Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature
How to bring offshored jobs back to the US
By Robin 'Roblimo' Miller
on
March 12, 2004 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
Complaints about offshoring IT jobs reverberate daily through the halls of America's software development community. The complaints are not markedly different from those once made by manufacturing workers, except that manufacturing workers were urged to upgrade their skills and move into the IT industry, and now that "skilled work" is leaving the US, there is no clear career upgrade path left for most of us. But there is a way we can bring "lost" jobs back to the U.S. without any direct legislation, and the Bush administration has already taken the first steps to implement this program, even though it may be doing it by accident.
Before we begin, let's lay down four basic postulates:
Right now the Indian, Chinese, and Filipino dogs are eating the American dogs, with Russian, Pakistani, and other packs sniffing around the edges, trying to get a bite or two for themselves.
The big advantage Indian dogs have over American dogs right now is that they can live on a lot less money, because living costs in India are far lower than in the U.S. And Chinese dogs can live on less than Indian dogs, so in the long term work may go there rather than India, which scares the Indians no end.
The problem is that all these dogs are trying to eat from the American trough, and if foreign dogs eat from it but American dogs have no jobs and can't keep replenishing that trough, soon it will be empty for everyone.
In formal economic terms, we're talking about the U.S. trade deficit, which grows every year. It's nice for Americans to be able to buy $300 PCs and $39 cordless phones because the people who make those items in China and elsewhere are paid below-starvation wages by US standards, but the flip side of this is that the money U.S. residents currently use to buy those phones and PCs is going out of the U.S. much faster than money is coming into the U.S., so the current world trade system's dependence on a strong U.S. economy can't go on forever.
Putting inflation in the bank
The US government and most of its corporate and individual residents are accumulating more debt every year. This puts short-term smiles on the faces of all the workers around the world whose products and services are sold to U.S. markets, because they are the ones getting the borrowed money. Many of them don't seem to realize that most of the products and services they supply to the U.S. are not essential; that sooner or later U.S. residents (and the U.S. government) will need to pay back some of their debts, and that when they are using their income to pay off loans they will be forced to keep their old computers and cordless phones and stereos longer instead of buying new ones whenever they want.
Average hourly wages for American workers are not going up. The only way we are able to maintain our current standard of living is by working more hours per family than people in most of the world. Two-income households have become our norm, not an exception. Two-income households, with one of the producers often working 60 to 80 hours per week, can afford houses with four bedrooms and two bathrooms, can buy a new car every two years (on credit), and load shopping carts at discount stores with clothes, toys, digital cameras, appliances, and other goods every week or two (as long as their credit cards aren't maxed out).
Now take away one of those two jobs -- or replace it with a job that pays less -- in 20% of American families. Suddenly sales of non-essential goods drop, not only among the families that have lost some of their income, but among families that know others whose incomes have dropped and are afraid to spend because they're worried that one of their jobs may also disappear (or be replaced by a new job that doesn't pay as much as the old one).
People will keep buying food, but may buy fewer "convenience" foods such as microwavable meals, and will spend less in fast-food outlets and restaurants. They'll tend to keep clothes until they wear out instead of buying new ones to keep up with fashion trends. They'll be less likely to buy four-bedroom, two-bath houses -- and may even try to sell the ones they already own and buy more humble dwellings -- thereby slowing the housing market, which will cut sales of building supplies and construction tools, and cause layoffs among construction workers.
Just as the US economy is supposedly in "jobless recovery" mode at the moment, it could easily slip back into "no-job-loss recession mode" and severely cut imports.
The reason job losses in a new recession might not show up strongly in official statistics is that officialdom only counts people actively looking for work as "unemployed," and if half a couple decides to stay home with the kids instead of looking for work, that person is not "unemployed" in any way our government currently notices -- nor is the person who is laid off from a programming job and takes a job as a bus driver for half his former salary.
Everything I've just described is starting to happen in the U.S., a little at a time. And our government has decided to cut taxes without a corresponding cut in spending, which means it's borrowing more than it ever has, just as U.S. residents have been spending borrowed money.
Governments usually pay back excessive debt through either repudiation or inflation. Repudiation usually takes a coup first, so the new leaders can say, "We didn't run up the debts. They aren't our problem. If you want to collect, go after the old leaders, who probably stole most of the money anyway." A coup or other violent change of regime is unlikely in the U.S., so we'll almost certainly end up taking the inflation route. At some point, when government debt gets high enough, it's politically irresistible to cut the value of a country's currency so that old debts can be paid off at a substantial discount. This route is especially attractive to the U.S., because most of our foreign debt is in dollars, not in another currency, so we can get away with discounting our currency more easily than most countries.
The funny thing is, the U.S. is seeing its currency lose value against other major currencies already, and this trend is likely to increase without any government action. When a government borrows massive quantities of money to keep inflation in check, it doesn't really stop inflation but just puts it off. It puts inflation in the bank, so to speak. And sooner or later that inflation will be withdrawn from the bank -- with interest -- by overseas creditors. Indeed, this has already started. Look at the multi-year downward trend in these charts that track the dollar as a commodity, and the trend is obvious.
A weaker dollar means more U.S. jobs
At the moment this was written, the "mid-market" rupee:dollar (Rs:$) exchange rate was about 45:1. Let's imagine the dollar dropping to the point where that ratio is 30:1. Suddenly an Indian programmer who is paid $12,000 in US dollars gets a 50% "raise" to $18,000 -- without improving his skills or working harder. His standard of living won't go up 50% because the whole population of India has gotten the same "raise," including the programmer's $35/month live-in maid, who now gets $52.50/week. But both programmer and maid will be able to buy more goods from the U.S., and from countries whose currencies are "tied" to the dollar in some way, so their standard of living will still go up at least a little bit.
The only problem with this rosy scenario (for the Indians) is that the Indian programmer is suddenly less competitive with an American one. If he's working for a typical offshore contractor, his services are being marked up by a considerable amount, and the actual user of his services is probably now paying at least $24,000 per year for his time -- plus benefits. Suddenly he's not much of a bargain to an American company. In much of the U.S., $24,000 is a living wage. It won't buy a new car every two years and a four-bedroom, two-bath home, but it will buy a used car every three years and a three-bedroom, one-bath house trailer, and generally support a family of four that cooks from scratch instead of living on prepared meals and fast-food junk, doesn't need a fancy wardrobe, and is otherwise thrifty. Add a second income to that household -- even a part-time Wal-Mart one worth $6,000 per year -- and this theoretical programmer's family is getting by okay, possibly even putting a few dollars away every month.
