Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Outsourcing As A Source Of U.S. Jobs

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the what-do-embargos-do dept.

United States 948

An anonymous reader writes "The Economic Times, India's leading financial newspaper, reports that Diana Farrell, Director, McKinsey Global Institute during her speech at Nasscom 2004 said that Bureau of Labour Statistics is predicting a job gain of 22m in the US by 2010, against a job loss of 2m, due to offshoring. You can read the full article here."

cancel ×

948 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

India (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8235106)

Is it good, or whack?

Really? (1, Redundant)

elvesRgay (685389) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235107)

Twenty two million jobs, hu? Yea?

You want fries with that?

Re:Really? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8235206)

Of course realy.

We are exiting a global depression. The US has had a sustained growth rate of 6% for the past year.

We have a average 5.7% unemployement rate. Basicly that's as good as it gets. There are always a small percentage of people imbetween jobs, and bunissess start and others fail. Pluss there are some people who are fine with not having a job and won't get one until their unemployment benifits run out. This means that except for some notable exceptions in small areas, most everyone has a job that wants a job.

During the worst part of the "economic collaspe" as people like to over-dramatize it as, we still had a growth rate of 3-4%.

Our economy is strong enough that our growth rate, unemployment rates, and standard of living is better then most any other country out their.

For instance in Germany they would kill for the same economic indicators that here in the united states we considure "most horrible economy in the past 15 years".

I don't understand that when companies export jobs they are doing it to remain competative.

Isn't it better to have US businesses be the leades in the global economey or is it better to let foreign companies grow past us and eventually take over our companies?

Also don't forget that big corporations like IBM and HP have only the vast minority of possible jobs out there, even in IT. 75% of everybody is employed by small business. The vast majority of work that gets done is done by companies with less then a couple hundred people each. That's why the US economy is always so robust. For every big bad coporation that screws up or goes out of business or into and out of bankruptcy there are dozens of other driven people and companies willing to take their place.

Outsourcing = profits, profits = better bottom line, better bottom line = growth, growth = more jobs.

More jobs and growing economy helps us all, and that's why we need to remove obsticals to growth, while making sure that things don't get out of hand.

Otherwise would you want your company to be bought out by some Korean componate manufacturer, because they can compete better and produce quality things at a lower price?

Sauces, use thereof (1, Insightful)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235109)

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If all this is true, how come Indians aren't eager to outsource all the jobs back to the US? Hard to believe they are so altruistic.

Re:Sauces, use thereof (2, Insightful)

Smokin Goat McGruff (19225) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235187)

Free trade benefits both parties. You wouldn't buy anything if you didn't think the benefit didn't outweigh the cost. The manufacturer benefits because they got your money, you benefit because you got a product you like.

It's the same thing here. The US benefits from cheap labor, and India benefits by providing it. You learn this stuff on the first day of any economics 101 class.

Re:Sauces, use thereof (4, Insightful)

kbonin (58917) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235290)

"The US" is not benefiting from cheap labor - the benefits a corporation gains from outsourcing is passed mainly to the executives of the corporation through non-salary compesentation (options, bonuses, etc.), and to a lesser extent to the shareholders of said corporations.

The public is benefiting in the short term from the continually lowering retail price of consumer goods manufactured primarily in China.

The long term result is simple - good bye middle class. The growth in the service sector is primarily servicing said middle class, so the service sector dies with the middle class.

As much as I love capitalism, we are seeing its worst side now - as corporations realize they can behave with no morals (as modern society has decided there is no such thing, all is relative), there is no reason to create jobs, take care of employees, etc. There is nothing of concern other than the next quarter stock valuation...

To make it even worse, the modern system doesn't allow executives to benefit significantly from their stock shares until they SELL them (dividends are still overly taxed), so there is no real reason to think about the long term survival of the corporation either...

Add currency trading velocity issues and foreign holding policies for US treasury bonds, and the western economy is getting scary - inertia only lasts so long...

Re:Sauces, use thereof (4, Insightful)

rsidd (6328) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235298)

If all this is true, how come Indians aren't eager to outsource all the jobs back to the US?

Because it doesn't save money to do that. Salaries are much higher in the US which is why US companies are outsourcing in the first place.

This just in... (-1, Redundant)

slashdot2004 (750446) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235110)

McDonalds announces many more locations to open within the U.S. by 2010.

Some more statistics on the subject (3, Interesting)

prostoalex (308614) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235117)

US unemployment right now is 5.6% [itfacts.biz] , the lowest it had been in 2 years.

Silicon Valley will ad 17,000 jobs this year [itfacts.biz] and 33,000 next year.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject (5, Interesting)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235151)

Unemployment statistics are trash. They don't include recent college grads or those who have been unemployed for a prolonged period of time because no one bothers to register unless they are eligable for unemployment benefits. After a while people are no longer eligable and so they stop registering as unemployed, the statistics assume they are employed which isn't necessarily the case.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject (5, Informative)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235213)

and they dont count underemployment. I know alot of engineers who are flipping burgers and selling stereos burdened by student loans (which survive bankrupcy!).

Re:Some more statistics on the subject (0)

be-fan (61476) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235293)

Both of you are wrong. The different statistics are measured seperately, but the numbers you hear on TV *do* take into account underemployment and those who have given up looking.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject (0, Flamebait)

kir (583) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235299)

I know alot of engineers who are flipping burgers and selling stereos burdened by student loans

Wait... I thought all the illegal immigrants had those jobs?

Re:Some more statistics on the subject (-1, Troll)

kir (583) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235229)

Sure... take the facts and completely ignore them. Warping anything so it fits in your little distorted view of the world must come in very handy when arguing with someone.

