Why To Support Global Outsourcing

InformIT.com ^ | Oct 3, 2003 | Steve Fullmer

[Luis Gonzalez]

Longer article than most will read, and there are even keywords that FReepers react negatively to, but the information contained is important to anyone who truly wishes to understand the current "outsourcing" issue.

[The Duke]

Over the years I've learned to be particularly suspicious of anyone who takes too many words to make their point.

[Joe Bonforte]

This guy has it right, and it helps his credibility that he has no ax to grind, since he's vulnerable to out-sourcing himself.

To paraphrase what he said: those in the technology job market continuously lose value as technology evolves. The only remedy for that is continued and aggressive personal development. It doesn't matter whether the competition is from India or the technical school across town, expertise goes stale, and must be continuously upgraded.

Many (most?) of those who complain loudest had a cushy job at a good rate of pay for some extended period. That lead them to a static point of view - that they had some valuable skills that deserved a certain amount of money. But it doesn't matter how valuable skills are at any point in time - at some point in the not-too-distant future, those skills will be worth much less. Two factors here - (1) technology moves on, and (2) if something is in demand, more people learn how to do it, thereby increasing supply, thereby lowering price. Number 2 is Econ 101, and I'm surprised how many technologists seem ignorant of it.

It's easy to whine about jobs going overseas, but in fact the vast majority of technical jobs lost don't go anywhere. They are lost because of improved technology. This is good for the economny as a whole. Companies get their software done for less, so they can offer cheaper, better products, and consumers throughout the economy benefit. Conservatives ought to be happy about this, rather than whining about it.

I don't need a thirty person programming team to do enterprise systems anymore, because of the productivity of the tools and technlogies. What I do need are developers who stay abreast of the most important development technologies and concepts - object orientation, distributed data, the new generation of smart client systems, etc. I only need a third of what I used to need, but they have to be better at what they do.

Such folks don't have to worry about losing their livelihood. Their company may struggle, or reach a point in its evolution where it doesn't need so much software development, but the demand for top-flight development talent in my area is strong, and shows no signs of ever going away. I believe analytical skill combined with ability to keep with technology will be valuable for the indefinite future. Cranking out code will not.

Outsourcing is most appropriate for projects that simply need to crank out lots of code. That's low value-add work. It's also not appropriate, I believe, for the majority of mission-critical projects. Companies often find that out too late, in a misguided attempt to save money. They have a million-line monster that no one can maintain, instead of the 100,000 streamlined, tight version they needed. When that happens enough times, managers figure out the weaknesses of outsourcing overseas, and relegate it to the few places where it can be effective.

[Joe Bonforte]

Over the years I've learned to be particularly suspicious of anyone who takes too many words to make their point.

Over the years I've learned to be particularly suspicious of anyone who dismisses logical arguments with a facile remark.

[Willie Green]

Why To Support Global Outsourcing

Because both Dubya and Hillary Klinton want us to?

Treasury's Snow defends U.S. job outsourcing
Hillary Clinton stands up for Tatas, outsourcing

[Luis Gonzalez]

I guess you'll never learn to enjoy Cervantes or O. Henry.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Willie Green brings the boogeyman in!!!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Most people who complain about outsourcing costing Americans their jobs will make flight reservations on line (reservation centers in the US are shutting down due to the increase in online ticketing), use ATM's (banking jobs are diminishing), pay at the automated line at Home Depot (cashier job is gone), and will head for the Self-serve gas pump, even when full service is available.

[international american]

"Given a tight economy, limited cash, and a variety of sources, companies must consider every option that allows them to remain solvent and achieve their mission objective. Responsible companies consider the impacts and benefits to all stakeholders"

Yeah, right! I travel all over Asia..You mean shareholders...and the fact that all international (emanating from america)executives, get paid on quarterly results, mostly based on the stock market value at the given time. Their bonuses are equal to three times their salary, so the shrewed Wharton grads, and the Harvard Business dudes, whore the industry for short term profits.

I am a capitalist, and a conservative, but this has got to change. If we manufacture nothing, and produce Burger King franchises, where are we in deep trouble.

[Kay Soze]

Two restaurants serving the exact same menu on the same street, right next to each other.

All things being EQUAL the one that does not have to adhere to the rules and regs of the land will out perform the one that does.

And so it is with global sourcing.

Why does “outsourcing” the position of president from one party to another so distress us?

[katya8]

WHY OUTSOURCING SUCKS LEMONS:

I will never shop at Circuit City again.

I got 2 different Indian guys (yes, I asked them and they told me) on the phone and neither one of them spoke enough English so I could understand them.

I cancelled my order.

Later, I realized that our credit card numbers are outsourced too, and I hereby predict that it won't be long before terrorist attacks will arrive in the form of people in other countries using them!!!

[Willie Green]

Willie Green brings the boogeyman in!!!

Well, I suppose if you're referring to Dubya,
that would make the Hildebeast a boogeywoman.

[Joe Bonforte]

Most people who complain about outsourcing costing Americans their jobs will make flight reservations on line (reservation centers in the US are shutting down due to the increase in online ticketing), use ATM's (banking jobs are diminishing), pay at the automated line at Home Depot (cashier job is gone), and will head for the Self-serve gas pump, even when full service is available.

