Comments on: Outsourcing faces new era of scrutiny

By: Greg Gordon

Greg Gordon — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 00:03:59 +0000

The main point is this: now that American (and European) taxpayers are bailing out financial institutions, automobile companies, and other ailing institutions, the taxpayers want their money spent on local jobs, not outsourced jobs. The goal is no longer maximum efficiency for institutions, but rather maximum economic stimulus using local labor pools. Debating the merits of outsourcing is moot. CEOs, CIOs, and CFOs should no longer have the option of outsourcing when they are receiving bailout money from taxpayers.

By: Bernard Campbell

Bernard Campbell — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:56:50 +0000

I’m waiting for the ‘third world’ countries to revolt, much as the OPEC nations did when they found out we were exploiting their oil at ‘bargain basement’ prices.

As people of other countries become more aware that we’ve migrated slavery abroad, they’ll rise up – and put us into the same, if not greater, ‘crisis’ than we had with the oil embargo of the 1970′s.

We’ve hired these people to come here, too. So very many of them live together in apartments filled only with mattresses and laptops.

By: Bernard Campbell

Bernard Campbell — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:49:00 +0000

Look at the recent headlines. Even a conservative Republican, Senator Grassley, is complaining that – perhaps – Microsoft is laying off at the same time as a morose Bill Gates went before Congress to plead for more H-1B visas. Just look at the “you’re technically the best” ( US workers are morons, Bill?) hype Microsoft gives to hire more for its burgeoning facilities in India. Poor, filthy rich Bill.

It is sad, too, that so very many of us helped to create this ‘nightmare’ by our development of satellite communications. It used to take days, even weeks, to move large quantities of data to and from overseas facilities.

Now, we dial an 800 number for technical support and get connected to the home of an Indian contractor. In a real sense, we sealed our own fate.

By: Conrad

Conrad — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 16:57:52 +0000

I wholly agree with Ms Rosaroso, with emphasis on our political system relying on the input of corporate lobbyist to dictate what earmarked bills will be pushed through the house and senate. Unfortunately, americans, while capable of independent thought, are willingly allowing themselves to be influenced by the next smooth-talking politician or media personality. Even in the face of facts, we swallow the latest biased report or speech as if it were the bare truth. (i.e. doing nothing about political scandals, following a notorious bill through congress while a dozen more like pass under our noses, or electing officials based on their good looks/personalities, NOT on their experience and track record).

By: Bill Williams

Bill Williams — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 01:28:00 +0000

Admittedly, it was a couple years back, but in a competition among computer programmers, Poland came in first and MIT second while the Indians were not in the top ten. When the company I worked for computerized its operations, it cost them a few million dollars (a couple years back, remember) and six years to get a truly awkward program. I do wonder if custom programming farmed out to India is a false lead, and the input from the users in a generic program shouldn’t be tried first.

By: To S Trader

To S Trader — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:50:38 +0000

Perhaps you should remember that you’re in no place to tell America what it needs to do.

By: Bob Johnson

Bob Johnson — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:32:36 +0000

Hello World. It is interesting to read the comments from educated Indians in defense of their country and from working class Americans blaming others for their problems. Both viewpoints are right to a degree. I wonder what comments would be made by Chinese workers making toothbrushes and toys for ten cents an hour. Indians and Chinese are naturally defensive about their new-found role in the global economy and want Americans to look elsewhere for someone to blame. Americans have been internally outsourcing manual labor jobs to illegal aliens and automating every clerical job once held by educated white-collar employees. Computers have probably cost Americans more high-paying jobs than India and China put together. American CEOs have been brutally focused on shareholder interests and have done everything possible, legally and illegally, to artificially elevate their stock prices. CEOs who do not lay off thousands of workers, outsource, automate, and consolidate are replaced by CEOs who will do these things. When corporations run the government through lobbyists and the ordinary civilians are denied basic needs like health insurance and pensions it is called fascism. Global overpopulation, modern transportation, and the internet have reduced the value of human labor to near zero. We are entering a new century where jobs and resources will become so scarce our children will starve. I miss the 20th century.

By: Olivia Rosaroso

Olivia Rosaroso — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:59:08 +0000

The biggest picture is…they’re moving out of India. And stayed in a beautiful tropical island. No longer serving American firms.

By: S Trader

S Trader — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:57:20 +0000

America need to remember that its only a part of the world and not the world. Protectionism is always used to defend self interests only and it will be the biggest loser if such policies get enforced.

By: Surabhi

Surabhi — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:23:31 +0000

Interesting article, interesting thoughts.
As much as has been written about the pros and cons of outsourcing, I do agree with outsourcing being a business-affecting decision rather than a country/ continent-affecting decision.
As has been pointed out here, outsourcing does not merely relate to services, it also, in the broader sense of the word, relates to off site manufacturing, production, assembly etc. of products across industry segments.
Working in the offshoring space, from a much abused-much loved India – I am cognizant of the fact that I lose my job as soon as offshoring stops (which in reality it won’t, but reduction in volumes, is a potential). At the same time, I am unable to sympathize with the hue and cry about job losses back in the countries from where offshoring is originating from. Lets look at statistics – India is a country of 1.1 Billion people, of whom, according to the Indian Planning Commission, 30% live below the poverty line – but this doesn’t necessarily mean that they are also unemployed.
If you look at statistics released by NASSCOM, a trade association body for the outsourcing/ offshoring industry in India, 2.0 Million people are employed in the outsourcing space – that accounts for 0.18% of the total population of India!! Add to this another .00001 Mn people employed indirectly to this – yet this number is insignificant.
However, the reason I bring this up – India does not depend on the outsourcing industry to as large an extent as the world believes it does – Domestic markets account for approximately 85% of India’s revenue – this is to moot the importance of retaining in-house capabilities and functionalities.
Sure, the world selects India and China to produce engine parts for automobiles at a far cheaper rate, BUT, India still buys 90% domestically produced/ manufactured automobiles.
The idea is not India versus China versus the world – the idea to implement is to retain the core within the country, in a manner that it is self-sustaining even in the worst of times, and spread the love around the world by offshoring the non-core!
Also, be a smart spender, judicious buyer, and an educated citizen – of every country one lives in.
The key is to remember that it is a cyclical process – you give and you receive- but somewhere along the way, outsourcing has been bastardized to an extend that it is assumed to be only taking away!
I am not pro or anti outsourcing – I am about retaining skills, attitudes, and the foresight to change with times – and this can only happen with education, expertise, and a willingness to learn.
In turn, breeding an era where the world truly becomes global, but also intrinsically individualistic.

Cheers!
Surabhi