This news story will make you mad as @!$#

**Waldo2k2** · 05-01-2004

I don't want to get involved with any of the arguments going on right now, but I think outsourcing is wrong in any situation. It doesn't matter what country does it with what other country, it hurts the national economy. And that's wrong for a business person, especially in capitalist systems, to do. Self sufficiency is what drives a nation to succeed financially...relying heavily on outside resources, including jobs overseas, screws everything up. I don't see this guy as any kind of revolutionary figure...just another cut-throat out to ride the latest trend and make a quick buck, regardless of the little guy. Same as rockefeller and others did in the US in the early early part of the 20th century.

**novacain** · 05-01-2004

I want to add that I understand this must happen, but think the current globalisation model is flawed. A global economy is what must eventually happen if the world is to eliminate poverty ect. Something must be done but it must be more universal rather than confined to labor only.

Otherwise the equality of conditions we will all share is poverty, except for those who become ultra rich as a result.

All you have to do is look at banking to understand we don't have a true global economy.
If we did, I clould borrow money anywhere, credit is just another commodity like labor or goods.
That is I could borrow money in the US (1% cash rate) and invest it in Australia (4.5% cash rate) and never work again.

Here outsourcing is hitting both ways.
Many jobs are sent to India, even the 51% gov owned telecommunications company sent 450 R&D jobs to India (thats about the number of jobs available in my city per year).
But we get jobs from the UK, as we are paid the same amount but in Au$ not pounds (1:2.25), have available workers who speak technical/scientific level english and have a favourable time difference (we fix problems during/over the UK night).

**EvBladeRunnervE** · 05-03-2004

actually, I was looking at some charts in the recent Wired magazine, and even though the US exported ~100k tech jobs, we gained ~350k tech jobs, so net jobs = 350 -100 = 250k. I dont see the real problem with the Indians taking over our programming jobs as they tend to be better performers than their US counterparts; however, I have an aquaintance in China who says the Chinese tend to stay away from Indian programmers as Indians tend to put backdoors/trojans in all/most of their software(maybe Vasanth would like to clarify this).

**Waldo2k2** · 05-03-2004

does that mean that there are 25000 more people employed in tech jobs this year than last? I highly doubt it...just because the jobs have been created doesn't mean we actually have people filling the positions.

**EvBladeRunnervE** · 05-03-2004

if jobs are created, and people are not filling them, then that sort of defeats the argument that there are "tons of tech people unemployed" because one would then expect those jobs to immediately be filled if that were the case.

**SMurf** · 05-03-2004

Originally Posted by EvBladeRunnervE

...however, I have an aquaintance in China who says the Chinese tend to stay away from Indian programmers as Indians tend to put backdoors/trojans in all/most of their software(maybe Vasanth would like to clarify this).

Careful, you're verging on slander there...

I'm curious as to why they don't outsource executive jobs. I mean, from a labour point of view, couldn't they easily pay some dude in the Far East a few dollars an hour to do their job? They wouldn't need to fly them over to look at outsourcing deals either, as they live there, so a company could make HUGE savings.

What Western countries need to do is to fill a B52 with their best, fattest, most annoying trade union leaders and drop them over the Far East under the cover of darkness. They could infiltrate the work chain, make themselves out to be "obviously" more important than others (As usual) and before you know it, they'll have entire countries on strike until their workers are paid fairly (By Western standards). That way, it would cost roughly the same to have workers anywhere in the world and only then would anyone see what this buzzword "tax breaks" that seems to have been invented in this thread can really do.

**laserlight** · 05-03-2004

Well, it could be that the type of jobs created did not fit the scope of those who lost their jobs.

**Waldo2k2** · 05-03-2004

yeah, and jobs created could mean that there is a demand for x amount of people, but either A: the companies don't have the resources to hire B:like laserlight said C:don't believe everything that wired magazine says. If you think about it, would the market be as bad as it is, and all sorts of people be unemployed if there was such an influx of jobs? The answer simply is no. Either wired magazine is bs'ing, or they're using statistics they don't tell you the full story on.