Meanwhile, the Indian programmer is out of work. So is his maid.
This scenario is somewhat melodramatic. Large countries' currency shifts aren't usually that abrupt. But over a 10 year span a 30% or even 50% less valuable dollar is entirely plausible, even likely. This will give U.S. auto manufacturers an almost unbeatable price advantage over foreign competitors. Suddenly it might not pay to assemble computers in Korea instead of Kansas or to make microprocessors in Taiwan instead of Texas, and it will make some of our big exporters' products more palatable than their foreign competitors' in world markets. (Boeing vs. Airbus is a prime example.)
The downside is that the made-in-China blender that now costs $15 at the discount store will cost $30, the low-end laptop will cost $1,499, not $799, the "$9.95 Shoe Store" will need to change its sign to read "$19.95," and a Hyundai will cost as much as a Cadillac.
A cheaper dollar, in a general sense, means we trade low-cost imports for a more competitive stance for our home-grown products and services both here and abroad. Vacationing in Europe will cost us more than going to New York, so we'll be more likely to spend money there than to spend it in Paris, which will make New York hotel and restaurant employees cheer while Parisian tourist industry workers sulk -- and deepen their sulks when they find that Europeans who otherwise might have vacationed in Paris have decided instead to take advantage of a discounted America by going to Florida instead.
But oil prices will shoot up. With a cheaper dollar we will not be able to keep driving our Hummers and 200-horsepower sportfishing boats. Right now oil is internationally priced in dollars, but if the dollar becomes "unstable" either by conscious choice of the U.S. government or because of international currency fluctuations, oil pricing could shift to euros instead. This could mark the end of the dollar as the world's dominant currency, the one to which most others are pegged, and that could lead to higher interest rates for U.S. government bonds, and higher interest rates in general, which means plenty of inflation.
Inflation means higher interest rates
Imagine 10% inflation. To net 5% banks and other lends need to charge 15%, and to net the 20% some of the less honorable credit card lenders like to see, they'd charge 30% -- or even more. Home values would plunge as the average monthly payment per thousand dollars of mortgage rose, which would nearly kill new construction. Maybe slowing our current trend toward ever-larger, more-expensive dwelling units would be good, and there is no question that plenty of existing four-bedroom, two-bath suburban houses would make perfectly serviceable duplex apartments. But then you need to deal with all the construction workers who suddenly have no jobs, and if McDonald's and other traditional employers of unskilled workers aren't hiring, they are going to be unemployed until or unless our manufacturing sector cranks up to take advantage of the dollar devaluation that will make it less expensive to produce physical goods in America than elsewhere. You can be assured, though, that a combination of a lower dollar and higher interest rates will lead to plenty of "painful readjustment" for workers in some industries.
Inflation benefits those who own houses or other real estates and have fixed-rate mortgages (or no mortgages); their housing costs only go up a little as property taxes rise, while renters and owners with adjustable-rate mortgages see annual increases that mirror the inflation rate. Salaries will go up with inflation, no doubt, but they never quite seem to catch up, and people on fixed incomes -- think Social Security -- will be in rough shape unless their payments are "indexed" to the rate of inflation, which is going to be very hard to pull off as the "baby boom" crowd starts retiring and the ratio of social security recipients to workers grows.
Inflation also leads to social instability. People who save get antsy as they watch the value of their savings drop. People who invest get angry as they pay taxes on their investment income even if that "income" is barely keeping pace with inflation. Politicians get blamed, and a "throw the bums out" mentality becomes common. Some countries react with riots, some with military coups -- and for the first time in U.S. history, we have an all-volunteer military that is large and well-armed enough to do a government takeover if it wanted to. (Before the Cold War, our "peacetime" military was generally small and underfunded. Back then we were an essentially isolationist nation that tried to stay out of foreign entanglements as much as possible, aside from the odd Marine invasion of a wayward Latin American country whose leaders irritated us, and when we "went to war" we relied on draftees -- and demobilized most of our servicemen and women after the war was over.)
Are you sure you'd rather "protect American programmers' jobs," considering the alternatives?
Most protectionist economic scenarios will lead to some or all of the dollar devaluation and inflation problems I've outlined. Whether they are "problems" may be open to debate. Perhaps a well-managed "soft landing" for the dollar on international currency markets would help make the U.S. economy more vital and more self-sufficient, and turn our country into a net exporter again.
Workers in easily-moved service industries, like programmers and other IT personnel, would be some of a dollar devaluation's first and most obvious beneficiaries.
But the phrases "well-managed" and "soft landing" are what make this concept dubious. Our government does not have a very good track record when it comes to economic manipulation or even economic prediction. Indeed, no one does! Economics is one of the fields where, for every world-renowned expert you can find who will state a position absolutely and positively, you can find another, equally-renowned practitioner who will call the first economist a liar. (Or, in the current jargon, accuse him or her of "choosing ideology over facts.")
The big news on the IT offshoring front, though, is that the U.S. government has already set in motion the currency devaluation and inflation that are the most potent ways to to reverse this trend without meaning to -- by increasing its borrowing to unprecedented levels at the same time it is cutting the percentage of taxes it takes in from the only people in America whose incomes are steadily rising -- the rich -- and placing a higher percentage of its tax burden (and therefore its ability to pay back debt) on the backs of working Americans whose incomes are either staying level or falling.
Currency traders and investment professionals are responding to this tactic by showing less faith in the US dollar than at any time in the last decade. Super-investor Warren Buffett is "loading up on foreign currency" because he doubts that current US government tax policies are healthy in the long run.
Me? I just stand on the sidelines and observe. I expect that as U.S. currency drops in value, I'll watch some of my programmer friends find their value increasing, at least a little bit, and we'll see at least a few more manufacturing jobs. This is good. But I am worried about some of the other, longer-term effects our current government's economic policies may have on American workers -- and just as worried about what might happen if, come November, we find ourselves with a "pro-worker" administration that makes moves that would be just as bad for us in the long run.
Meanwhile, on a personal level, I suppose all the traditional career advice still holds: Stay flexible, look for opportunities in emerging fields, and make sure your skills are always up to date. These basics are the long-term keys to success in the IT field whether you're in New Haven or New Delhi; in Athens, Greece or Athens, Georgia; and whether you're a CIO at the peak of your career or a new grad working at a help desk, hoping to get your first "real" programming job before long.
- Top-end Indian, Chinese, and Filipino knowledge workers are just as smart as top-end American knowledge workers
- Average knowledge workers the world over are ... average
- The Internet gives everyone access to the same pool of knowledge
- Multinational companies have no geographic loyalty
Right now the Indian, Chinese, and Filipino dogs are eating the American dogs, with Russian, Pakistani, and other packs sniffing around the edges, trying to get a bite or two for themselves.
