporter didn't think (or bother) to look into the percentages of STEM workers -- in the UK (perhaps broken down into Ireland, Scotland and England) and Germany and the USA (and all the rest of the developed world) -- who are unemployed, or under-employed (in non-STEM survival jobs). He didn't look into the percentages of German and American and Irish and Scottish and British STEM grads in recent years who have been unable to land STEM jobs, or how many have been squeezed out of STEM work after 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years. (But then, these TechRepublic/Ziff Davis/CBS guys prefer to toss around the irritatingly vague, amorphous term "IT" instead of STEM which, while still overly broad, at least has an objective meaning. Nor does "IT" in any way compare to BLS industry classifications. OTOH, most of the time they seem to be refering to "house geeks" in businesses whose primary products are not computer software or hardware, and, even in such firms with their "bidness process" groups rather than actual hardware or software product groups.)
In a globalised economy, American firms compete with British, French, Swedish, German and other firms. Now, when these other firms lower their costs through outsourcing, do you want to prevent American firms from doing so too? If they dont, they would go under.
Firms work for their shareholders although you may argue that such a view is far too narrow and lacks a corporate social responsibility perspective. But then capitalism is not always compassionate...
If the US government asks competing firms, say in the car industry to form cartels and not indulge in outsourcing, you still run the risk that some firms will be tempted to look after their own needs and break such arrangements. Simple game theory...
Yet another tacit assumption in your post and many other posts is that outsourcing is always a cost issue. It may also be a quality issue...Many firms specialise in some area and are able to deliver low costs & high quality through such specialisation.
Today, very few firms produce all the goods & services in the value chain, unlike in the past where firms were very vertically integrated. Surely, no auto manufacturer makes his own electricity, runs canteens or hospitals as was the case in the beginnings of industrialisation.
Firms work for their shareholders although you may argue that such a view is far too narrow and lacks a corporate social responsibility perspective. But then capitalism is not always compassionate...
If the US government asks competing firms, say in the car industry to form cartels and not indulge in outsourcing, you still run the risk that some firms will be tempted to look after their own needs and break such arrangements. Simple game theory...
Yet another tacit assumption in your post and many other posts is that outsourcing is always a cost issue. It may also be a quality issue...Many firms specialise in some area and are able to deliver low costs & high quality through such specialisation.
Today, very few firms produce all the goods & services in the value chain, unlike in the past where firms were very vertically integrated. Surely, no auto manufacturer makes his own electricity, runs canteens or hospitals as was the case in the beginnings of industrialisation.
A disengenuous point at best. If it was one small firm producing a doohicky, or a the output of some foreign professor, they would be setting the price, and it wouldn't be 2 rupees an hour. No we are talking mass movements of general labour here.
And the point wasn't outsourcing, it was offshoring. If you want to know the difference have a look at your balance of payments.
And the point wasn't outsourcing, it was offshoring. If you want to know the difference have a look at your balance of payments.
No, bidness executives are not answerable to their share-owners. That is one of the several problems.
In most corporations the share-owners can't even nominate for membership on the board, propose changes to the execs' compensation packages, etc. At first glance, what with the booming securities markets, one would think that stocks would be very liquid; in reality the transaction fees, etc., cut into that. The vast majority of investors can't readily and precisely send a message by selling one stock and moving those funds to another, nor to a different kind of investment. You can choose this firm with lousy products and over-paid CEO or you can choose that firm with lousy products and over-paid CEO, or you can choose this mutual fund which buys into all these firms with lousy products and over-paid CEOs, or that mutual fund which buys into many of the same firms with lousy products and over-paid CEOs plus those other firms with lousy products and over-paid CEOs... So, where's the option to buy into the firm with great products and great execs, and shift to another such the moment those execs turn bad (assuming you can detect it early enough what with all the adoring media and PR flacks trying to make everyone believe manure is gold)?