Perhaps things ARE JUST NOT THAT BAD?

things are bad (1, Flamebait)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235288)

The Bush stats aren't the facts, they're the propaganda. Your angry denial works just as well when describing your willful ignorance of the additional facts in the posts that you merely deny. Why do you like the growth of the vast multitude of unemployed and underemployed? Why are you so sure of your own job? Do you work for the RNC? Better get your check while there's still money left in the Treasury to loot, or get your head out of the sand and help do something about the lies and misleadership.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8235262)

How exactly do you register as unemployed? My UI ran out in January so I don't get any more paperwork. I am still unemployed.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject (1)

edwdig (47888) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235325)

After 6 months or so of being unemployed, you are no longer counted as unemployed. Instead, you're counted as disheartened or something like that. Basically they figure you've gone so long without finding a job that you don't care anymore, and just sit around feeling miserable and don't look for a job.

Someone else probably knows more precisely what I mean; it's been 3 years since I took microeconomics, so I'm rusty.

One more stat (2, Insightful)

missing000 (602285) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235171)

A net loss of 2.2 million jobs in less than 4 years. [wokr13.tv]

Glad to know things are good.

Peaks and valleys (2, Interesting)

yintercept (517362) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235286)

Of course, if you looked at the stats in 1999, you would see the tech boom was pulling people out of retirement, it was pulling students out of school. A very large portion of the "lost jobs" stat was people who came from India because of the "labor shortage" in the US. What your 2.2 million stat does is compare peaks to valleys. In 2000, the papers were telling about how the brain drain was hurting countries like India. I am extremely happy that the globe is starting to see some economic balance.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8235180)

the unemployment rate is markedly low ONLY because so many people have actually left the work force altogether and stopped seeking employment. these people are therefore not counted as 'unemployed' and hence not figured into the calculation of the unemployment rate.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject (5, Informative)

gurustu (542259) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235246)

And still more :
  • In the last three months, more than 40 percent of the unemployed have been out of work more than 15 weeks. That's the worst number since 1983.
  • According to the monthly payroll survey for January, jobs rose by 112,000. Before you start cheering, that doesn't actually keep up with population growth.
  • Since the recovery officially began in November 2001, employment has actually fallen by half a percent, while the working-age population has increased about 2.4 percent.
All of these facts (with more available) come from Paul Krugman's editorial [nytimes.com] in the NYT today. His column should be required reading for anybody who wants to talk about the economy.

Re:Some more statistics on the subject (1)

Axe (11122) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235257)

Yep.

The region lost 62,000 jobs last year and shed 268,000 between the end of 2000 and the end of last year.

So it will take about 10 years to get back to 2000 at this rate.

But honestly - there are still too many people out here.

Gosh, it's on a website, it must be true (4, Funny)

Colonel Panic (15235) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235269)

Silicon Valley will ad 17,000 jobs this year and 33,000 next year.

"Make it so" by putting it on a website.

Hey, maybe we should announce some other things on websites for a better tomorrow:
* The US Unemployment rate will be under 1% by 2006
* The US budget deficit will be 0 in 2005
* Martians will teach us how to harness zero point energy thus ending all reliance on foreign oil by 2010
* Nobody will die of malnutrition next year!
* All techies will get dates for Valentines day!

obligatory (-1, Redundant)

jforr (15487) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235119)

I for one welcome our new Indian overlords!

Well look at that (5, Insightful)

Sarojin (446404) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235120)

An Indian journal reporting that Indian outsourcing is good!

Re:Well look at that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8235296)

its a fair comment so why the hell did u moderators make it a troll?

$22 million in jobs (3, Insightful)

Transient0 (175617) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235122)

or in dividends to stock holders.

The argument that India will need to import American goods for the growing tech sector and that this will result in even more jobs seems a little specious.

Is the global economy being turned on it's ear? Will the U.S. now be making cheap consumables to send to the IP producing countries in Asia? And why would India not simply start manufacturing the products it needs itself?

Re:$22 million in jobs (1)

gid13 (620803) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235136)

"why would India not simply start manufacturing the products it needs itself?"

Because China will still be cheaper. But yeah, the U.S. is still pretty much doomed on that front. :)

Re:$22 million in jobs (0)

PhyreFox (576728) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235149)

I think that's "22 million jobs", not having anything to do with a monetary figure (22 million dollars is next to nothing in today's economy).

Re:$22 million in jobs (4, Insightful)

smallpaul (65919) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235209)

$22 million in jobs or in dividends to stock holders.

Do you think that shareholders stick their money in socks when they get it? I don't. I either invest it again (which creates jobs) or I spend it (ditto).

The argument that India will need to import American goods for the growing tech sector and that this will result in even more jobs seems a little specious.

Why? There are things we make that they do not and vice versa?

Is the global economy being turned on it's ear? Will the U.S. now be making cheap consumables to send to the IP producing countries in Asia?

Manufacturing does not imply "cheap consumables." You can also make high end sewing machines. Robotics. Advanced materials.

And why would India not simply start manufacturing the products it needs itself?

Sigh. Have you never heard of comparative advantage [systemics.com] ? The total output of the Indian economy is limited by all sorts of infrastructural issues which make it impossible for them to manufacture everything themselves cheaply.

Re:$22 million in jobs (3, Insightful)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235247)

The wealthy need not spend their money in ways that create jobs. They can buy land - which drives up the price of land for the ones who don't have it yet - they can buy goods from overseas and luxury goods - the production of which doesn't create very many jobs.

A flatter distribution of income creates more jobs producing things that benefit more people: the more important a part of the market the lower to middle class is, the more productive power goes to address their needs.

Re:$22 million in jobs (1)

gtshafted (580114) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235289)

"Manufacturing does not imply "cheap consumables." You can also make high end sewing machines. Robotics. Advanced materials... Sigh. Have you never heard of comparative advantage? The total output of the Indian economy is limited by all sorts of infrastructural issues which make it impossible for them to manufacture everything themselves cheaply."

Unfortunatly, China makes a lot of manufactured goods that US companies sell - take for instance almost every computer component... The question is - does India need a US middleman and China is right next door?

Re:$22 million in jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8235312)

Do you think that shareholders stick their money in socks when they get it? I don't. I either invest it again (which creates jobs)

Somehow I doubt it. Most people will invest in those very companies that are outsourcing as much as possible. Tell me again how that creates jobs.