The big advantage Indian dogs have over American dogs right now is that they can live on a lot less money, because living costs in India are far lower than in the U.S. And Chinese dogs can live on less than Indian dogs, so in the long term work may go there rather than India, which scares the Indians no end.
The problem is that all these dogs are trying to eat from the American trough, and if foreign dogs eat from it but American dogs have no jobs and can't keep replenishing that trough, soon it will be empty for everyone.
In formal economic terms, we're talking about the U.S. trade deficit, which grows every year. It's nice for Americans to be able to buy $300 PCs and $39 cordless phones because the people who make those items in China and elsewhere are paid below-starvation wages by US standards, but the flip side of this is that the money U.S. residents currently use to buy those phones and PCs is going out of the U.S. much faster than money is coming into the U.S., so the current world trade system's dependence on a strong U.S. economy can't go on forever.
Putting inflation in the bank
The US government and most of its corporate and individual residents are accumulating more debt every year. This puts short-term smiles on the faces of all the workers around the world whose products and services are sold to U.S. markets, because they are the ones getting the borrowed money. Many of them don't seem to realize that most of the products and services they supply to the U.S. are not essential; that sooner or later U.S. residents (and the U.S. government) will need to pay back some of their debts, and that when they are using their income to pay off loans they will be forced to keep their old computers and cordless phones and stereos longer instead of buying new ones whenever they want.
Average hourly wages for American workers are not going up. The only way we are able to maintain our current standard of living is by working more hours per family than people in most of the world. Two-income households have become our norm, not an exception. Two-income households, with one of the producers often working 60 to 80 hours per week, can afford houses with four bedrooms and two bathrooms, can buy a new car every two years (on credit), and load shopping carts at discount stores with clothes, toys, digital cameras, appliances, and other goods every week or two (as long as their credit cards aren't maxed out).
Now take away one of those two jobs -- or replace it with a job that pays less -- in 20% of American families. Suddenly sales of non-essential goods drop, not only among the families that have lost some of their income, but among families that know others whose incomes have dropped and are afraid to spend because they're worried that one of their jobs may also disappear (or be replaced by a new job that doesn't pay as much as the old one).
People will keep buying food, but may buy fewer "convenience" foods such as microwavable meals, and will spend less in fast-food outlets and restaurants. They'll tend to keep clothes until they wear out instead of buying new ones to keep up with fashion trends. They'll be less likely to buy four-bedroom, two-bath houses -- and may even try to sell the ones they already own and buy more humble dwellings -- thereby slowing the housing market, which will cut sales of building supplies and construction tools, and cause layoffs among construction workers.
Just as the US economy is supposedly in "jobless recovery" mode at the moment, it could easily slip back into "no-job-loss recession mode" and severely cut imports.
The reason job losses in a new recession might not show up strongly in official statistics is that officialdom only counts people actively looking for work as "unemployed," and if half a couple decides to stay home with the kids instead of looking for work, that person is not "unemployed" in any way our government currently notices -- nor is the person who is laid off from a programming job and takes a job as a bus driver for half his former salary.
Everything I've just described is starting to happen in the U.S., a little at a time. And our government has decided to cut taxes without a corresponding cut in spending, which means it's borrowing more than it ever has, just as U.S. residents have been spending borrowed money.
Governments usually pay back excessive debt through either repudiation or inflation. Repudiation usually takes a coup first, so the new leaders can say, "We didn't run up the debts. They aren't our problem. If you want to collect, go after the old leaders, who probably stole most of the money anyway." A coup or other violent change of regime is unlikely in the U.S., so we'll almost certainly end up taking the inflation route. At some point, when government debt gets high enough, it's politically irresistible to cut the value of a country's currency so that old debts can be paid off at a substantial discount. This route is especially attractive to the U.S., because most of our foreign debt is in dollars, not in another currency, so we can get away with discounting our currency more easily than most countries.
The funny thing is, the U.S. is seeing its currency lose value against other major currencies already, and this trend is likely to increase without any government action. When a government borrows massive quantities of money to keep inflation in check, it doesn't really stop inflation but just puts it off. It puts inflation in the bank, so to speak. And sooner or later that inflation will be withdrawn from the bank -- with interest -- by overseas creditors. Indeed, this has already started. Look at the multi-year downward trend in these charts that track the dollar as a commodity, and the trend is obvious.
A weaker dollar means more U.S. jobs
At the moment this was written, the "mid-market" rupee:dollar (Rs:$) exchange rate was about 45:1. Let's imagine the dollar dropping to the point where that ratio is 30:1. Suddenly an Indian programmer who is paid $12,000 in US dollars gets a 50% "raise" to $18,000 -- without improving his skills or working harder. His standard of living won't go up 50% because the whole population of India has gotten the same "raise," including the programmer's $35/month live-in maid, who now gets $52.50/week. But both programmer and maid will be able to buy more goods from the U.S., and from countries whose currencies are "tied" to the dollar in some way, so their standard of living will still go up at least a little bit.
The only problem with this rosy scenario (for the Indians) is that the Indian programmer is suddenly less competitive with an American one. If he's working for a typical offshore contractor, his services are being marked up by a considerable amount, and the actual user of his services is probably now paying at least $24,000 per year for his time -- plus benefits. Suddenly he's not much of a bargain to an American company. In much of the U.S., $24,000 is a living wage. It won't buy a new car every two years and a four-bedroom, two-bath home, but it will buy a used car every three years and a three-bedroom, one-bath house trailer, and generally support a family of four that cooks from scratch instead of living on prepared meals and fast-food junk, doesn't need a fancy wardrobe, and is otherwise thrifty. Add a second income to that household -- even a part-time Wal-Mart one worth $6,000 per year -- and this theoretical programmer's family is getting by okay, possibly even putting a few dollars away every month.
Meanwhile, the Indian programmer is out of work. So is his maid.
This scenario is somewhat melodramatic. Large countries' currency shifts aren't usually that abrupt. But over a 10 year span a 30% or even 50% less valuable dollar is entirely plausible, even likely. This will give U.S. auto manufacturers an almost unbeatable price advantage over foreign competitors. Suddenly it might not pay to assemble computers in Korea instead of Kansas or to make microprocessors in Taiwan instead of Texas, and it will make some of our big exporters' products more palatable than their foreign competitors' in world markets. (Boeing vs. Airbus is a prime example.)
