Outsourcing - who's been affected?

[LuvToFly 0]

Although this is a computer geek question, it's open to any -

Have you been affected, either directly or indirectly by the trend to outsource, particularly to off-shore service organizations, etc?

And if so, how many jobs have you seen go because of that?

Seems that there are just too many people being dumped by this practice that seems to have clear roots in greed - although I only say that because in the corporate instances of this practice I have known first hand - the money "saved" funded increasing raises and retention bonuses for the uppermost - while the less senior crowd got their jobs displaced.

Anyone else ticked off about this?

"The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment
of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

[CrazyIvan 0]

HA!

__________________________________________
Blue Skies and May the Force be with you.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Although this is a computer geek question, it's open to any -

Have you been affected, either directly or indirectly by the trend to outsource, particularly to off-shore service organizations, etc?

And if so, how many jobs have you seen go because of that?

Seems that there are just too many people being dumped by this practice that seems to have clear roots in greed - although I only say that because in the corporate instances of this practice I have known first hand - the money "saved" funded increasing raises and retention bonuses for the uppermost - while the less senior crowd got their jobs displaced.

Anyone else ticked off about this?

While not an answer to your question, I do think it odd that some of the vocal Bush supporters on DZ.COM are also among the unemployed.

It's odd given that 3 million US jobs have been lost during Bush's administration despite his promises to increase employment (as recently as Feb 2003 he promised 1.7M new jobs in '03 - a hollow promise as it turns out).

Anyway, Bush supports outsourcing (see President's Economic Report to the Nation, Feb 2004).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,116]

My brother in law may lose his job to an Indian outsource. We haven't done much outsourcing of work here at my company, although we do often go overseas for parts (chargers, batteries etc.)

>although I only say that because in the corporate instances of this
> practice I have known first hand - the money "saved" funded
> increasing raises and retention bonuses for the uppermost - while
> the less senior crowd got their jobs displaced.

>Anyone else ticked off about this?

Companies that _don't_ do this go out of business. No one would buy a car made only of US materials in US factories by US workers; it would just plain cost too much. As a side effect it raises the living standards in other formerly-impoverished countries, which reduces the amount of aid they need.

[PhillyKev 0]

I don't have a problem with companies outsourcing provided they have to pay taxes to offset their economic advantage over companies that employ US workers.

[LuvToFly 0]

Quote

Companies that _don't_ do this go out of business. No one would buy a car made only of US materials in US factories by US workers; it would just plain cost too much. As a side effect it raises the living standards in other formerly-impoverished countries, which reduces the amount of aid they need.

Bill,

Definately want companies to survive, but unfortunately, that is the same kind of reasoning that is put forth by those wanting to participate in the corporate greed plan.

While there is no political motivation in the question, I think it may be misleading to point to the government (another poster). The problem exists in the people - the greed I speak of gets accumulated as people who have worked for companies faithfully for years and years get tossed aside WHILE substantial raises are voted to the upper most eschelons in the corporation. It is this indiscretion of which I refer - and that is not a political problem really - it is a human one.

Much harder to solve.

Of course not saying this applies to all corporations - but too many have gone this way as is evidenced by the hordes of displaced people on the unemployment lines (if they are lucky). The fact is, some of these folks are there not because the company did not have the money to pay them, but because their departure funded someone else's fortune at a higher level.

At a company I worked for at one time (a fortune 500 corporation) the execs cut tons of workforce (I survived that cut), and after they were gone and the dust settled, they voted themselves a 50% increase in pay. Execs that were making $500,000 were now making $750,000, and folks making $1,000,000 were now making 1.5 mi. Seen too many good people go out the door in this climate of greed.

But perhaps most important, the entire outsourcing idea is badly flawed, particulary when it comes to is it cheaper:

Of all the IT folks I know, most will just about kill themselves to solve a problem, go the extra mile, keep a system running, etc - because they have stake in the technology - but it's also important to them. This may mean a lot of extra hours worked voluntarily over the course of a year. This is never calculated by the bean counters when an outsourcing event is adopted because they many times don't understand the level of dedication of the tech. The outsourcing company (whose contracts I have had to review) have strick rules and want extra money for everything over and above. This particular company ended up spending 1.5 million dollars more than it would have cost to keep the employees - but they kept their raises - and that's just wrong - at least in my book. (Oh they also kept their jobs - can you imagine making a screw up like that??)

Perhaps this is more relevant to IT Outsourcing - which is the kind this question is chiefly about.