As to the "we have to be competitive" scam, it is amazing to see multiple firms with record profit levels trying to float this rationalization. They were competitive before they off-shored. All of them were competitive before they off-shored, before they gave away their intellectual capital to the 3rd world, before the 1st world ramped up transfer of its intellectual capital to the 3rd world by subsidizing foreign college and university students. But, of course, the B-school bozos insist, they must not pay the costs for their bone-headed decisions and actions; instead, they claim, everyone must pay those costs to further subsidize them, because they're so brilliant that no one else could possibly make the same bone-headed decisions.
Yes, quite a few manufacturers make their own electricity (often it's part of a co-generation set-up), run on-site cafeterias and clinics... and there is even more of this in, e.g. Red China, with warm-bed dormitories, than there ever was in the UK or USA.
I prefer some of the old vertically integrated firms and their execs. The carefully created synergies were great. It made them great places to work, and created a lot of great tech products, the likes of which we haven't seen in the decades since off-shoring exploded. A CPU with such elegance as we had back then would give a big boost to the industry, but it is the kludge-makers that have thrived since then.
In most corporations the share-owners can't even nominate for membership on the board, propose changes to the execs' compensation packages, etc. At first glance, what with the booming securities markets, one would think that stocks would be very liquid; in reality the transaction fees, etc., cut into that. The vast majority of investors can't readily and precisely send a message by selling one stock and moving those funds to another, nor to a different kind of investment. You can choose this firm with lousy products and over-paid CEO or you can choose that firm with lousy products and over-paid CEO, or you can choose this mutual fund which buys into all these firms with lousy products and over-paid CEOs, or that mutual fund which buys into many of the same firms with lousy products and over-paid CEOs plus those other firms with lousy products and over-paid CEOs... So, where's the option to buy into the firm with great products and great execs, and shift to another such the moment those execs turn bad (assuming you can detect it early enough what with all the adoring media and PR flacks trying to make everyone believe manure is gold)?
As to the "we have to be competitive" scam, it is amazing to see multiple firms with record profit levels trying to float this rationalization. They were competitive before they off-shored. All of them were competitive before they off-shored, before they gave away their intellectual capital to the 3rd world, before the 1st world ramped up transfer of its intellectual capital to the 3rd world by subsidizing foreign college and university students. But, of course, the B-school bozos insist, they must not pay the costs for their bone-headed decisions and actions; instead, they claim, everyone must pay those costs to further subsidize them, because they're so brilliant that no one else could possibly make the same bone-headed decisions.
Yes, quite a few manufacturers make their own electricity (often it's part of a co-generation set-up), run on-site cafeterias and clinics... and there is even more of this in, e.g. Red China, with warm-bed dormitories, than there ever was in the UK or USA.
I prefer some of the old vertically integrated firms and their execs. The carefully created synergies were great. It made them great places to work, and created a lot of great tech products, the likes of which we haven't seen in the decades since off-shoring exploded. A CPU with such elegance as we had back then would give a big boost to the industry, but it is the kludge-makers that have thrived since then.
Offshoring has had at least two (probably more) negative effects. It has driven down the rates that companies will pay for people who have the experience and skill sets they need to operate. There is a false sense of 'data processing roles are plug replaceable'. Offshoring gets rid of the knowledge base and experience which keeps computer systems running effectively and correctly. They are replaced with people who have been (literally) spoon fed the basics, but do not have the experience (technical and business experience) required to effectively do the job. Of course there are a number of people offshore who do have some knowledge and even some experience, but they are in a very small minority. The offshoring also puts people who have no vested interest in the organization in control of business critical decisions. The recent fiasco at RBS is a clear indication - I doubt that very many of the reports are exactly accurate, but what is clear is that someone who did not know what he/she was doing took down the largest bank in the world (I haven't heard anything about a full recovery yet and it is almost two months since the incident happened). This is not the only instance of offshoring causing problems and it is getting worse. The people taking control when a company offshores responsibilities have not received any where near the level and types of training and experience that is really required to do the job correctly. They are not dumb, they simply are not trained properly and do not have the experience needed to make a decision properly.