The downside is that the made-in-China blender that now costs $15 at the discount store will cost $30, the low-end laptop will cost $1,499, not $799, the "$9.95 Shoe Store" will need to change its sign to read "$19.95," and a Hyundai will cost as much as a Cadillac.
A cheaper dollar, in a general sense, means we trade low-cost imports for a more competitive stance for our home-grown products and services both here and abroad. Vacationing in Europe will cost us more than going to New York, so we'll be more likely to spend money there than to spend it in Paris, which will make New York hotel and restaurant employees cheer while Parisian tourist industry workers sulk -- and deepen their sulks when they find that Europeans who otherwise might have vacationed in Paris have decided instead to take advantage of a discounted America by going to Florida instead.
But oil prices will shoot up. With a cheaper dollar we will not be able to keep driving our Hummers and 200-horsepower sportfishing boats. Right now oil is internationally priced in dollars, but if the dollar becomes "unstable" either by conscious choice of the U.S. government or because of international currency fluctuations, oil pricing could shift to euros instead. This could mark the end of the dollar as the world's dominant currency, the one to which most others are pegged, and that could lead to higher interest rates for U.S. government bonds, and higher interest rates in general, which means plenty of inflation.
Inflation means higher interest rates
Imagine 10% inflation. To net 5% banks and other lends need to charge 15%, and to net the 20% some of the less honorable credit card lenders like to see, they'd charge 30% -- or even more. Home values would plunge as the average monthly payment per thousand dollars of mortgage rose, which would nearly kill new construction. Maybe slowing our current trend toward ever-larger, more-expensive dwelling units would be good, and there is no question that plenty of existing four-bedroom, two-bath suburban houses would make perfectly serviceable duplex apartments. But then you need to deal with all the construction workers who suddenly have no jobs, and if McDonald's and other traditional employers of unskilled workers aren't hiring, they are going to be unemployed until or unless our manufacturing sector cranks up to take advantage of the dollar devaluation that will make it less expensive to produce physical goods in America than elsewhere. You can be assured, though, that a combination of a lower dollar and higher interest rates will lead to plenty of "painful readjustment" for workers in some industries.
Inflation benefits those who own houses or other real estates and have fixed-rate mortgages (or no mortgages); their housing costs only go up a little as property taxes rise, while renters and owners with adjustable-rate mortgages see annual increases that mirror the inflation rate. Salaries will go up with inflation, no doubt, but they never quite seem to catch up, and people on fixed incomes -- think Social Security -- will be in rough shape unless their payments are "indexed" to the rate of inflation, which is going to be very hard to pull off as the "baby boom" crowd starts retiring and the ratio of social security recipients to workers grows.
Inflation also leads to social instability. People who save get antsy as they watch the value of their savings drop. People who invest get angry as they pay taxes on their investment income even if that "income" is barely keeping pace with inflation. Politicians get blamed, and a "throw the bums out" mentality becomes common. Some countries react with riots, some with military coups -- and for the first time in U.S. history, we have an all-volunteer military that is large and well-armed enough to do a government takeover if it wanted to. (Before the Cold War, our "peacetime" military was generally small and underfunded. Back then we were an essentially isolationist nation that tried to stay out of foreign entanglements as much as possible, aside from the odd Marine invasion of a wayward Latin American country whose leaders irritated us, and when we "went to war" we relied on draftees -- and demobilized most of our servicemen and women after the war was over.)
Are you sure you'd rather "protect American programmers' jobs," considering the alternatives?
Most protectionist economic scenarios will lead to some or all of the dollar devaluation and inflation problems I've outlined. Whether they are "problems" may be open to debate. Perhaps a well-managed "soft landing" for the dollar on international currency markets would help make the U.S. economy more vital and more self-sufficient, and turn our country into a net exporter again.
Workers in easily-moved service industries, like programmers and other IT personnel, would be some of a dollar devaluation's first and most obvious beneficiaries.
But the phrases "well-managed" and "soft landing" are what make this concept dubious. Our government does not have a very good track record when it comes to economic manipulation or even economic prediction. Indeed, no one does! Economics is one of the fields where, for every world-renowned expert you can find who will state a position absolutely and positively, you can find another, equally-renowned practitioner who will call the first economist a liar. (Or, in the current jargon, accuse him or her of "choosing ideology over facts.")
The big news on the IT offshoring front, though, is that the U.S. government has already set in motion the currency devaluation and inflation that are the most potent ways to to reverse this trend without meaning to -- by increasing its borrowing to unprecedented levels at the same time it is cutting the percentage of taxes it takes in from the only people in America whose incomes are steadily rising -- the rich -- and placing a higher percentage of its tax burden (and therefore its ability to pay back debt) on the backs of working Americans whose incomes are either staying level or falling.
Currency traders and investment professionals are responding to this tactic by showing less faith in the US dollar than at any time in the last decade. Super-investor Warren Buffett is "loading up on foreign currency" because he doubts that current US government tax policies are healthy in the long run.
Me? I just stand on the sidelines and observe. I expect that as U.S. currency drops in value, I'll watch some of my programmer friends find their value increasing, at least a little bit, and we'll see at least a few more manufacturing jobs. This is good. But I am worried about some of the other, longer-term effects our current government's economic policies may have on American workers -- and just as worried about what might happen if, come November, we find ourselves with a "pro-worker" administration that makes moves that would be just as bad for us in the long run.
Meanwhile, on a personal level, I suppose all the traditional career advice still holds: Stay flexible, look for opportunities in emerging fields, and make sure your skills are always up to date. These basics are the long-term keys to success in the IT field whether you're in New Haven or New Delhi; in Athens, Greece or Athens, Georgia; and whether you're a CIO at the peak of your career or a new grad working at a help desk, hoping to get your first "real" programming job before long.
Comments
on How to bring offshored jobs back to the USNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Re:How to bring offshored jobs back to the US?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 12, 2004 10:09 PM
*If* the premise that China and/or India
will allow their currencies to free float
against the dollar was valid, then your
logic would stand.
The problem is that after the collapse of the
South Asian countries a few years ago, other
countries are wary of allowing the US to
export inflation by the means of devaluing the
dollar. At this time, it's China which is
exporting deflation to the rest of the world,
buy force fitting the yuan 8:1 to the dollar.
In India, if in fact the rupee starts to rise
against the dollar, most probably you'll see
their central bank buying up dollars like
crazy. They can always print more rupees,
just as the US currently is surviving by
printing up dollars.
The results of such a "print-war" are likely
to be ugly; with the US much more dependent
on cheap imports, guess who will suffer in
the long run?
will allow their currencies to free float
against the dollar was valid, then your
logic would stand.