"The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment
of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

[bill2 0]

I was dumped Feb 2003 from a software company, and my job and a lot of others went/have been going to India, and some to Vancouver. Also, it's hard to say that they're saving money when the top execs take huge amounts of money for themselves. They could save more money just by not taking such huge bonuses and stock options.
And as for Bush voters being screwed by Bush as though he is sending jobs overseas, well, this practice has been going on for awhile, started by Democrats. It's now becoming an election year issue since it's white collar workers losing their jobs. Many of the CEO's here in Silicon Valley are very much a Democrat, and have no problem sending jobs overseas. The reality is that it's not a liberal or conservative thing, just greedy executives (and yes Bill Von - I agree that sometimes they save money, but many times they just piss off customers) who want more than their fair share, and shit on on workers.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

It's odd given that 3 million US jobs have been lost during Bush's administration despite his promises to increase employment (as recently as Feb 2003 he promised 1.7M new jobs in '03 - a hollow promise as it turns out).

Bush withdrew his support for the "2.6mil jobs created this year" yesterday - it was on AP News. Esp after a member of his staff said that outsourcing jobs is good for our economy!

Having lost 3 IT jobs in the last 4 years, I can say that I don't agree with them. I had to leave the IT industry to gain employment again. Now I am in a new area, feeling like a newbie again and a very concerned on my future in this field.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[PhillyKev 0]

Yes, Clinton started it (which always amuses me when people point out how partisan he was considering it was a republican initiative), however, Bush plans to expand it immensely.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Bush withdrew his support for the "2.6mil jobs created this year" yesterday

Rather interesting way to phrase the fact that documents signed by him made that projection in December and now he is back peddling. Who knows, maybe he's going to actually try to start being honest.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

Bush withdrew his support for the "2.6mil jobs created this year" yesterday

Rather interesting way to phrase the fact that documents signed by him made that projection in December and now he is back peddling. Who knows, maybe he's going to actually try to start being honest.

IIRC he quoted that number in the State of the Union as well.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[billvon 3,116]

>Definately want companies to survive, but unfortunately, that is the
> same kind of reasoning that is put forth by those wanting to
> participate in the corporate greed plan.

Companies follow the corporate greed plan because consumers follow personal greed plans. They buy whatever product gives them the most for the least money, not the product that employs most americans. Since they drive the economy, companies can choose to compete (i.e. build the best widget for the least money) or they can choose to not compete, in which case they go out of business. The only exception to that rule are companies that have government-protected monopolies on a product, such as patented processes or devices.

Capitalism is driven by greed. That's simply the way our system works. It's not good or bad, it just is.

> The problem exists in the people - the greed I speak of gets
> accumulated as people who have worked for companies faithfully for
> years and years get tossed aside WHILE substantial raises are
> voted to the upper most eschelons in the corporation. It is this
> indiscretion of which I refer - and that is not a political problem
> really - it is a human one.

I agree, but that problem is not limited to companies that outsource. You can bet that as soon as even a US car manufacturer can replace ten workers with a welding robot, they do it. The alternative is to lose market share and have to lay off a thousand people because none of the "greedy consumers" are buying their more-expensive car, built with 100% human labor. Management's fault, or the fault of the consumer? Who is more 'evil', the manager who buys the robot and lays off 10 people, or the manager who doesn't and has to lay off 1000?

>Of all the IT folks I know, most will just about kill themselves to
>solve a problem, go the extra mile, keep a system running, etc -
> because they have stake in the technology - but it's also important
> to them. This may mean a lot of extra hours worked voluntarily over
> the course of a year.

Agreed.

>This is never calculated by the bean counters when an outsourcing
> event is adopted because they many times don't understand the
> level of dedication of the tech.

Companies that cannot evaluate the relative worths of their workers go out of business very quickly, thus ending the problem. It's not fair to the workers at that company, but capitalism is not inherently fair. Eventually only the better companies, the companies who can retain good people _and_ cut their costs, survive.

For this system to work, the workers have to participate as well. Workers have to make themselves as useful as possible to the company, and that means taking courses, seminars, learning new operating systems etc. Once they do that, they have to be willing to quit a company that mistreats them and find one that treats them better (easier once you have the skill set from all those courses.) If many workers do this, the bad companies fold and the good companies, the ones that treat their employees well, prosper.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

If many workers do this, the bad companies fold

...or hire workers in other countries that aren't allowed to participate in collective bargaining.

[billvon 3,116]

>...or hire workers in other countries that aren't allowed to participate
>in collective bargaining.

You can quit a company that treats you poorly whether or not you belong to a union. Indeed, that works a lot better, since people quit when they are mistreated rather than when the union decides that the average worker should make more money.

Case in point - we've had a supermarket strike for about six months out here now, due to a salary dispute. It's affected four major chains. The primary effect has been to drive workers to Wal-Mart superstores, where employees are treated much more shabbily. Good or bad for food-store workers?

[indyz 1]

Quote

...or hire workers in other countries that aren't allowed to participate in collective bargaining.

India permits unions and collective bargaining. There was a pretty good interview with Indian tech workers on Slashdot a couple of days ago. Recommended reading.