I got outsorced once and for what I saw the only thing driving the process was just lowering costs. Our team of 5 IT senior DBAs were replaced by 20 guys from India that were not really prepared to do the job, after a couple of months they were forced to hire one inhouse senior DBA (of course none of us was taken back) and later most of the senior tasks were moved and distributed among the AD Teams, that at that time rely on US for this type of work.
For what I can tell, some years after now, the DBA Team costs went down. That's true, but the AD costs went up. Most likely the overall expense didn't really went down, just trade pockets.
For what I can tell, some years after now, the DBA Team costs went down. That's true, but the AD costs went up. Most likely the overall expense didn't really went down, just trade pockets.
Yeah that's right Nick. Imagine the foolishness of wanting a living wage for I.T? Why Mr. Patel here will do Bob's jobs for 500 dollars a month. Bob should just take it. (Huh Bob has 65 grand in student loans? oh well the that's the FREE MARKET) Oh what a Power outage in India the call center is down?!? (SO STUPID NICK SO STUPID!!!)
This article is the biggest load of garbage I have every read. I deal with offshore every day. The skill may be there, but the urgency is not. Where does that leave local IT? If off shore development and support is so great, why is it possible to pay more and get onshore support (I do that). How may people have struggled with HP's first and second level. How many times must we say "this is an IT department, we have already done that, please escalate", only for the "tech" (and I use the term loosely) to hang up. Yeah I know about cultural differences, but I have a job to do.
Tech Republic -- GIVE ME A BREAK!!! I'm about done with you.
Tech Republic -- GIVE ME A BREAK!!! I'm about done with you.
Then you wouldn't have got all our US colleagues weighing in with their experiences of outsourcing.
It's called know your audience.
Utter and complete failure from teh get-go. Who knows if there had been a TR-UK, you could upped the precentage of idiots and liars who agreed with this self serving drivel.
0/10 Try again.
It's called know your audience.
Utter and complete failure from teh get-go. Who knows if there had been a TR-UK, you could upped the precentage of idiots and liars who agreed with this self serving drivel.
0/10 Try again.
But if they only made the article accessible in the UK, then it wouldn't be "global"... and our masters in Germany and the UK and USA have dictated that "global" is always "good". And if it's good for US and UK and German execs (and immigration lawyers), then it MUST be good for tech reporters who fail or refuse to do any fact-checking or ask any questions at all of the folks that feed them propaganda to pass on to the little people.
To those addressing complaints to me personally, it's not a comment piece reflecting my view it's a report of what was said during a debate hosted by the BCS. We've posted plenty of blog posts focusing on other sides of this debate, on how offshoring has reduced entry-level roles in the UK driving down opportunities to enter IT and the difficulties finding graduates of sufficient quality in India to perform certain offshored jobs. This is simply a report of another point of view during a debate hosted by the BCS, a organisation for IT professionals with over 70,000 members worldwide.
It reflects your view to the extent that you (presumably with editor over-sight) chose the terminology, chose what questions to ask, what facts to check, what mood to use, etc.
As a report on a debate it should clearly report the hypotheses being debated and key points made by both sides. Both sides should be reported on in an even-handed manner. Readers should know the bona fides of the representatives of each side in the debate. (Et c. See the other post.)
"debate hosted by the BCS, a organisation for IT professionals with over 70,000 members worldwide"
Yes, but who are they? What motivates the advocates for each side in the "debate"? How do they benefit or lose? What parts of "IT" do they represent? Is the membership heavily weighted with academics? Executives in academia? Managers? Business executives? Government administrators? Newbies? Old pros? What proportion are in England? The UK? The commonwealth outside England?
What kinds of questions did you ask them (since you don't seem to have asked the questions several posters would have asked or wanted answers for)? What fact-checking did you and/or your colleagues do?