The problem is that after the collapse of the
South Asian countries a few years ago, other
countries are wary of allowing the US to
export inflation by the means of devaluing the
dollar. At this time, it's China which is
exporting deflation to the rest of the world,
buy force fitting the yuan 8:1 to the dollar.
In India, if in fact the rupee starts to rise
against the dollar, most probably you'll see
their central bank buying up dollars like
crazy. They can always print more rupees,
just as the US currently is surviving by
printing up dollars.
The results of such a "print-war" are likely
to be ugly; with the US much more dependent
on cheap imports, guess who will suffer in
the long run?
The results of "begger thy neighbor" currency policies hurt everyone, but I suspect a devaluation contest would hurt China and other unprosperous countries more than they'd hurt the U.S.
We might be forced to cut back our living standards, but in our case that usually means fewer toys and a smaller place to live. For the Indian maid or Chinese factory worker, a job loss or cut in pay can mean going home and saying, "Sorry, kids. No food tonight."
By Calcutta standards, don't forget, the American "homeless guy" on the corner with his "will work for food" sign is doing reasonably well.
- Robin
We might be forced to cut back our living standards, but in our case that usually means fewer toys and a smaller place to live. For the Indian maid or Chinese factory worker, a job loss or cut in pay can mean going home and saying, "Sorry, kids. No food tonight."
By Calcutta standards, don't forget, the American "homeless guy" on the corner with his "will work for food" sign is doing reasonably well.
- Robin
By Calcutta standards, don't forget, the American "homeless guy" on the corner with his "will work for food" sign is doing reasonably well.
But... the Calcutta guy is India's problem, not ours. The "homeless guy" on the corner is ours. For each Indian/Mexican/Chinese taken off the streets, an American is put on them. But in Geo W's eye, this isn't so bad - he somehow has the delusion that the economy is thriving despite unemployment being at an all-time high since the depression.
But... the Calcutta guy is India's problem, not ours. The "homeless guy" on the corner is ours. For each Indian/Mexican/Chinese taken off the streets, an American is put on them. But in Geo W's eye, this isn't so bad - he somehow has the delusion that the economy is thriving despite unemployment being at an all-time high since the depression.
Re:How to bring offshored jobs back to the US?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 12, 2004 11:41 PM
But in Geo W's eye, this isn't so bad - he somehow has the delusion that the economy is thriving despite unemployment being at an all-time high since the depression.
You must be one of those guys who gets their "news" from Michael Moore.
Unemployment is lower than in the early 90's and isn't even remotely as high as it got in the early 80's. You can look this stuff up, you know. You don't have to be ignorant and stupid; it's a choice.
You must be one of those guys who gets their "news" from Michael Moore.
Unemployment is lower than in the early 90's and isn't even remotely as high as it got in the early 80's. You can look this stuff up, you know. You don't have to be ignorant and stupid; it's a choice.
but arrogance is ok....
Re:How to bring offshored jobs back to the US?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 12:19 AM
But how do you count the people who fell off of unemployment and still aren't working? They are the numbers that make it look like the recovery is happening faster than what it is. You can't track those numbers.
Re:How to bring offshored jobs back to the US?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 04:02 AM
Humm, were I work we have lost 60% of our work force (and this is a BIG company). And that wasn't the case in the 80's or 90's. I work in the manufacturing industry. So where I sit, the future is not very bright at all.
So, please, keep telling me there are plenty of jobs out there if only to make me feel better. And those abundance of new jobs... what are they... sub $15/hr jobs?
It must be nice to be rich and part of the top 10% income class. The future looks bright for you indeed.
So, please, keep telling me there are plenty of jobs out there if only to make me feel better. And those abundance of new jobs... what are they... sub $15/hr jobs?
It must be nice to be rich and part of the top 10% income class. The future looks bright for you indeed.
Unemployment is lower than in the early 90's and isn't even remotely as high as it got in the early 80's. You can look this stuff up, you know. You don't have to be ignorant and stupid; it's a choice.
Where do you get your info from? The so-called "decline" in unemployment (as others have already pointed out) is based only on the figures of people who are currently collecting UEC benefits. It DOES NOT reflect the figures of those whose UEC benefits have already expired, those who were declined UEC benefits (collecting after losing you job is NOT ALWAYS automatic), or those collecting welfare (because they simply have nowhere else to turn). The Bush administration is doing a great job of painting this country's economy to appear MUCH better than it actually is, and riding the wave of Saddam only goes so far.
Where do you get your info from? The so-called "decline" in unemployment (as others have already pointed out) is based only on the figures of people who are currently collecting UEC benefits. It DOES NOT reflect the figures of those whose UEC benefits have already expired, those who were declined UEC benefits (collecting after losing you job is NOT ALWAYS automatic), or those collecting welfare (because they simply have nowhere else to turn). The Bush administration is doing a great job of painting this country's economy to appear MUCH better than it actually is, and riding the wave of Saddam only goes so far.
Re:How to bring offshored jobs back to the US?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 14, 2004 05:57 AM
Unemployment is NOT 'at an all-time high since the Depression'. Unemployment hit 33% perccent during those years, not the 5.6% we see today. While the President and his policies are far from perfect, I'd say you're the one who's delusional.
Unemployment is NOT 'at an all-time high since the Depression'. Unemployment hit 33% perccent during those years, not the 5.6% we see today.
The key word in that sentence is since . And if you actually believe that national unemployment is 5.6%, you're the one that's delusional. To put it in your own words, that's the figure 'we see'. To put it more accurately, that's the figure the Bush administration 'wants us to see'. As many have already stated, that figure is skewed - based solely on the number of people currently collecting UEC benefits . It DOES NOT reflect any of the following...
1. The people whose UEC benefits have already expired and are no longer eligible to collect.
2. The people who applied for UEC but were declined for one reason or another.
3. The people who have already given up on looking for a job - most of whom resigned themselves to collecting welfare.
Yeah, we're really thriving! But, hey, we kicked Saddam's ass, didn't we? Get your head out of the clouds and realize that this is an election year, so of course they're going to paint as pretty a picture as possible so Geo W. can get 4 more years. It's easy to support Geo W. when you're financially well-to-do, but believe me, the picture doesn't look so pretty from the other side of the fence.
The key word in that sentence is since . And if you actually believe that national unemployment is 5.6%, you're the one that's delusional. To put it in your own words, that's the figure 'we see'. To put it more accurately, that's the figure the Bush administration 'wants us to see'. As many have already stated, that figure is skewed - based solely on the number of people currently collecting UEC benefits . It DOES NOT reflect any of the following...