China makes a lot of "American" goods (3, Interesting)

gtshafted (580114) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235227)

First of all I'm Chinese American so don't mistake this as a racist rant... anyways being that the US's physical goods are being made in China and the US's abstract products are now being made in India - who profits in the US? I only see high ranking execs (CEO's, etc...) and people who own a ton of stock - making any money. What happens to the middle class? Will the US keep having a middle class?

Re:$22 million in jobs (1)

leigao84 (750965) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235264)

Please remember that trade is not a zero sum game! US doesn't loose when India wins. Trades happen not because the WTO point a gun at US's head and force them to trade. Trade makes everyone better off! >Will the U.S. now be making cheap consumables to send to the IP producing countries >in Asia? The number one miss conception about international trade is that a country like US must make cheap consumables to compete with manufacturing countries. Nations trade because trade gives it an opportunity to import things on the international market; export is not the main focus of international trade. In fact most gains a country make from trade is the fact that cheaper items will be available to them at things they are relatively bad at producing. The US is relatively good at producing things like commercial airliners, movies, and medicine, and India is good at producing labor intensive things like programming optimization and tech supporting. The gain is enormous for both nations. Over all, we consumers gains most from trade because we can buy things at lower prices! >And why would India not simply start manufacturing the products it needs itself? I'm sure India can produce commercial medicine by itself. But what are the costs? Costs not in nominal terms but in terms of real good. They may have to give up producing things they are relatively good in to produce in something they are relatively bad in. Now that's very illogical! They would gain much more from trade by buying them from the United States. Jobs are more macroeconomics and trade often don't have much effect on it. In the short run, they depend more on aggregate demand, and in the long run the nation's natural unemployment rate. We have seen that tariffs and protectionism have little effect on employment rates.

Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8235123)

The tech recession is obviously already over. We are already very near full employment for tech workers even here in the Silicon Valley and San Francisco. Why else would you be seeing things like this:

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals is seeking approval of a labor condition application for the period of February 26, 2004 to February 26, 2007 to permit employment of one H-1B worker in the classification of Programmer Analyst. The salary for this job is $77,501 per year. The H-1B worker will be employed at our facility located at 501 Lennon Lane, Walnut Creek, California 94598. The labor condition application relating to this employee is available for public inspection at our main office located at One Kaiser Plaza, Oakland, California 94612. Complaints alleging misrepresentation of material facts in the labor condition application and/or failure to comply with the terms of the labor condition application may be filed with any office of the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor.

Posted January 26, 2004
(can't read the signature)

Re: Right. (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235234)


> The tech recession is obviously already over. We are already very near full employment for tech workers even here in the Silicon Valley and San Francisco. Why else would you be seeing things like this:

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals is seeking approval of a labor condition application for the period of February 26, 2004 to February 26, 2007 to permit employment of one H-1B worker in the classification of Programmer Analyst. The salary for this job is $77,501 per year.
Especially since so many US citizens formerly working in the IT sector are now out of work.

NOPE DON'T BUY IT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8235127)

This does not fit into my conspiratorial pessimistic view of the world.

Sa... (2, Insightful)

cgranade (702534) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235128)

I wonder how politicized this report is. Here we are, Bush is taking heat on the same thing that doomed his daddy: the economy. Not to mention that we're neck deep in the election cycle.

Outsource This! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8235129)


*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*
g_______________________________________________g
o_/_____\_____________\____________/____\_______o
a|_______|_____________\__________|______|______a
t|_______`._____________|_________|_______:_____t
s`________|_____________|________\|_______|_____s
e_\_______|_/_______/__\\\___--___\\_______:____e
x__\______\/____--~~__________~--__|_\_____|____x
*___\______\_-~____________________~-_\____|____*
g____\______\_________.--------.______\|___|____g
o______\_____\______//_________(_(__>_\___|_____o
a_______\___.__C____)_________(_(____>_|__/_____a
t_______/\_|___C_____)/_______\_(____>_|_/______t
s______/_/\|___C_____)|________|_(___>_|________s
e_____|___(____C_____)|_______//__/_/_____\_____e
x_____|____\__|_____\\_______//_(_/_______|_____x
*____|_\____\____)___`----___--'_____________|__*
g____|__\______________\_______/____________/_|_g
o___|______________/____|_____|__\____________|_o
a___|_____________|____/______\__\____________|_a
t___|__________/_/____|________|__\___________|_t
s___|_________/_/______\__/\___/____|__________|s
e__|_________/_/________|____|_______|_________|e
x__|__________|_________|____|_______|_________|x
*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*

# Impotent Stiff: Please try to keep pants on. # Try to touch other people's penises instead of your own. # Lick other people's rims before pissing in your own mouth. # Use a clear subject that describes what you are about to do. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments are encouraged by our pro-homosexual moderators # If you want replies to your comments brought to you, consider the consequences of CmdrTaco visiting your house and foot-fisting your son, your father, your grandfather, you and your canary. # Impotent Stiff: Please try to keep pants on. # Try to touch other people's penises instead of your own. # Lick other people's rims before pissing in your own mouth. # Use a clear subject that describes what you are about to do. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments are encouraged by our pro-homosexual moderators # If you want replies to your comments brought to you, consider the consequences of CmdrTaco visiting your house and foot-fisting your son, your father, your grandfather, you and your canary. # Impotent Stiff: Please try to keep pants on. # Try to touch other people's penises instead of your own. # Lick other people's rims before pissing in your own mouth. # Use a clear subject that describes what you are about to do. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments are encouraged by our pro-homosexual moderators # If you want replies to your comments brought to you, consider the consequences of CmdrTaco visiting your house and foot-fisting your son, your father, your grandfather, you and your canary.

in the long term (3, Interesting)

tsunamifirestorm (729508) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235133)

in the long term, a foreign country succeeding will make the entire world better...
of course in the long term, we'll all be dead.

Re:in the long term (0)

PhyreFox (576728) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235165)

Nope. Given the current system, a foreign country succeeding will just put a foreign country on top for a few decades before it too falls flat on its face. Such is capitalism. What goes up must come down.