And many will shop at discount stores, paying the lowest price they can find for whatever they buy, which often means something imported from China.

(I don't, though. The quality of Chinese stuff sucks. But I do buy Japenese vehicles because I think they are a better value than American equivalents.)

[xlib]

ping for later

[Shermy]

This guy has it right, and it helps his credibility that he has no ax to grind, since he's vulnerable to out-sourcing himself.

He didn't say he faces outsourcing.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

You cannot convince an unemployed person it is in his best interest to be out of work. It is a preposterous notion. Fortunately, voters will act in their own self-interest as their jobs disappear.

It is also nonsense that steps cannot be taken to require fair rules of competition. If China wants to manufacture and sell products to America, American products must be allowed to be sold in China. The Chinese government, and India, have serious restrictions on such American imports.

The idea of a person continuing to retool himself for a disappearing universe of opportunities is nonsense. Most skills take quite a while to acquire. It is a sucker's choice to train for the skills required for new employment opportunities if those opportunities disappear faster than the rate at which you can train.

There are hundreds of millions of more poor people in the world than there are middle class workers in the United States. If all work is outsourced, we will eventually have the same standard of living as Bangladesh.

Worse, without strong domestic manufacturing, we cannot even defend ourselves.

[NonValueAdded]

Joe, do you realize in the 50's and 60's the same thing was said about Japanese products, that the quality sucked, that they were cheap crap? They were learning and then they got it right and now you talk about the virtues of Japanese vehicles.

[TopQuark]

Willie Green is a unionist plant on FR who uses it for propaganda and "educating" us in the right (leftist) ways.

[Shermy]

The most personal criticism of outsourcing is that it takes away jobs from us hard-working Americans. However, job displacement cannot be blamed solely, or even primarily, on outsourcing. As product and service lifecycles evolve,...”

Argument by deflection. Redirect focus from argument about outsourcing to other matters that might have some ascribed similar affect. Simply, so what? It’s a senseless comparison to detract.

Continued employment requires personal development. It always has. Even without outsourcing, IT employees must learn new skills. They compete with recent college graduates,

Same argumentative technique, deflection. This guy is actively mischievious.

From a job competition perspective, outsourcing is merely one more source of lower cost resources.

Oh, he knows the argument here! Outsoucing, ie labor, is just one cost. That is, it’s independent of taxes, regulations, unions, etc., all the bugaboos often trotted out to deflect direct attention from outsourcing itself.

Many arguments against overseas outsourcing revolve around loss of income, or income opportunity -- that is, what about my job?

Income opportunity theory...won’t be addressed accept for an appeal to guilt about self-interest. What about other Americans’ jobs?

Unless companies can stimulate the economy through their efforts, they will not have the money to offer more jobs.

Senseless. Outsourcing doesn’t stimulate the economy. Aren’t there numerous ways anyway? He supposes it’s the only one...typical tactic in these type of articles.

Expanding markets mean more income, and thus more jobs.

Outsourcing as “expanding markets.” False.

I concede that some corporate managers may become rich at the expense of their (former) employees. That is an issue related to distribution of wealth, and cannot be blamed on outsourcing.

This is one of the most non-sensical arguments in this piece. Why can’t it be blamed on outsourcing insomuch as outsourcing is the cause?

If management is predisposed to personal gain at any cost, they will explore each new promising opportunity.

Weird. What “cost?”

Or, to put it another way, unethical companies will always find a way to cheat their employees.

So?

Expanded trade requires the development of new markets, new trade items, and an exchange of knowledge, service and commodities. Trust develops through the exchange of knowledge, and true partnerships are formed. Such partnerships survive through periods of external challenge, and diversify the risk.

This guy is chock full of platitudes. What on earth do “new markets” have to do with outsourcing? Outsourcing telephone operators does nothing for America or Americans except for a few short term profits for a few.

Exporting jobs helps to create a balanced global audience.

Ah, now the corporate left arguments start. America doesn’t deserve what it has, and shouldn’t keep it.

The need to export is particularly true of the technology sector, because the United States is the leader in technological advances. This offers the greatest bargaining power, which equates to greater gains.

This is hilarious! His hint about “bargaining power” it a tip of the hat to arguments about reciprocal trade treaties - we let you take our telephone operator jobs, you must give us “x” and open up “y”. This is NOT free trade, and is anti-thetical to everything else he’s argued here.

Etc., etc. with the left-wing corporate arguments. Such a deceptive piece.

[TopQuark]

You write like Pat Buchanan: start with something meaningful, and then with an abrupr clause that does not follow from anything.

All things being EQUAL the one that does not have to adhere to the rules and regs of the land will out perform the one that does.

And so it is with global sourcing.

First, silly, such things are NOT subject to "other things being equal:" such two restaurants would not (i) be allowed to exist if detected from the start, and (ii) remain undetected for long.

More importantly, the second sentence seem to have no relation to, and certainly not implied by, the first.

Why does “outsourcing” the position of president from one party to another so distress us?

Because this has nothing to do with outsourcing. You do not seem to have a clue what it is, and use it as a synonym for "change." It is not.