Or, is this just a press release you've dressed up, edited down, and passed on to what you expected to be a naive and uncritical public? Even such propaganda might be minimally acceptable if prominently labeled as such. (But, even then, all assertions -- explicit and implied -- really should be checked.)
As a report on a debate it should clearly report the hypotheses being debated and key points made by both sides. Both sides should be reported on in an even-handed manner. Readers should know the bona fides of the representatives of each side in the debate. (Et c. See the other post.)
"debate hosted by the BCS, a organisation for IT professionals with over 70,000 members worldwide"
Yes, but who are they? What motivates the advocates for each side in the "debate"? How do they benefit or lose? What parts of "IT" do they represent? Is the membership heavily weighted with academics? Executives in academia? Managers? Business executives? Government administrators? Newbies? Old pros? What proportion are in England? The UK? The commonwealth outside England?
What kinds of questions did you ask them (since you don't seem to have asked the questions several posters would have asked or wanted answers for)? What fact-checking did you and/or your colleagues do?
Or, is this just a press release you've dressed up, edited down, and passed on to what you expected to be a naive and uncritical public? Even such propaganda might be minimally acceptable if prominently labeled as such. (But, even then, all assertions -- explicit and implied -- really should be checked.)
Everybody is just quoting the last one, each washing their hands of the BS, all the while lending it their authority by repetition.
Why do that, if not attempting to achieve what the BS was attempting to achieve?
Why take part in a tendentious circus?
Why do that, if not attempting to achieve what the BS was attempting to achieve?
Why take part in a tendentious circus?
According to BCS, really, did they win the 'debate'?
backed up not by facts but by a puerile argument to authority.
Obviously such low quality is acceptable to you, not to us though.
Where's the reports of the points of view that this one is other to?
Obviously such low quality is acceptable to you, not to us though.
Where's the reports of the points of view that this one is other to?
And where is the interview of the spouter of this effluvia, grilling him on his hints and assumptions? Now that'd be worth reading. Probably worth a laff or two, too.
Or, perhaps you can tell me why you think a report like that is newsworthy in and of itself?
If you want to make news, you have to challenge your material, otherwise you're just a drain grate, letting all the BS pass through you.
If you're merely reporting what was said, then make that clear... and ask yourself why you're bothering regurgitating unchewed and undigested what is probably available on the net somewhere anyway.
If what you're doing is superfluous, why do it?
If you want to make news, you have to challenge your material, otherwise you're just a drain grate, letting all the BS pass through you.
If you're merely reporting what was said, then make that clear... and ask yourself why you're bothering regurgitating unchewed and undigested what is probably available on the net somewhere anyway.
If what you're doing is superfluous, why do it?
offshoring is good. We won't be able to find IT jobs payed the same level anymore but the positive side is offshoring creates a lot more jobs in financing. Career change anyone?
...otherwise it sounds insane for a country to cannibalize it's GDP for the sake of lower prices? NO...more social services? NO....more stable work force (somehow)? NO....for higher margins (of many types) that go in the hands of a relative few people who can't in ANY RATIONAL WAY make up the volume of spending in the general money supply that they're absorbing into savings or buying 10 yachts
There's little shared sacrifice here and destabilizing a workforce by flooding it seems to by Pyrrhic at best.
There's little shared sacrifice here and destabilizing a workforce by flooding it seems to by Pyrrhic at best.
workers.
Still, a religious text once had it right: "Do unto others as you'd like to have done unto you." Those CEOs ignored that, combined with every ethics class being taught in schools as a result of the antics from the 80s and 90s... and assuming people adhere to ethics post-graduation.
Still, a religious text once had it right: "Do unto others as you'd like to have done unto you." Those CEOs ignored that, combined with every ethics class being taught in schools as a result of the antics from the 80s and 90s... and assuming people adhere to ethics post-graduation.