1. The people whose UEC benefits have already expired and are no longer eligible to collect.
2. The people who applied for UEC but were declined for one reason or another.
3. The people who have already given up on looking for a job - most of whom resigned themselves to collecting welfare.
Yeah, we're really thriving! But, hey, we kicked Saddam's ass, didn't we? Get your head out of the clouds and realize that this is an election year, so of course they're going to paint as pretty a picture as possible so Geo W. can get 4 more years. It's easy to support Geo W. when you're financially well-to-do, but believe me, the picture doesn't look so pretty from the other side of the fence.
One is using percentages, percentages that quit counting people who've looked for work longer than six months, and that don't believe in new college grads or immigrants (legal or not) or new high school grads looking for work.
The other is using raw numbers of people looking for work, not percentages.
They are both correct, in their way, neither has a clue as to what the other means, and neither one gives a crap. They'd rather fight.
The other is using raw numbers of people looking for work, not percentages.
They are both correct, in their way, neither has a clue as to what the other means, and neither one gives a crap. They'd rather fight.
Re:How to bring offshored jobs back to the US?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 12, 2004 10:56 PM
Take a good, hard look at the Democrats in Congress. They're as much in favor of outsourcing as the Republicans are. Hillary Clinton has gone to bat for outsourcing firms repeatedly. The whole lot of them are corrupt. We need to outsource both parties.
None. Except one thinks he's a cowboy and the other thinks he's Irish.
1) Tax cuts for the rich - according to the Republican trickle down theory, the rich invest the tax cuts in business which leads to more American jobs. But increasingly, US corporations are outsourcing investing in foreign subsidiaries rather than hiring US workers.
2) Huge budget deficits - balancing the budget is one thing that Bill Clinton did right. Some say this was because of the Internet boom. That helped, but the other part of it was a lot of discipline and hard work, since Congress and the Pentagon always want to spend more than what's available.
3) Expansionist military policy, e.g. Iraq - see #2 for domestic impact.
4) "Outsourcing is a plus for the economy" - G. Mankiw, Bush's top economic advisor, in the 2004 White House economic report
5) Dick Cheney and Halliburton.
And this is just about the economy.
2) Huge budget deficits - balancing the budget is one thing that Bill Clinton did right. Some say this was because of the Internet boom. That helped, but the other part of it was a lot of discipline and hard work, since Congress and the Pentagon always want to spend more than what's available.
3) Expansionist military policy, e.g. Iraq - see #2 for domestic impact.
4) "Outsourcing is a plus for the economy" - G. Mankiw, Bush's top economic advisor, in the 2004 White House economic report
5) Dick Cheney and Halliburton.
And this is just about the economy.
the funny thing is, is that most people here are talking about making money from jobs, which is only one aspect of the way that other countries are considering national policy. i read an interesting paper a few months back from some ex-cia guy who taught at some mba school, and he was saying how our govt is really concerned about when china starts inventing their own linux, etc. some of these other countries mentioned have literally multiples of the population in the us, even in the americas, and they will be (are) throwing all their resources not only into making money and dominating markets, but in turning the lever around, so to speak, about who has the control over the passwords, security, encryption, etc in the new technologies developed. it's also largely a "homeland security" thing. tech companies in other countries won't want their employees (let alone american employees) to know anything more about the future "what's up" than any of my previous us benefactor corporations.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Interesting use of headlining. I love economic analyses, but I take it your main point is that natural economic forces will bring back jobs, since a unit of programming effort should be equally valued everywhere.
As you pointed out, the best thing is to do nothing. Protectionist legislation protects and enriches the powerful, and starves all the weaker dogs. The US can't yell at China too much for keeping down the yuan, because they do that by buying US treasuries at a cheap rate. Once they stop that......
No, I think you are wrong. For the first thing, computers are learning to do jobs now that have always required people. We cant go back into the past. Computers are better and cheaper. Also, we are thinking on a global scale. Jobs may be added, but they will be in India or China.
Soon, very few people will need to work. But we will make more, better.
Its the new Taylorism
Soon, very few people will need to work. But we will make more, better.
Its the new Taylorism
Although I generally agree with you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... except for the dooms day aspects<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you don't provide the promised answer in the title.
I generally agree with you because the inevitable balance that capitalism demands will win<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... not matter who's president or what anyone does. The worlds economy will eventually become homogeneous and overall this is good for the world.
At the company I work from I proposed that to get the most value per worker we should start the outsourcing from the top down since these are the highest payed workers and this offers the greatest savings.
I don't understand why not one of the bosses liked this idea.
You know, I've always heard that a good manager can manage anything. With a lot of middle manager getting the axe in the last few years, there should be no shortage of decent managers who could do top management's jobs at a far lower cost.
That's an outsourcing plan we could all like.
There is only one way to keep tech jobs in US&
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 13, 2004 12:48 AM
And that is for the value and payment for products and services to go up, there is absolutely no other way.
If all products and services are supposed to be free or extremely cheap there is no way in hell western-level salaries can be paid for it's development and services.
In most other professions people giving away work for free would be "hanged" by other people in the same field, as long as it's not charity of cause. You don't see lawyers giving away contract-templates etc for free, you don't see manufacturers giving away blueprints for free. For some reason, giving away stuff for free is perceived as normal in this particular profession, it destroys it.
DO NOT WORK FOR FREE!
If all products and services are supposed to be free or extremely cheap there is no way in hell western-level salaries can be paid for it's development and services.
In most other professions people giving away work for free would be "hanged" by other people in the same field, as long as it's not charity of cause. You don't see lawyers giving away contract-templates etc for free, you don't see manufacturers giving away blueprints for free. For some reason, giving away stuff for free is perceived as normal in this particular profession, it destroys it.
DO NOT WORK FOR FREE!
Re:There is only one way to keep tech jobs in US&a
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 14, 2004 02:53 AM
No, but my remark wasn't only about open source but about the industry in general. People do free support, free advices, free webcontent, free manuals and free whatnot.
When loads of free labour is available people stops paying for work, it's as simple as that.
When loads of free labour is available people stops paying for work, it's as simple as that.
Re:There is only one way to keep tech jobs in US&a
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2004 06:13 AM
Lowering exchange rate is not the solution. You will not get a better economy with this method.
Just look at the result between France and Germany. Since the ’70, there was a link between France and German currency. As the French economy had problem to face competition, the French government was regularly making devaluation (a French franc value lost 5 to 10 % each time) and explaining it will help the local industry.
What was the result ?