Right... (5, Insightful)

Einer2 (665985) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235140)

"People don't understand what a great opportunity offshoring is for US companies. Apart from huge savings, it allows US companies to concentrate on their core competencies and the people (in the US) can move on to higher paying, more creative, more value generating jobs."

...

You see, that doesn't quite work when it's the high-paying jobs going overseas. The only jobs that can't are those that require physical presence, and I can only see so many ways to creatively remove a clog from a toilet.

Re:Right... (5, Insightful)

Frymaster (171343) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235256)

it allows US companies to concentrate on their core competencies

ack! if i have to hear that "core competencies" argument one more time i will scream... louder.

it's basically just a rehash of david ricardo's "comparative advantage" argument. it goes like this: there is a surgeon and a typist. the surgeon types 60 wpm, the typist only 40. however, despite the fact that the surgeon is faster on the keyboard, it is better overall for the typist to do the typing and leave the surgeon to surgery.

that analogy, of course, makes good sense.... but when you start expanding it to global economics it becomes shakey. we in north america have been fancying ourselves the surgeons for a long time and been foisting the "typing" work (like making sweatshop running shoes) onto the "third world".

the breakdown is this: comparative advantage theory leads to a narrowing of the economic base. if your country doesn't have the infrastructure and labour force to create an auto industry the theory is you shouldn't try. just stick to labour-intensive, capital-light industries like agriculture or textiles. this has proven to be bad news for the developing nations of the world because it a) ties the entire economy to a few industries b) offers little room for development. an economic ghettoization if you will.

and now india is foisting this argument back on the united states.

the fact of the matter is this: every economy needs diversity. there need to be un and low-skilled jobs and there need to be highly-skilled jobs. there need to be labour and capital intensive industries.

if the united states focuses exclusively on "more creative, more value generating jobs" then a dot-com burst (or the equivalent) can do greater damage to the economy as a whole... in the same way that a bad coffee harvest can tank a small latin american country.

Re:Right... (1)

leigao84 (750965) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235300)

Why do all economy needs diversification?

Which economy is better? The US economy? Or the aggregate economy of the E.U.?

The obvious answer is that the US economy is stronger. Just compare the average GDP vs purchasing power index (PPI) and you'll see the US economy is way better.

Ok, so let's see which economy is more diverse? You'd be surprised to find that the EU economy is more diverse! Germany, which is about the size of Wisconsin with the population of New England has around 180 different industries. Mean while, the US northeast has only about 20.

This means that the US economy is more specialized! Specialization = efficiency = better economy!

Jobs are relative (3, Insightful)

Neppy (673459) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235147)

22 million more jobs, but how much will the population increase by then? this reduces the increase in employment, so the number 22 million looks a lot more impressive than it actually is.

Re:Jobs are relative (0)

PhyreFox (576728) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235198)

It's a nice large vague number, it won't mean a damned thing except either the possibility of migrant workers taking up the slack or people with bachelors' and higher in computer science earning minimum wage at Mickey D's.

Population change (1)

beakburke (550627) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235260)

Actually, the US population is only growing right now because of immigration. Once the baby boomers start to retire in a couple years there will be lots of jobs by necessity, both caring for them and replacing them in the workforce, even if some of the jobs are obsoleted. Frankly, individuals time is just too expensive, even in "low paying jobs" for them to not use high levels of labor multiplying technology. So continuing growth in productivity is basically very important for the US, and that is happing now, which bodes well for the long term.

Re:Jobs are relative (1)

foidulus (743482) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235282)

It actually depends on immigration(which, if offshoring is wildly successful, one would assume that immigration would drop as people can just stay home to have all the economic benefits that are currently present in the US). If you ignore immigration, then the US population is not growing very fast, and in a matter of 20 years or so will actually start shrinking. This is actually a problem economically, as there will be more and more non-workers(retired etc) for every worker. Which is why, as a US citizen, I think the country should be doing more to support immigration(while ensuring that there is still fair competetion for jobs, H1-B has this in theory, but has abused it, and the abusers are taking away a lot of visas that could be used for valid shortages, it needs to be changed). I personally think that instead of offering tuition waivers and stipends to foriegn grad students unconditionally, we should make them contingent upon their staying in the US after they graduate. IE make the waives and stipends a kind of loan, but one that you can either pay off with a) money or b) working in the country(every year that you work in the US, a year comes off your loan). This will make it much harder for people to come here, get a great education, then take all that knowledge(and investment) back home where it sees very little benefit to the US economy. We also need to get more engineering grad students, stop the oppressive fees etc that we all have to pay as undergrads and to a certain extent grads. That is really how the US can improve it's economy in the long run.

Something for nothing.... (1)

dictionaryattack (730757) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235153)

If you set something free, and it comes back to you, etc, etc, etc. 2million lost = 22million gained? Maybe we'll all work in call centres, supporting Indian IT firms? This logic smacks of SCO, maybe they're consulting for these Indian firms?

So in short (2, Interesting)

AmVidia HQ (572086) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235155)

Offshore was about global wealth creation and integrating economies, she explained, adding that it would create more high-value jobs in the US than people could imagine today

So we are going to get more CEOs and less "lowly programmers"?

I'm Canadian btw, but we all know it's just another economically annexed state.

so.. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8235157)

we lose 2 million engineering jobs, and gain 22 million pizza delivery jobs. Sounds like a great trade-off to me!

Seriously, we can't sacrifice professional jobs for low-level service jobs, even if there are more of them. If we do that, we'll have a rich and poor caste system. Wait a minute...

Re:so.. (5, Funny)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235228)

we lose 2 million engineering jobs, and gain 22 million pizza delivery jobs. Sounds like a great trade-off to me!

When all the tech jobs finally dry up and the only thing the US does better than the rest of the world is high-speed pizza delivery, I'll be first in line to work for Uncle Enzo. Being the Deliverator is actually sort of a long-standing ambition of mine...

The Deliverator used to make software. Still does, sometimes. But if life were a mellow elementary school run by well-meaning education PhD's, the Deliverator's report card would say: "Skyshadow is so bright and creative but needs to work harder on his cooperation skills...

