no one has addressed the snowball effect of outsourcing American jobs to India! Gartner, inc. has estimated that by the end of THIS year 1 out of every 10 U.S technology jobs will be sent to India. I am all for India making money but my vote will be for the candidate who can keep my job here! Gig'em Ags!
Yes yes, while there were plenty of big coorperations hiring indians, it was about a 6 month stint before Americans got so outraged at talking to people who didn't speak english, that the jobs started coming back to America. I don't know where your getting the 1 out of 10 figure, it's just not true. and some stuff needs to be in other countries, IE: car part manufacturers, clothing, too cheap to make here, illigals are good for farmers who hardly make any money as it is unless they sell out, who else can you hire at 2.00 or less an hour? no americans want to chop cotton!!! :)
When most of these companies outsource their customer service operators to India they sign multi-year contracts. So if people get fed up, tough shit.
UPS did it. Dell did it. Soon all companies will do it.
I'm a big fan of the outsourcing of prison labor. That way when people start whining about being unemployed there's an easy solution: kill someone. You'll go to jail where a great corporate job awaits.
actually, Americans are just too lazy to do it themselves. people out of work won't get off their high horses and actually do some manual labor. americans have this cloudy ideal of what a job is supposed to be, white collar jobs for the most part. anyways, your place in society rests on the fact that they are willing to work hard and support their families. would you be willing to do that?
How exectly would govt stop companies from implementing business plans that are more profitable?
I understand that losing your job to some guy in India who will do it for $.85 / hr sucks big time. But doesn't the company have a responsibility to it's shareholders to increase profitability? If the tactic costs them customers because the customers are put-off by foreign voices on the phone, then it's not a good business plan. But if it works, why should govt step in to protect jobs? Maybe govt should step in and subsidize tech jobs just like farmers.
Michael Moore had the best argument against the old "a corporation's only obligation is to its shareholders" argument.
I'm not saying I agree with him, it's just the best argument against I've seen.
I think the ball's in our court. If you hate the practice, refuse to have any dealings with companies that use it. If enough people do it, the big evil corps will sing a different song pretty damn quickly.
"You're smarter than that." doesn't refute the argument.
Basically, if a company's only obligation is to make a profit for it's shareholders, then you can't expect that company to do what is right for the community.
So if a company must do whatever it takes to generate profits, someone needs to police them to make sure they don't cross the line. With their admitted obligations to their shareholders, you can't expect said companies, or the market, to be a logical choice of watchdog.
The kiddie porn and crack analogies are specious in that both are patently illegal and are a bad business model. You can't keep making money for the shareholders when the FBI has locked your doors.
So, those companies are policed by the laws. As well as their stockholders. They have to not only make a profit but implement a business plan that is going to work over the long term.
If some software manufacturer decides to outsource jobs to india, and the product (actual software or support) is lessened, then the market will look for alternatives. I make purchasing decisions at my job every day and I always analyse the product for it's entire lifecycle, that includes the support I can expect to recieve from the vendor.
I just don't think protectionist legislation (as a rule) is a reasonable solution to the overriding jobs issue. Does it make sense for us to pay an inflated price for steel products because we are trying to keep steelworkers employed in an industry that failed to moderize? The Japanese revolutionized the industry, but our entire country pays too much for steel just to keep a small sector of workers employed. Which, in turn, gives US Steel manufacturers absolutely no reason to modernize.
So you use protectionist legistlature as an argument against protectionist legistlature?
The entire argument was on whether or not the government should regulate outsourcing, but crack is not a good example because the government has regulated its sale?
There is a whopping difference between opting against an industry that has refused to advance and taking advantage of the cheap labor of impoverished nations.
I'm sure your tune would change drastically if your company decided your job could be done cheaper by someone in Indonesia. Do honestly think you would say, "Well, their first obligation was to their shareholders. It's my own fault for not wanting to work for $.15 an hour. Let the market decide."
I've been laid off before for cheaper labor. It didn't change my tune at all. The fact that my industry was changing was the reason that cheaper labor was able to perform the job at a satisfoactory level. I felt that it was unsatisfactory, but I wasn't buying the product. In the end, the company was victomized by their own lack of foresight. They alienated their customer base, and went broke when their competition had a more costly business moedel but maintained quality. The industry changed nontheless, and I went back to school to get a more meaningful education.
So, give me a reason to regulate companies outsourcing tech jobs again...
I actually don't care at all. I was just stating the argument for the other side. I do think the end result is an American job market where we are all lucky to make minimum wage -- all in the name of maximazing corporate profits. And, the white collar crowd is stupid if they think their cushy jobs will be sacrosanct when it all comes down.
I've chosen to have no children, and I don't see the long term repercussions affecting me in my lifetime.
So fuck 'em. Outsource everything. As long as I get my widgets $.50 cheaper, I'm happy.
The reason to regulate companies from outsourcing jobs is implied in the above thread.
The government (theoretically) exists to protect the interests of the community - not just the shareholders of some company. It is not in the best interests of mainstream American laborers to have to compete against workers in 3rd world economies.
However, since our country is run by corporate interests, this will never happen, so it is a moot point for discussion.
Instead, the more constructive response to the problem is to provide training to our labor force so that it can move up to jobs that cannot be outsourced (in other words, make our labor force more qualified than any other labor force, to handle increasingly hi-level jobs).
This will require funding - funding that is currently being siphoned off in tax cuts to the rich.
I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with comunism, but when a government comes in and have to control what a company does with its assets, and regulates wheather or not they can outsource, sounds like leaning on the former USSR's model of controling their companies... maybe I'm wrong, and if so, please show me where I'm lost, but I belive in a free market, and imposeing more and more restrictions is not the way to go.