Companies found it would be easier to put pressure on the government to get a new devaluation than to adapt to the new situation. Just look around you, how many French cars do you see ? or any other French products ?
The Internet speculation bubble blew and we (in Europe or USA) have to adapt to the new situation (working in an other field, making a technology change<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..) and not expect an artificial solution, which will make things getting worse
PS : software engineer in France is not better than in US. Internet bubble vanished here also. And the new technology change, if any, will not appear here (lower investment in IT, smaller market)
Just look at the result between France and Germany. Since the ’70, there was a link between France and German currency. As the French economy had problem to face competition, the French government was regularly making devaluation (a French franc value lost 5 to 10 % each time) and explaining it will help the local industry.
What was the result ?
Companies found it would be easier to put pressure on the government to get a new devaluation than to adapt to the new situation. Just look around you, how many French cars do you see ? or any other French products ?
The Internet speculation bubble blew and we (in Europe or USA) have to adapt to the new situation (working in an other field, making a technology change<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..) and not expect an artificial solution, which will make things getting worse
PS : software engineer in France is not better than in US. Internet bubble vanished here also. And the new technology change, if any, will not appear here (lower investment in IT, smaller market)
Wow, an honest look at this whole subject is nice to read.
It's hard to not get emotionally involved with this one. On the one hand, you have your jobs being taken away (inflamed by media outlets) with no real option to "upgrade" to, but on the other hand, you are giving more of a fair shot to someone who maybe wouldn't have had any opportunity at all.
I hate this whole thing. I know a few people that are extremely scornful of Indians now, even people who don't mean to be or even don't want to be that way. It's retarded, and they know it, but they can't help it. Internal conflict is horrible to deal with. Nobody I know is going to do anything stupid, but I'm sure there are people out there who are easily persueded into hurting someone else.
It's hard to not get emotionally involved with this one. On the one hand, you have your jobs being taken away (inflamed by media outlets) with no real option to "upgrade" to, but on the other hand, you are giving more of a fair shot to someone who maybe wouldn't have had any opportunity at all.
I hate this whole thing. I know a few people that are extremely scornful of Indians now, even people who don't mean to be or even don't want to be that way. It's retarded, and they know it, but they can't help it. Internal conflict is horrible to deal with. Nobody I know is going to do anything stupid, but I'm sure there are people out there who are easily persueded into hurting someone else.
Whatever you may think of the Bush administration, you are grossly (mis-)underestimating them.
Don't assume it's an accident that the dollar is losing value against foreign currencies. You say yourself in the article that it's one of the ways debtor nations handle debts, and yet your headline makes it sound like you think that Bush, et al are oblivious to this fact.
The Germans have been complaining about the falling dollar to the Bush administration and trying to get them to prop up the dollar - which the US is refusing to do (the germans have a much bigger unemployment problem than we do and the falling dollar is hurting them immensely).
The economy is very soft, but it's still growing, and what's keeping it alive is it's being propped up by lowered taxes, deficit spending and extremely low interest rates.
The deficit spending has the added bonus of devaluing the dollar - you get to pay back the debt with cheaper dollars AND make domestic goods more competitive with foreign goods.
Make no mistake, it's a calculated move. It helps the economy in the short-term, thus it helps Bush in his re-election bid.
Long term? Well... that's another story. These chickens will come home to roost one day, and it's not going to be pretty - but it's either a recession today, or inflation tomorrow - take your pick.
Don't assume it's an accident that the dollar is losing value against foreign currencies. You say yourself in the article that it's one of the ways debtor nations handle debts, and yet your headline makes it sound like you think that Bush, et al are oblivious to this fact.
The Germans have been complaining about the falling dollar to the Bush administration and trying to get them to prop up the dollar - which the US is refusing to do (the germans have a much bigger unemployment problem than we do and the falling dollar is hurting them immensely).
The economy is very soft, but it's still growing, and what's keeping it alive is it's being propped up by lowered taxes, deficit spending and extremely low interest rates.
The deficit spending has the added bonus of devaluing the dollar - you get to pay back the debt with cheaper dollars AND make domestic goods more competitive with foreign goods.
Make no mistake, it's a calculated move. It helps the economy in the short-term, thus it helps Bush in his re-election bid.
Long term? Well... that's another story. These chickens will come home to roost one day, and it's not going to be pretty - but it's either a recession today, or inflation tomorrow - take your pick.
I don't think the author was underestimating the Bush administration at all. If the borrowing and devaluation of the dollar was all part of some strategy, they'd be touting it left and right, especially since the economy continues to be Bush's weak point in the election. Instead, all we hear is "the tax cuts are working - let's have more!" Nope, I don't buy it.
Roblimo,
I think you have made a mistake in your logic regarding "salaries" paid in India. An Indian making the equivalent (in rupees) of $12,000 USD, does NOT get a raise, as USD falls against the Rupee. This would only hold true if that individual bought US goods directly from US manufacturers. I would guess that any individual Indian citizen buys very little American goods...but the vendors/marketeers in India do, and generally they don't LOWER their prices on violatile currency swings. If the currency were to STAY low for an extended period of time, you may notice a decrease in goods pricing, but only in a competitive environment (hey, profit motives are NOT the exclusive province of Americans).
Currency fluctuations only affect those who exchange goods for money across international borders, not for individuals. So, the middle men in India get richer, but the consumers don't...and THEY are the ones that "buy" american goods...if it is the best value in its market sector.
Dell, HP and others who outsource their customer support to India and SE asian countries, are looking for cheaper ways to deliver a certain level of customer service, hoping for a similar level of customer SATISFACTION. I would surmise that very few firms, like Dell, get "negative" feedback, as many people just quit calling and go off grumpy about crappy service. But we have been slow roasted/parboiled for so long by crappy service and less value for money with each generation of product, we don't enforce our rights, we just "go somewhere else" or, worse yet, keep silent and continuing to buy the crappy stuff.
Sorry to rant, I like what you wrote, I just believe that the premise for salary was incorrect.
~B~
I think you have made a mistake in your logic regarding "salaries" paid in India. An Indian making the equivalent (in rupees) of $12,000 USD, does NOT get a raise, as USD falls against the Rupee. This would only hold true if that individual bought US goods directly from US manufacturers. I would guess that any individual Indian citizen buys very little American goods...but the vendors/marketeers in India do, and generally they don't LOWER their prices on violatile currency swings. If the currency were to STAY low for an extended period of time, you may notice a decrease in goods pricing, but only in a competitive environment (hey, profit motives are NOT the exclusive province of Americans).