I don't see anyone rushing to offshore jobs to the US to make up for all the jobs that have been lost here. That's a nonsensical argument.
The practice of using overseas labour to fill certain tech roles doesnt necessarily mean a net loss of jobs, a recent debate at the BCS, the UK-based chartered institute for IT, heard.
Of course not. But even a cursory analysis of the American experience with off-shoring would reveal a significant decrease in net pay for those jobs..
It would seem the analysts at the BCS are equal to the incompetence of the analysts at Gartner...
Of course not. But even a cursory analysis of the American experience with off-shoring would reveal a significant decrease in net pay for those jobs..
It would seem the analysts at the BCS are equal to the incompetence of the analysts at Gartner...
in that workers need retraining, etc...
But if the jobs aren't there and noting the skyrocketed cost OF education*, people taking the risk to improve themselves for themselves and their country are going to lose out, followed by "skill rot" because their skills are not capitalized on. "Supply and demand", "return on investment", "cost benefit analysis", and the rest apply to the demand side as well, and if people see no future in Field X, they will not sign up -- which led to astute politicians saying we need higher educated people. But there is a gap, which seems to be widening, and the students (and existing workers who have lost out) are paying the price of corporations offshoring, while corporations continue to get taxpayer-funded subsidies for offshoriing, and every bailout they demand because their size apparently makes it oh-so-catastrophic if they went under, noting the practices that made them big in the first place...
* companies want people with degrees and these fields are established, meaning anybody with a drive and quick learning ability just doesn't have enough. Rock, meet hard place and at 70% off. Great way to live, huh?
But if the jobs aren't there and noting the skyrocketed cost OF education*, people taking the risk to improve themselves for themselves and their country are going to lose out, followed by "skill rot" because their skills are not capitalized on. "Supply and demand", "return on investment", "cost benefit analysis", and the rest apply to the demand side as well, and if people see no future in Field X, they will not sign up -- which led to astute politicians saying we need higher educated people. But there is a gap, which seems to be widening, and the students (and existing workers who have lost out) are paying the price of corporations offshoring, while corporations continue to get taxpayer-funded subsidies for offshoriing, and every bailout they demand because their size apparently makes it oh-so-catastrophic if they went under, noting the practices that made them big in the first place...
* companies want people with degrees and these fields are established, meaning anybody with a drive and quick learning ability just doesn't have enough. Rock, meet hard place and at 70% off. Great way to live, huh?
.
I recently worked a two-month contract for a San Francisco-based clothing importer-retail chain. Though I'm U.S born and based, my contract was with a New Delhi-based temp agency who rented me out to a New Delhi-based IT consulting company, who rented me out to the U.S. end client.
Between two-thirds and three-quarters of the IT personnel were from India. (I'm not counting Americans of Indian origin, just visiting workers.) We were crammed together at long benches, little partitions separating the bench into a series of two-person 'micro-cubicles.' Between the influence of Indian wages and two entities raking off a cut of the pay before it got to me, I made the same rate as I did at the end of the last century.
Industry shills like to say this is not a problem and, "We need to be looking at the jobs for tomorrow." We DO need to look at the jobs for tomorrow, but we won't. We didn't in the 1990s. We (here meaning the U.S.) didn't act on the obvious future need for technology workers and make college for certain majors free, or even paid. Other countries did this--and now Indians and other nationals dominate U.S. technology jobs while U.S. literature and theater arts graduates work in Starbucks to pay off their massive student loans. No doubt many more might-have-been home-grown technology workers couldn't afford college at all, and now work in jobs far below their potential.
So whose fault is this state of affairs? It's not the Indians's; they're just reaping the rewards of the good planning that we like to talk about but don't act on. As Pogo said, "We have seen the enemy, and it is us." In a world where elected officials owed less to their campaign contributors, corporations would be allowed many fewer H1B1 visa workers, and would have incentives to train workers and provide college scholarships.