The Deliverator is a Type A driver with rabies. He is zeroing in on his home base, CosaNostra Pizza #3569, cranking up the left lane of CSV-5 at a hundred and twenty kilometers. His car is a black lozenge, just a dark place that reflects the tunnel of franchise signs -- the loglo. A row of orange lights burbles and churns across the front, where the grille would be if this were an air-breathing car. The orange light looks like a gasoline fire. It comes in people's rear windows, bounces off their rearview mirrors, projects a fiery mask across their eyes, reaches into their subconcious, and unearths fears of being pinned, fully conscious, under a detonating gas tank, makes them want to pull over and let the Deliverator overtake them in his black chariot of pepperoni fire...

Poor wording (4, Insightful)

smallpaul (65919) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235160)

Even though I am a fan of free trade and offshoring, I found this economist's choice of words disturbing: "People in the US are looking at it as a job issue. They are not economists and therefore, they don't necessarily see the whole picture." Funny, I thought that every human being (even economists) had only a part of the picture. People working in the dismal science should be more humble about what they know versus what they think they know.

Re:Poor wording (1)

leigao84 (750965) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235314)

But it's true. People usually see international trade as a job issue, when this is not entirely correct! Short term unemployement rate is based on aggregate demand, which has little to do with international trade.

Poor wording All Right (1)

Kor49 (748163) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235317)

See, the economists ALWAYS see the big picture. How dare we mere mortals look at this from our own point of view ???

What suprises me is how the Americans (the exec's at least) are so willing to throw in the towel. Yeah, the Indians are charging less, but you'd think that a nation obsessed with plugging the word "American" in front of every product would say something along the lines of "Yeah, the Indians may charge less, but the American engineering is better..."

If they keep their current attitude of accepting the defeat, offshoring won't really bring any competition; instead it will bring Indian domination. Whatever happens, it'll take a while for India to get so filthy rich that they don't want to study engineering anymore (like the yanks now), and send those jobs back to the poor Americans of the future. (Yes, I am done exaggerating.)

Just like Laffer (1)

eidechse (472174) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235162)

I think they're holding the napkin upside down.

Re: Just like Laffer (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235212)


> I think they're holding the napkin upside down.

LOL!

New Jobs added WHERE? (4, Insightful)

Elpacoloco (69306) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235163)

I see no examples of these new jobs that they keep talking about. Just about corporations saving money.

Corporations saving money is no guarentee of employment at all -- they could just increase their dividends to attract more investment. They could just increase their CEO's salary.

Even if they do make new jobs, there's no distingishing between wage-slaving jobs against salaried professionals.

New jobs added WHERE, wise guy. :P

Re:New Jobs added WHERE? (1)

IAmMaxHarris (750973) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235287)

Corporations do not arbitrarily decide how much to pay anyone.

There is a market for CEO talent, just like there's a market for every other position at any given company. Ever heard of supply and demand?

Public companies can't just increase dividends, either. There are formal processes, and shareholders to please. A dividend payment must be balanced against the outlook for the future.

I object to your use of the slur "wage-slaving". An employee is free to leave their job at any time in a capitalist society (which we do not yet live in - ours is a mixed socialist/capitalist economy), and is therefore NOT a slave. You should be ashamed of your equivocation, because real slaves (of which America was the first to emancipate) would have given (and would still give, in other parts of the world where slavery still exists) anything to be as free the people you call "wage slaves"!

Great opportunity (0)

gtshafted (580114) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235164)

Outsourcing middle class jobs is indeed a great opportunity... to the minority rich who are either high ranking execs or large shareholders. (I'm not one of them)

Besides, in the long run, is it really smart to transer all your knowledge to a potential competitor and not retain it?

Just one catch.. (3, Insightful)

eclectro (227083) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235166)

From the article;

She pointed out that the Bureau of Labour Statistics was predicting a job gain of 22m in the US by '10, against a job loss of 2m due to offshoring.

All of these jobs are going to be in the "service sector". It does not say what the quality of those jobs are. Also, even "service sector" type jobs are being exported to india now (programming, call centers).

My prediction - in 2010 we will all be selling hamburgers to each other.

"Would you like to supersize that for just $.39
more??"

Re:Just one catch.. (5, Insightful)

gtshafted (580114) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235203)

Just for the record, the department of labor was predicting a job gain of 17 million for 2003. In reality there was a loss of tens of thousands of jobs. The 22 million prediction sounds like re-election propaganda...

Re:Just one catch.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8235226)

My prediction - in 2010 we will all be selling hamburgers to each other.

"Would you like to supersize that for just $.39 more??"


Then McDonalds realises they can save 10 cents a burger by automating their restaurants using devices invented by the highly intelligent, skilled - and less expensive - foreign workers.

The last inhabitant of America will be a burger-selling robot that can't find anyone to sell burgers to. The entire human population of America having died off from eating too many burgers - or moved overseas to make burger-selling robots.

(Yes, there's probably the plot of a Cory Doctrow and a Harry Harrison story in there somewhere.)

In 6 more years? (5, Insightful)

Malk-a-mite (134774) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235178)

"She pointed out that the Bureau of Labour Statistics was predicting a job gain of 22m in the US by '10, against a job loss of 2m due to offshoring."

When have 5+ year estimates ever been accurate in economic matters?

Secondly -
Tomorrow's Jobs (from bls.gov)
http://www.bls.gov/oco/oco2003.htm [bls.gov]
"Services. This is the largest and fastest growing major industry group and is expected to add 13.7 million new jobs by 2010, accounting for 3 out of every 5 new jobs created in the U.S. economy. Over two-thirds of this projected job growth is concentrated in three sectors of services industries-business, health, and social services."

Social services? Wheeee.... big money here I come..... :-/

Cute... (1)

fluxrad (125130) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235181)

From the article:

Daniel Grisworld, associate director, Centre for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute said, "People don't understand what a great opportunity offshoring is for US companies. Apart from huge savings, it allows US companies to concentrate on their core competencies and the people (in the US) can move on to higher paying, more creative, more value generating jobs."