Currency fluctuations only affect those who exchange goods for money across international borders, not for individuals. So, the middle men in India get richer, but the consumers don't...and THEY are the ones that "buy" american goods...if it is the best value in its market sector.
Dell, HP and others who outsource their customer support to India and SE asian countries, are looking for cheaper ways to deliver a certain level of customer service, hoping for a similar level of customer SATISFACTION. I would surmise that very few firms, like Dell, get "negative" feedback, as many people just quit calling and go off grumpy about crappy service. But we have been slow roasted/parboiled for so long by crappy service and less value for money with each generation of product, we don't enforce our rights, we just "go somewhere else" or, worse yet, keep silent and continuing to buy the crappy stuff.
Sorry to rant, I like what you wrote, I just believe that the premise for salary was incorrect.
~B~
You missed the lines where I qualified the "raise":
------------------
Suddenly an Indian programmer who is paid $12,000 in US dollars gets a 50% "raise" to $18,000 -- without improving his skills or working harder. His standard of living won't go up 50% because the whole population of India has gotten the same "raise," including the programmer's $35/month live-in maid, who now gets $52.50/week. But both programmer and maid will be able to buy more goods from the U.S., and from countries whose currencies are "tied" to the dollar in some way. Their standard of living will increase.
------------------
I'm changing the end of that paragraph to "...some way, so their standard of living will still go up at least a little bit" for clarity.
That ought to help.
Thanks,
- Robin
------------------
Suddenly an Indian programmer who is paid $12,000 in US dollars gets a 50% "raise" to $18,000 -- without improving his skills or working harder. His standard of living won't go up 50% because the whole population of India has gotten the same "raise," including the programmer's $35/month live-in maid, who now gets $52.50/week. But both programmer and maid will be able to buy more goods from the U.S., and from countries whose currencies are "tied" to the dollar in some way. Their standard of living will increase.
------------------
I'm changing the end of that paragraph to "...some way, so their standard of living will still go up at least a little bit" for clarity.
That ought to help.
Thanks,
- Robin
This paragraph is unclear because it sounds like the person was being paid in US dollars instead of rupees. I think you should change the start to read:
Suddenly an Indian programmer who's pay in rupees was worth $12,000USD gets a 50% "raise" to $18,000USD<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
Suddenly an Indian programmer who's pay in rupees was worth $12,000USD gets a 50% "raise" to $18,000USD<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
take up SCUBA as a hobby. and while you're down there, axe through all the trans-oceanic data lines<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
but what about satellites?
so all i have to do is sell my house and rent a squalid apartment somewhere, stop buying stuff, and hang onto this new job at Chuck E Cheese for, say, the next five or ten years until the value of the dollar reaches parity with the indian rupee?
where do i sign up?
can't we just go find some smaller defenseless nations to exploit? that whole "american imperialist dog" thing is looking more attractive every day.
"A cheaper dollar, in a general sense, means we trade low-cost imports for a more competitive stance for our home-grown products and services both here and abroad."
The problem with this economic logic is that by the time this occurs, the US manufacturer will have gone out of business years ago and we won't be able to buy the goods (which now have higher prices) because we will all be working in our "service" jobs for minimum wage at some place like W.M..
The problem with this economic logic is that by the time this occurs, the US manufacturer will have gone out of business years ago and we won't be able to buy the goods (which now have higher prices) because we will all be working in our "service" jobs for minimum wage at some place like W.M..
My apologies:
I need to logoff before reading all the replies.
1. The article isn't about Linux.
2. The article isn't about software.
3. The article is well written and, to use a word
not used very often: candid: with candor.
(better than pc or not pc).
And correct.
And necessary. I agreed with most of your assessment - until the end.
I think however a point was missed: the outsourcing
was beginning at the same time that
policies allowed 300,000 "professionals"/year
into the country. This dual effect really mucked things up.
Your article sounded very Republican in the sense
of supporting current government policy. I'm glad
the H1-B's has lapsed. It's one thing to moderate,
another to flood. Think farm program.
One other point was missed. The level of borrowing
by the government is planned: By forcing the
interests rates low, the anum interest payments
are the same as they were before - but on twice
the debt.
ps. I'm still looking for that first programming job.
regards,
W. in B-More Town
I need to logoff before reading all the replies.
1. The article isn't about Linux.
2. The article isn't about software.
3. The article is well written and, to use a word
not used very often: candid: with candor.
(better than pc or not pc).
And correct.
And necessary. I agreed with most of your assessment - until the end.
I think however a point was missed: the outsourcing
was beginning at the same time that
policies allowed 300,000 "professionals"/year
into the country. This dual effect really mucked things up.
Your article sounded very Republican in the sense
of supporting current government policy. I'm glad
the H1-B's has lapsed. It's one thing to moderate,
another to flood. Think farm program.
One other point was missed. The level of borrowing
by the government is planned: By forcing the
interests rates low, the anum interest payments
are the same as they were before - but on twice
the debt.
ps. I'm still looking for that first programming job.
regards,
W. in B-More Town
After all, he's the one who invented the Internet.
This is a poorly disguised "Kerry for President" ad. The author rants about "tax cuts for the rich", which is, itself, an oxymoron. Rich people don't pay any taxes in this country because they have no income. Rich people like Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry don't work for a living (don't believe me? Look up his voting record).
Kerry's idea of "raising taxes on the rich" is to soak it to working people so he and his rich buddy John Edwards continue to skate on tax-free living.
They'll never pay taxes, either, because there's no tax on wealth.
If we circumvented the regulations and special interests that drive up the cost of living, then we'd be more competitive in the world market.
I'm suggesting that we do this only in designated areas. Please see:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/stanlass/havens.ht<nobr>m<wbr></nobr>
I'm suggesting that we do this only in designated areas. Please see:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/stanlass/havens.ht<nobr>m<wbr></nobr>
It's a natural consequence of technology-centric p
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 04, 2004 02:57 AM
We are headed towards a world where *very* few people will need to work.
That's the goal of business, to do much more with much less, and thats the goal of technology, to do everything better. Commoditization devalues skills. (It's the new Taylorism.)
We need to learn how to deal with it.
Why should people have to work? Work kills. We should pay people to drop out.
(or outsource the growing legions of poor to China)
Seriously
That's the goal of business, to do much more with much less, and thats the goal of technology, to do everything better. Commoditization devalues skills. (It's the new Taylorism.)
We need to learn how to deal with it.
Why should people have to work? Work kills. We should pay people to drop out.
(or outsource the growing legions of poor to China)
Seriously
How to bring offshored jobs back to the US?
Posted by: MrWinston on March 12, 2004 09:45 PM#