It's bad enough that we're in this state of affairs, but it's salt in the wound when corporate PR hacks try to tell us that up is down, green is red, and exporting jobs is good for us.
I recently worked a two-month contract for a San Francisco-based clothing importer-retail chain. Though I'm U.S born and based, my contract was with a New Delhi-based temp agency who rented me out to a New Delhi-based IT consulting company, who rented me out to the U.S. end client.
Between two-thirds and three-quarters of the IT personnel were from India. (I'm not counting Americans of Indian origin, just visiting workers.) We were crammed together at long benches, little partitions separating the bench into a series of two-person 'micro-cubicles.' Between the influence of Indian wages and two entities raking off a cut of the pay before it got to me, I made the same rate as I did at the end of the last century.
Industry shills like to say this is not a problem and, "We need to be looking at the jobs for tomorrow." We DO need to look at the jobs for tomorrow, but we won't. We didn't in the 1990s. We (here meaning the U.S.) didn't act on the obvious future need for technology workers and make college for certain majors free, or even paid. Other countries did this--and now Indians and other nationals dominate U.S. technology jobs while U.S. literature and theater arts graduates work in Starbucks to pay off their massive student loans. No doubt many more might-have-been home-grown technology workers couldn't afford college at all, and now work in jobs far below their potential.
So whose fault is this state of affairs? It's not the Indians's; they're just reaping the rewards of the good planning that we like to talk about but don't act on. As Pogo said, "We have seen the enemy, and it is us." In a world where elected officials owed less to their campaign contributors, corporations would be allowed many fewer H1B1 visa workers, and would have incentives to train workers and provide college scholarships.
It's bad enough that we're in this state of affairs, but it's salt in the wound when corporate PR hacks try to tell us that up is down, green is red, and exporting jobs is good for us.
Domestic (within polity) bodyshopping is bad in itself. Even if you out-source to a firm within the country, it still, in practice, involves cutting total compensation.
In the past you would have invested in new-hire training, and regular retained-employee training. You would have mentored, nurtured and developed various kinds of expertise. When work-load lets up a bit, you'd pack nearly everyone into a training class to get them geared up for the next project, the new tools you're planning to deploy, etc.
With bodyshopping you just dump the employees whenever there's a change (no more unemployment insurance obligations, no more pensions...). When you want a new project to start, you start the new contract term, and demand that everyone "hit the ground running". Meanwhile, the bodyshop managers would be striving to be the low-cost bidder; they'd be dangling very slightly above regular employee pro-rata hourly pay but hiding all that stuff about no pension, no pay for down-times, being dumped after x hours of down-time, possibly even hiding low prospects for a full year's full-time equivalent of work, etc. You'd cajole many of them to share an apartment. As with every software project, you'd use implicit cues to encourage them to work 50 or 60 or 80 hours per week while being paid the equivalent of 35 or 40 hours per week.
Total costs per bodyshopped (including management burden, admin/secretarial support, benefits including stock and insurance and vacation and temporary accommodations and on-the-job transportation and pension...) might be 1.2 times their hourly pay rate, while costs per employee in ye olden days of real jobs were 2 times the annual salary.
Cross-border bodyshopping is worse. As others have mentioned, differential costs of living are leveraged. A few bodyshoppers have been caught telling the government that the bodis being shopped would be working in very low cost-of-living/low pay locations, when in reality they've placed them in the highest cost-of-living/high pay locations. In addition, cross-border bodyshopping is used to facilitate off-shoring. The body shopped is used as an intellectual property conduit (one-way, out of the 1st world and into the 3rd; read Gurcharand Das and he will mention several of the many instances if you have your eyes open) and the body shopped is often a communications facilitator to try to bridge over the problems with language and colloquialisms and locally relevant analogies and metaphors. In some cases, the body shopped may even be involved in setting up the satellite links at each end or at least in testing them.