Of course they don't tell you these "core competencies" he speaks of are all filled by job titles starting with "C."

Interestingly, a brief visit to freetrade.org (Cato's website) will give you a rather insightful look at where the CTPS guys are coming from. My only question is: are these guys being bankrolled exclusively by the WTO or what?

I think "The Economic Times" just earned itself a place in the karmic bread-line right next to the New York Post, Fox News, and Pravda.

Yep... (2, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235185)


If 2 million people each take on 11 "want fries with that?" jobs to maintain the income they lost when their professional jobs got offshored, everything will work out even.

Can't Outsource me (5, Insightful)

king-manic (409855) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235186)

There have always beens some jobs that cannot be outsourced. Even if a telecoms help desk is all foreign they can't outsource service crew off shore. It make sense that with a slow recovery of the US economy (no thanks to bush) that there will be more jobs.

Jobs like DB admin need to be close to the DB and to where the info is coming from to properly administer it. System Analysts and Network analysts must be on site to do their job. Service technicians can't do it from over seas. Web developers can be outsorced but it's almost artistic and cutural gulfs make workign with foreign firms difficult. (Our Firm tried, the indian firm kept trying to use Lime green in their color schemes, no matter hwo often we told them we don't like lime green that).

The outsourcing only spells the end to abundant positions as low level code monkeys. We'll just have to move on and try to adapt like workers did durign the 80's when many manufacturign firms went over seas. There are still a large amount of blue colalr workers despite this, and We'll still have jobs even though an indian firm might be competign with us.

PS: I don't like bush but I'm not a democrat, in fact I'm Canadian. We have more than a vested interest in your prosperity, because it spills oevr here. It does seem liek he's responsible for you current economic slump, by spending so much on defence and offering Tax cuts that the budget won't support. Think more debt. Real soon.

Re:Can't Outsource me (1)

great_flaming_foo (561939) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235277)

The outsourcing only spells the end to abundant positions as low level code monkeys.

So much for my grand dreams of being a low level code monkey. I guess I'll have to settle for being a high level code monkey.

Oh yeah... (0, Flamebait)

Kid Zero (4866) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235194)

The Indians are pushing hard in congress and elsewhere to keep the US from seeing what a massive mistake outsourcing the US job market is. All this is is part of that plan to keep the jobs flowing their way and to gut the USA.

Negative Public Opinion (1)

Da Rabid Duckie (731742) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235195)

"'The negative public opinion, fanned by the media, can have real repercussions against the offshore wave,' Mr Gruber said. He added that he would advise the Indian government and IT companies to lobby hard and try and sell the positives to the US public."

You mean like being able to call tech support to reach a person that can barely speak english?

I've got a friend in Dallas that stands on the highway with a cardboard sign listing five years worth of certifications. He's jobless because his IT position was outsourced to India. He's had a great deal of trouble finding a job since then. So in the meantime, why don't the Indian government and the IT companies try to sell the postives to him instead?

Yummy.. (1)

CowardNeal (627678) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235201)

More curry and soy in my sauce.

Unemployment numbers may not tell the whole story (1)

UpLateDrinkingCoffee (605179) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235205)

Remember, Unemployment numbers are calculated from people collecting unemployment benefits. Once the checks stop, there is very little incentive for people to continue to send their cards in every week. From my perspective (software engineer with 8 years experience) the job market is nearly non-existant. I do have friends that are into more sales type roles that don't seem to be having a problem, though.

Tired of this offshoring whine on /. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8235210)

For one thing India is still at a trade deficit with US. For every job that indians get from US, there is are range of stuff US companies are dumping here and killing local business.

Opening the market works both ways. Deal with it.

Re:Tired of this offshoring whine on /. (3, Insightful)

Smokin Goat McGruff (19225) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235270)

No doubt. For such a highly concentrated group of supposedly educated people, Slashdotters sure don't seem to know a thing about economics.

This will probably help the local economy here which relies on highly on office furniture manufacturing. All those Indian IT professionals have to sit on something.

But what *kind* of jobs? (4, Interesting)

JakiChan (141719) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235217)

My worry is that the economists say "Oh don't worry, we'll replace those jobs." But not with anything I've remotely studied to do. A job at my current level may not be available or even practical. Most places won't let you get a second bachelors degree. And somehow I don't think a university will accept me for a chemistry masters program when I have a degree in Computer Science. Sometimes I get the feeling that to these economists going from being a skilled worker to a Deliverator is acceptable as long as I'm employed.

I used to think the reality portrayed in Snow Crash was just current trends taken to some unreal extreme. Now as I watch the destruction of the middle class I'm not so sure.

Re:But what *kind* of jobs? (4, Informative)

MagPulse (316) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235265)

Actually you should have no problem getting in to a Chemistry Masters program. You will have a longer prereq phase to catch up to those with an undergrad background in it. E-mail or call an admissions advisor at a school you're interested in. Even if you can't jump right in to their Masters program, they'll tell you what you have to do. Worst case you would have to be a non-degree student and take the classes you need.

It is true that most places frown on two Bachelors degrees unless they're from different colleges, like one in CS and one in art or theater. Once you get your Bachelors, you can load up on as many Masters and PhDs as you have time for.

Hardly Reassuring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8235222)

Sorry, this story doesn't really help much.

According to this [yahoo.com] the White House predicted job growth of 1.7 million jobs in 2003. In the end, 53,000 jobs were lost overall. Now the White House is predicting 2.6 million for 2004. With numbers that far out of wack we should expect what, a couple hundred thousand?

If Mr. Bush wants to get re-elected this fall he had better make this predection come true or else he'll be losing a lot of votes.

Wow, Wall-Mart must really be hiring (1)

Colonel Panic (15235) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235225)

So outsourcing is supposed to give us a net gain of 20Million jobs by 2010, eh?

Sounds like Bush Administration propaganda to me. ("The economy is stronger than it has been in 20 years!", "The economy is expanding at a rapid clip")

Of course, they don't say what kinds of jobs those will be. Wall-Mart, Starbucks, Career Counselors, Retraining Experts.