**EvBladeRunnervE** · 05-03-2004

well, as I said before, it doesnt matter if foreigners take the jobs, IF they are more qualified than US counterparts(in most cases they are, excluding MIT/CMU/Stanford grads). The reason they dont export executive jobs that, believe it or not, there are fewer people with good business talent then there are people with good programming/tech skills, these people are hard to replace with foreigners because of the language barrier... not to mention the potential security risks many companies see in hiring foreign executives.

Careful, you're verging on slander there...

no, I am not, as I am stating that I have HEARD that they do it, not that they ARE doing it. It was no where close to slander.

EDIT: I have not been corrupted into believing a global economy, it's that IMHO tech jobs were way overpayed to begin with.

**CoderBob** · 05-03-2004

no, I am not, as I am stating that I have HEARD that they do it, not that they ARE doing it. It was no where close to slander.

That's not necessarily a defense against libel (slander is verbal, libel is written). Basically, what you are doing is spreading a rumor, and rumor-spreading in that fashion is not protected speech (because a statement of fact can be either "stated or implied" and what you have said contains an implication of a fact) assuming it meets the remaining criteria for libel (a false statement of fact made about a living person who is identifiable which tends to injure that persons reputation and which is published with the required level of fault). Now, you may have made a false statement, which I argue is a statement of fact. It is published -- published has a very open interpretation; you could get sued by "publishing" information to only a single source. (Newspapers have been sued for "publishing" internal memos to the FBI -- and lost.) It is about a person or persons who are alive. You might be protected by the fact that you are not making this claim about an identifiable person -- usually for someone to be identified it doesn't have to name the person; it can be about a group of people if it's small enough that one could reasonably believe that it's any of those individuals, in which case you effectively libel all of them. I believe you could defend yourself on these grounds.

**Waldo2k2** · 05-04-2004

he said something stupid and insensitive,
let's forget about it before this turns into a flame war

**EvBladeRunnervE** · 05-05-2004

It was neither stupid nor insensitive, I think people need to thoroughly investigate whoever is writing their programs, be it caucasian Americans, or Indians. The problem is that the US Corporations have yet to my knowledge ask any country that has dealt with certain colleges/companies of their ethical standards. Plus, it may be a cultural deal, such as the fact that many cultures view what we call "infringing on intellectual property rights" as actually honoring the people that own them as they are building upon someones ideas. That is the reason I was asking Vasanth to clarify(as who knows, it might of reached the local newspapers but wasnt deemed important enough for world wide news) as I know many Indians at my university, and most of them are upstanding individuals( and tend to beat the socks off of their US born-and-raised counterparts).

**DavidP** · 05-05-2004

Either wired magazine is bs'ing, or they're using statistics they don't tell you the full story on.

Yeah I bet there is information there that they are not revealing. For example, 250k jobs might have opened up, but maybe that is actually a lot lower than normal and they are not telling you that.

For example, maybe back 5 years ago it was the norm for 750k jobs to open up every year, but now it has steadily been decreasing as outsourcing increases.

That was just an example, not real.

**EvBladeRunnervE** · 05-05-2004

For example, maybe back 5 years ago it was the norm for 750k jobs to open up every year, but now it has steadily been decreasing as outsourcing increases.

yes, it might of been that high 5 years ago, but most people would agree that the tech industry's growth was unfounded both financially and in many cases companies didnt make a single penny of profit when their stock was soaring from the low 10s up to the 30s and 40s. So I would say that the current growth rate is what should be expected. Also , how does it hurt the US? We are paying people overseas wages that are extremely generous concerning the cost of living etc., and it actually grows the consumer market, as instead of only euros/americans being able to purchase technology, Indians and South East Asians can now purchase our goods. It is a win/win situation, except for the people that had their services over-valued and lost 80-90K dollar a year jobs.

**VirtualAce** · 05-05-2004

They aren't paying good salaries for those jobs overseas. That is the problem. The money flow is stopping at their company and as such it will come back to haunt them.

As far as the statement concerning qualifications...I believe your statement is too encompassing and not at all true in every instance.

Face it, we can spin it how we want...but some big wigs somewhere are making a killing off of it. Thats the plain and simple truth - its just about greed.