In the past you would have invested in new-hire training, and regular retained-employee training. You would have mentored, nurtured and developed various kinds of expertise. When work-load lets up a bit, you'd pack nearly everyone into a training class to get them geared up for the next project, the new tools you're planning to deploy, etc.
With bodyshopping you just dump the employees whenever there's a change (no more unemployment insurance obligations, no more pensions...). When you want a new project to start, you start the new contract term, and demand that everyone "hit the ground running". Meanwhile, the bodyshop managers would be striving to be the low-cost bidder; they'd be dangling very slightly above regular employee pro-rata hourly pay but hiding all that stuff about no pension, no pay for down-times, being dumped after x hours of down-time, possibly even hiding low prospects for a full year's full-time equivalent of work, etc. You'd cajole many of them to share an apartment. As with every software project, you'd use implicit cues to encourage them to work 50 or 60 or 80 hours per week while being paid the equivalent of 35 or 40 hours per week.
Total costs per bodyshopped (including management burden, admin/secretarial support, benefits including stock and insurance and vacation and temporary accommodations and on-the-job transportation and pension...) might be 1.2 times their hourly pay rate, while costs per employee in ye olden days of real jobs were 2 times the annual salary.
Cross-border bodyshopping is worse. As others have mentioned, differential costs of living are leveraged. A few bodyshoppers have been caught telling the government that the bodis being shopped would be working in very low cost-of-living/low pay locations, when in reality they've placed them in the highest cost-of-living/high pay locations. In addition, cross-border bodyshopping is used to facilitate off-shoring. The body shopped is used as an intellectual property conduit (one-way, out of the 1st world and into the 3rd; read Gurcharand Das and he will mention several of the many instances if you have your eyes open) and the body shopped is often a communications facilitator to try to bridge over the problems with language and colloquialisms and locally relevant analogies and metaphors. In some cases, the body shopped may even be involved in setting up the satellite links at each end or at least in testing them.
that is the most ridiculous thing I have read. Outsourcing our jobs is absolutely terrible. Many people stay in a job, very loyal working very hard, sacrifincing time with family, go through hard times with a company, wear many hats to help the company and what do we get in return. The company send all our jobs overseas to save on wages and taxes. Certainly anyone from any other country than the US is going to write such a stupid story.
Outsourcing jobs from one location, community or country to a different one to lower cost is never good for anyone. It damages the local job market, the employers reputation on multiple levels and retards progress. The statement above, "750,000 jobs in finance, IT and other areas will be offshored by 2016, while a second predicts a total of 225,000 jobs will be created in cloud computing by 2015.", would be so much better if it read "750,000 jobs in finance, IT and other areas will NOT be offshored by 2016 and a total of 225,000 jobs will be created in cloud computing by 2015."
Offshoring will always be a threat to those workers who don't have the opportunity for new positions that are created. If we move data processing jobs overseas and replace them with hardware support functions here - what good does that do me if I can do data processing but don't have the training to do hardware support? Or if the hardware jobs are outside of an "easy" commute radius and I can't get there.
Something like this happened to me. I was working on an IBM helpdesk as a teleworker in Minnesota when that helpdesk was moved to India. I was told I could keep working for IBM on a different helpdesk... I just had to work in the office in Colorado with most of the rest of my coworkers. And there were no positions available within the company in my area.
So tell me, Nick: Where is the opportunity there?
Something like this happened to me. I was working on an IBM helpdesk as a teleworker in Minnesota when that helpdesk was moved to India. I was told I could keep working for IBM on a different helpdesk... I just had to work in the office in Colorado with most of the rest of my coworkers. And there were no positions available within the company in my area.
So tell me, Nick: Where is the opportunity there?
Of course we all know there is absolutely no opportunity here except finance sector maybe. We also know this will be destructive for business in long term as well. But this article is counting on "Repetition" fallacy. Unfortunately for the poor twit who wrote it we are an educated and over the average IQ audience here. We do not buy this kind of nonsense.