I'd like to believe, but (5, Interesting)

NixLuver (693391) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235231)

I just don't see this as a big motivator to the US economy. The 'savings' of outsourcing are mostly in the form of taxes not paid to the government (by the time the infrastructure - ie, Stateside project manager, Stateside liason, overseas liason, overseas management, and programmers, the actual salary savings is fairly small). Also, the profits of this reduced cost simply are not going to be realized in reduced cost of the product, but in terms of lining the pockets of the major stockholders (I hope I'm wrong, but history would suggest differently).

The largest percentage of the outsourced jobs are high-paying; perhaps we'll eliminate a single 80k job and replace it with 4 20k jobs? Or does somebody think that American business is going to hire local techies to architect products and the humble outsource labor forces will selflessly implement the design?

I have nothing against India or the programmers that are taking advantage of the avarice of American companies in order to better themselves. I would do the same thing in their shoes.

I do, however, blame an American business culture where todays stock prices have become more important than the ultimate survivability or long-term health of the company. After all, on a long enough timeline, everyone's surviveability is zero, eh?

let china do the work (1)

kangman (748644) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235232)

Hey why don't we just let China manufacture the cheap stuff for the entire world. They've got tons of cheap labor. India can make the software and tech goods they're a bit more expensive but its ok. while we'll(%1) "supervise" everyone else. Sound good?

It's the economy, stupid (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8235236)

Don't worry. Our wonder boy in the White House has it all under control.

Just lowered the taxes of the most filthy rich 5% of the population, got us a $500 billion deficit and compensated for that by dismantling the useless social programs for the poor and old.

Maybe the rich will use that tax-break to create more job and not simply line their own pockets. And maybe those poor slackers on welfare/medicare will die away and stop siphooning money from the well-off, respectable, white protestant heterosexual married people like the rest of us.

Faulty logic and misleading headline! (5, Insightful)

grape jelly (193168) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235237)

[Ms Farrell] pointed out that the Bureau of Labour Statistics was predicting a job gain of 22m in the US by '10, against a job loss of 2m due to offshoring.
According to the labor predictions [bls.gov] from the Bureau of Labor Statistics [bls.gov] , the total growth of jobs between 2000 and 2010 is 22,160,000 jobs. Surely you can't account for all of this growth strictly based on one aspect of corporate behavior.

Also, to satisfy the cynic in me, remember that these are merely predictions, which are possibly skewed to make the current market look like it'll be stronger, which will in turn (hopefully) make investors and consumers more confident, (hopefully) making the economy stronger.

Lastly, could this also be like George Bush's predictions that there would be approx. 1.7 million new jobs last year, as opposed to the 53,000 jobs lost last year (as reported by CBS news tonight).

Where's the savings? (1)

MrDigital (741552) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235241)

"Based on the research that the McKinsey institute had carried out, Ms Farrell said conservatively, for every dollar invested in the offshore space, $0.58 was directly saved. This could be either redistributed to investors or customers."

I call BS. Unless I'm misunderstanding the above quote, she's saying that companies are saving 58% in moving offshore and that somehow we consumers are going to see the benefit of that. Companies like Nike and DKNY have been using sweatshops for years and yet I'm still forced to pay hundreds of dollars to parade about in their fabulous brands.

Step 1: Outsource all high-paid jobs to overseas companies and save 60% on your bottom-line.
Step 2: Realize that unemployed people can't afford your products on their Taco Bell wages.
Step 3: Lower your product prices by 60% so previously high-paid ex-employees can afford them, while at the same time reducing profit margins to what they were pre-outsourcing.
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit!

I'm a registered Republican so I'm all about big business. However, I'm only about big business when those big businesses actually hire Americans. What good is an American corporation who doesn't employ Americans and thus feed more money back into our own economy? If I'm going to overpay for products I should be at least supporting my neighbors.

Re:Where's the savings? (1)

Smokin Goat McGruff (19225) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235301)

Because Nike has a brand that people are willing to overpay for. Buy something without the name "Jordan" on it and you'll find shoes that aren't too expensive.

Only economists can see the 'Whole Picture' (2, Funny)

Colonel Panic (15235) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235243)

Great quote from the article:
They are not economists and therefore, they don't necessarily see the whole picture.

Yes, economists have such a great track record when it comes to figuring out what's going to happen next, don't they?

That's not what the BLS says... (1)

UpLateDrinkingCoffee (605179) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235244)

The reason given by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for 22 million more jobs by 2010 is they are counting on the baby boomers to retire when they are supposed to. Whether this will happen or not probably depends on how well the stock market recovers... I think a lot of people lost a lot of retirement money in the dot com bust.

Of course it doesn't surprise me that a McKinsey executive, one of the companies benfiting the most from outsourcing, would spin the statistics.

Re:That's not what the BLS says... (1)

UpLateDrinkingCoffee (605179) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235268)

Never mind... I'm thinking of the BLS projections on a worker shortage in the U.S., not job creation. It's late, what can I say?

Changing my major now (1)

lo2p (750971) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235255)

Damit I should've been a psychology major instead of CS, no job prospects for both but at lest I get to look at pretty girls during class.

So, we've found them ... ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8235258)

GW. Bush should plan to invade India, as they own billions of mass destruction weapon that are an immediate threat to US :)

Let's go for a NewDelhi carnage !

But, wait... they got no oil, only masses of poor people ... no better bomb switzerland, at least they got billions of mass destruction weapon in their banks banks. In swiss franc :))

Sure offshoring is going to create more jobs (1)

MyFourthAccount (719363) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235266)

And monkeys are flying out of my butt.

Say that again when I'm able to buy even a miserably small home.

You gotta love quotes like this:

adding that it would create more high-value jobs in the US than people could imagine today.

In laymen's terms: we're outsourcing the toilet-cleaning and we are all going to have nice jobs counting money.

When are people like that going to get off their high-freaking-horse?

Oh yeah, I forgot, people in the US are so incredibly smart, there simply isn't a comparison.