[happythoughts 0]

On 60 minutes, it was stated that the average Indian software worker makes 1/6th his US counterpart. Are you willing to take 1/6th of your wage to keep your job? 4 years of college and 10 years of experience to make $15K a year?

"All politics is local." The engineer teaching VLSI at Univ of S. Fl is Indian. Who do you think his grad students are? Six years from now, MIT grads are going to wonder where their jobs are. The engineering jobs are next.

[CrazyIvan 0]

Quote

On 60 minutes, it was stated that the average Indian software worker makes 1/6th his US counterpart. Are you willing to take 1/6th of your wage to keep your job? 4 years of college and 10 years of experience to make $15K a year?

"All politics is local." The engineer teaching VLSI at Univ of S. Fl is Indian. Who do you think his grad students are? Six years from now, MIT grads are going to wonder where their jobs are. The engineering jobs are next.

I'd work for 15K/year but NOT in IT.

__________________________________________
Blue Skies and May the Force be with you.

[billvon 3,116]

> Are you willing to take 1/6th of your wage to keep your job? 4 years
>of college and 10 years of experience to make $15K a year?

Nope. I would quit and get a job at a company that paid better.

>Six years from now, MIT grads are going to wonder where their jobs
>are. The engineering jobs are next.

Six years from now, the economy in India is going to be so much better (due to massive infusions of US cash) that their salaries are going to rise by a factor of 4. That's the way it works; when companies pump money into an area, the standard of living goes up and people demand more money. The companies continue to pay it because it's still cheaper than hiring a US employee.

So your question becomes - in six years, will I be willing to take a 30% pay cut? Yep, if I like the company otherwise. Heck, my salary has been going up a lot more than 30% every six years; if it leveled out here it wouldn't bother me.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Six years from now, the economy in India is going to be so much better (due to massive infusions of US cash) that their salaries are going to rise by a factor of 4. That's the way it works; when companies pump money into an area, the standard of living goes up and people demand more money. The companies continue to pay it because it's still cheaper than hiring a US employee.

No, then the companies pick another country to outsource too. IT has been getting outsourced for years, first to Canada, then salaries went up, then Ireland was big for a while, then salaries went up, not they're moving to India. Guess what happened to all those US, Canadian, and Irish IT workers?

[indyz 1]

Quote

then salaries went up, not they're moving to India.

And they are already starting to move from India to the Phillipines.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

So your question becomes - in six years, will I be willing to take a 30% pay cut? Yep, if I like the company otherwise. Heck, my salary has been going up a lot more than 30% every six years; if it leveled out here it wouldn't bother me.

And what happens if they just decide to send the work to another country? And there's no more work to be found in that field? And you're 50 years old with 4 kids?

[billvon 3,116]

>No, then the companies pick another country to outsource too.

Not really. They're not going to outsource their WinCE designs to Haiti. Few people in Haiti can do WinCE designs. If Haiti gets a good college, produces good electrical engineers, and gets a reputation? Then companies might start hiring. After a few years, the standard of living will go up and they will expect more money. It's a cycle that's repeated itself dozens of times. Look at Japan and Hong Kong.

>Guess what happened to all those US, Canadian, and Irish IT workers?

The Irish engineers I know are doing very, very well. The "Celtic Tiger" they call it.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The Irish engineers I know are doing very, very well.

Yeah, and there's no unemployment problem because GWB doesn't know anyone who's unemployed.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Nope. I would quit and get a job at a company that paid better.

Where? That is my point. What type of engineer can compete with a wage of $15K? The wages of textile workers haven't come up in Thailand, have they? Are we making Nike shoes in North Carolina again? No one wants to make $1 an hour here.

The chairman of the Univ of S Fla Comp Sci & Eng dept is Ranga Kasturi.

Mechanical Eng chair is Rajiv Dubey.

Elec Eng staff? Huseyin Arslan, Sanjukta Bhanja,
Shekhar Bhansali, Vijay Jain.

California is known to be a 50% higher in salaries than Florida.

If it weren't for quota protections, there wouldn't be one car made in the US. There are no protections for engineers.

[billvon 3,116]

>And what happens if they just decide to send the work to another
> country? And there's no more work to be found in that field? And
> you're 50 years old with 4 kids?

Then I chose the wrong field. There are no guarantees. Heck, there's a chance that portable wireless devices will go out of style, we'll switch from semiconductor power supplies back to big iron transformers, and they'll abandon microprocessors in favor of mechanical clockwork devices - in which case I'm probably out of a job. My fault, I took the gamble that microcontroller and power supply design would be a good field to be in.

And if I find I really need the money? Surgery still pays pretty well; I can raise all those kids while Amy brings home the bacon.

It's capitalism. You can win big and you can lose big. Knowing how not to be a loser in the job game is a skill people need to acquire, like anything else. Most people do that by getting educations and experience in profitable trades, like engineering, medicine, banking etc. Even when they do that, sometimes people lose. That's how our system works.