This one goes right along side "Why the IT department needs more women".
It is what you Brits call "rubbish".
I really hope that this guy was never in charge in business making decisions in IT.
It is what you Brits call "rubbish".
I really hope that this guy was never in charge in business making decisions in IT.
Offshoring can be the most destructive thing that we will ever face on IT. Why ? Because we must learn from others economics sectors that have been similar changes on all cases this changes have destroy all and on a progressive movement the industry have moving bussines from here to there on all levels. You must see chinese parasitary economic model that build, transport and sold... first they build, late when they know the market they sold and destroy all local industry...
"We have to offshore because we can't find the skills locally...." is pure baloney and we're laying off large numbers of skilled workers chasing this figment. Unfortunately, if we continue to use this rationale for eliminating skilled jobs in the US, then it WILL become a self fulfilling prophecy. Who is going to go to college for 2-4 years to learn a skill (and rack up significant debt) where there will be no locally available jobs (at least at salaries that offer a living wage here in the US)? No one in his/her right mind, that's who.
Ship enough middle class jobs offering good wages offshore and you end up with (surprise, surprise) 8% or 9% or 10% or ??% unemployment. Further, no jobs and lower salaries beget lower tax revenues, dramatically higher US social costs and balooning deficits. The only ones who make out on offshoring are the 1 percenters who run companies that pay them big bonuses to destroy local employment. Yet these geniuses won't acknowledge and don't even see the harm that they are causing in the long term. (As long as they are profitable for the next quarter, the heck with everything and everyone else.)
Last time I checked the US had pretty much the largest/strongest economy in the world with more people having the desposable income to purchase the services and products offered by the very companies who have shipped their jobs off shore. Except because we're now shipping their jobs overseas these same US customers are not buying as much locally. So how do these offshoring companies maintain profits? Why by shipping even more jobs offshore! It's a vicious cycle and our burgeoning deficits clearly high light what the future holds for us if we continue on this path.
Henry Ford understood that by offering his employees good, living wages they would have the disposable income to buy his cars. And they did, and for a long, long time Ford was a supremely profitable enterprise. The bozos running US corporations today don't understand this (and the vast majority of them are surely NOT Henry Ford).
What we need to do to get this problem under control is to start boycotting companies that offshore jobs. They don't want to employ people locally, then we don't need what they are selling. I wonder how long we'd have to do that before we have smacked enough corporate executives across the forehead to get the message across that THEY are killing us here?
Ship enough middle class jobs offering good wages offshore and you end up with (surprise, surprise) 8% or 9% or 10% or ??% unemployment. Further, no jobs and lower salaries beget lower tax revenues, dramatically higher US social costs and balooning deficits. The only ones who make out on offshoring are the 1 percenters who run companies that pay them big bonuses to destroy local employment. Yet these geniuses won't acknowledge and don't even see the harm that they are causing in the long term. (As long as they are profitable for the next quarter, the heck with everything and everyone else.)
Last time I checked the US had pretty much the largest/strongest economy in the world with more people having the desposable income to purchase the services and products offered by the very companies who have shipped their jobs off shore. Except because we're now shipping their jobs overseas these same US customers are not buying as much locally. So how do these offshoring companies maintain profits? Why by shipping even more jobs offshore! It's a vicious cycle and our burgeoning deficits clearly high light what the future holds for us if we continue on this path.
Henry Ford understood that by offering his employees good, living wages they would have the disposable income to buy his cars. And they did, and for a long, long time Ford was a supremely profitable enterprise. The bozos running US corporations today don't understand this (and the vast majority of them are surely NOT Henry Ford).
What we need to do to get this problem under control is to start boycotting companies that offshore jobs. They don't want to employ people locally, then we don't need what they are selling. I wonder how long we'd have to do that before we have smacked enough corporate executives across the forehead to get the message across that THEY are killing us here?
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