Well, this is starting to sound like flamebait, it's not what I intended. I just think it's about time they start taking into account some pretty damn serious issues in the 'homeland'. A government that couldn't care less about the constitution, supreme court judges that are corrupt, companies buying laws, patents and related lawsuits killing even the simplest of inovation, I hate to say it, but if nothing changes, then the future of the US looks pretty grim.

Economics overly quoted (1)

gtshafted (580114) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235272)

Most of this article's arguments use economics as its basis. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't economics still more of an art than a real science? Isn't it just a bunch of "theories" that can't be repeatably validated in real life?

Re:Economics overly quoted (1)

Smokin Goat McGruff (19225) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235322)

No, it's more like theories that were developed by observing the way things actually happen. It usually does an excellent job explaining things.

For example, do you know why CEOs like to get paid so much? Because it benefits them! See? Economics in action. :)

Bush administration stats.. (1)

-tji (139690) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235281)

This must be based on the same logic that Bush gave today claiming that 2.6 Million jobs will be created this year, mostly as a result of his brilliant tax cuts.

I can't believe he can say it with a straight face, after saying similar things last year. He claimed that last year's tax cuts would create 1.7 Million jobs. Instead, 53,000 jobs were lost.

He meets skyrocketing deficits with more tax cuts. Then tries to distract the voters with an oil war in Iraq, and protecting us from the scourge of gay marriage. Toss some faith based initiatives in there and he'll have the all important moron vote locked up.

hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8235285)

sounds like trash.

probably some BS spouting cronie trying to justify companies giving American workers the shaft.

What's with the enormous focus on India these days (1)

jigyasubalak (308473) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235303)

Could you cut some slack here.
Heck, I've been trying to get some outsourced work
done here for a month now.

Economically none of this is surprising (1, Informative)

Killswitch1968 (735908) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235310)

In the long run, shipping jobs overseas will increase employment in the home country.

Why? Because when products are made overseas, they are made for a whole lot cheaper. Consumers not only can buy more, but they use their excess cash to spend on other goods or to invest in other business, both of which stimulate the economy and the very people who 'lost' their jobs get hired back.

The lie of job creation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8235316)

These politicians, pundits, and analysts are lying through their teeth.

Of course jobs will be created if we enter a time of sustained economic growth. But your job? No, your job that went to India or China or Russia is not coming.

Yes, that job. The job in the field which you and your parents invested life savings to prepare you for.

That job. The job that you have taken on in 4-6 years debt that you will be burdened with for the next 10 to 30 years regardless of your economic status.

That education. The one that you were owed. And don't let them tell you it was only a privilege. You point them to multi-million dollar CEO sallaries, pop stars, and Paris Hilton, and say that we are raped and pillaged - your fathers, you, your children, and your children's children - by the elite.

Oh, what a great injustice has befallen us! These elite - arrogant masters - should daily sing our praises that we permit them to exist; that we permit them to keep that wealth which is not according to their need when they utterly fail even to give according to their ability; that these coporations - privileged entities with no legitimate moral status - are permitted to exist at all.

We the people are powerful. We are mighty. Woe to the elitists on that day when justice shall rain down from the heavens! Woe to them on that day when we the people will unite with one voice and take this country back for the working man and woman!

We will drive them from their temples - the defiled shells of what once were our proud institutions!

We will drive them from our land - squatters every one!

Oh glorious day! The inevitable culmination and natural end of all history!

Workers of the world unite!

My brothers! My sisters! Join you with one another and let us sing the Internationale [fordham.edu]

From every mountain top; let freedom ring!

Almost made me laugh... (-1)

graveyardduckx (735761) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235318)

When I read the "gain of 22m in the US" I thought we were supposed to gain 22,000,000 jobs. Since the article was about offshore jobs declining I figured they were just going to start bringing them over here like they did with the engineers at Sun. *ducks and runs for cover*

I smell bull (5, Interesting)

shaldannon (752) | more than 10 years ago | (#8235321)

Diana Farrell, director, McKinsey Global Institute, said, "People in the US are looking at it as a job issue. They are not economists and therefore, they don't necessarily see the whole picture. What's going to happen is that offshoring is actually going to benefit US businesses even more than India." She said it was a profoundly new way of doing things and would change the structure of organisations. Offshore was about global wealth creation and integrating economies, she explained, adding that it would create more high-value jobs in the US than people could imagine today.


Based on the research that the McKinsey institute had carried out, Ms Farrell said conservatively, for every dollar invested in the offshore space, $0.58 was directly saved. This could be either redistributed to investors or customers. But she added that there were indirect benefits to the US, in terms of the import of US goods and services into India by Indian service providers, and so there was some transfer of profit back to the parent in the US. She pointed out that the Bureau of Labour Statistics was predicting a job gain of 22m in the US by '10, against a job loss of 2m due to offshoring.
I'd like to know what she's smoking. I see a lot of this as someone with a comfortable job spouting off:
  1. Job loss in the last few years has continued unabated in the tech sector. By all reports, the new jobs created have been nontechnical, particularly in construction.
  2. This doesn't account for the fact that many people have dropped out of the labor market altogether (going back to school, early retirement, panhandling).
  3. Economists have a pathetic record for prediction. Right now we're in what's been termed a "jobless recovery." If that's a recovery (I remain unconvinced) then just where does Ms. Farrell see those 22 million jobs coming from in the next 6 years, and just when does she think they'll appear?
  4. Additionally, Ms. Farrell claims that cost savings from shipping jobs overseas will be passed on to the consumer. Ignoring the tendency of corporations to pass cost savings on to executive compensation rather than to stockholders or even (gasp!) consumers, just how would consumer savings help the average unemployed Joe on the street get a new productive job?
  5. On top of this, consider the setting for the comments. Ms. Farrell is telling a group of people in India not to feel bad about taking our jobs because eventually we'll turn out better than we started out. This is yet more bull in an article already reeking of manure. All it is designed to do is assuage someone's conscience.
It's one thing to say something substantive on the subject, but all that's been presented is trite expressions of hope that things will get better. I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping that they do get better, but until something meaningful is said, it's only so much bull.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?