×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

963 comments

Outsourcing your own job. (5, Funny)

dazilla (647166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092531)

On top of that, you can outsource your own job, take up another one, and outsource it too. Basically you can be making way more than you currently are. I think there was a /. story on this a while back.

So you actually *made* money in Amway? (5, Funny)

dogfart (601976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092614)

Sounds like you discovered the secret of multi-level marketing. Sssh.. before someone patents your idea.

Re:Outsourcing your own job. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10092670)

It's not that funny. I did this and got two promotions! My old job became the jobs of 3 guys in Taiwan, and I was their boss. Then I gave my _new_ job to another couple guys in Taiwan; and got hired in a different company to help build a team overseas.

Scary, but it works.

Re:Outsourcing your own job. (2, Informative)

Dusty (10872) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092672)

On top of that, you can outsource your own job, take up another one, and outsource it too. Basically you can be making way more than you currently are. I think there was a /. story on this a while back.

Oh, no. It's deja vu, all over again:- Outsource your job to earn more! [indiatimes.com] .

Re:Outsourcing your own job. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10092747)

wOOt [cnn.com]

FP? (-1, Offtopic)

sabat (23293) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092535)

First post. Not a logical argument, unless you're trying to say that outsourcing will create more outsourcing.

Nope... "Outsourcing your own job" (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10092548)

"Outsourcing your own job" was the first post. Unfortunately didn't contain a link to the article... Presumably because they were so busy trying to be the first post?

Nuh uh... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10092538)

Ummm, did you follow that?

heh...nope.

More IT jobs? (5, Insightful)

MrDiablerie (533142) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092542)

No I think it means more outsourced. IT jobs in Asia and India. And larger bonuses for american executives.

Re:More IT jobs? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10092640)

The point is that the people whose jobs are outsourced are not competitive. Whether you like it or not, it IS a global economy and when somebody else will do your job for less money, employing you instead puts your employer in a disadvantageous position. The competition will exploit this and drive your employer out of the market. The effect is the same: You're out of a job.

The question is not if outsourcing creates more jobs than an isolated domestic economy would. The question is: Does outsourcing save the jobs which are hard to outsource? Pretending to be in a non-global economy would drive these jobs away too in the long run.

It IS good for us. (3, Insightful)

Stegersaurus2686 (780094) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092546)

Outsourcing also raises the amount of money third world countries have. As they get richer, they start buying more expensive luxuries made in the industrialized nations. In the end, it will help our economy. Also, it is true that we do lose jobs to outsourcing. Like the article mentioned, however, we gain new skilled labor positions that are better paying than the manual labor positions that were eliminated.

Re:It IS good for us. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10092579)

we gain new skilled labor positions that are better paying than the manual labor positions that were eliminated

Coding is manual labor? Please explain...

Re:It IS good for us. (5, Insightful)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092587)

One slight problem with that theory- we don't make anything in the United States anymore, we're a POST-industrialized nation. So while this will help China, what new skilled labor positions are we going to get here? Especially since any Indian can supposedly do any skilled labor position just as well as any American and for 10% cheaper under the H-1b regulations?

Re:It IS good for us. (1)

gofreemarket (783820) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092690)

Ok, lets say for sake of argument, that it does help China and India more for now, helping them get industrialized. If so, what's wrong with that? If you are a Marxist, don't you believe that people should get paid equally (not even necessarily for equal work :P)?

Re:It IS good for us. (2, Insightful)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092722)

I'm also a patriot- we can't have people paid equally until we have one world government to manage it. And even then it will take a serious degragation of standard of living in the United States before it is achieved. Hmm- which may be the point of the whole exercise- to impoverish the United States so that we can be paid equally with people in China- Anybody willing to work for 24 cents an hour?

Re:It IS good for us. (1)

gofreemarket (783820) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092762)

One government to manage it? Government is run by special interests, not the interests of people. People vote with their checkbook what is important to them. The USSR already tried central planning of cost of goods. This resulted in food shortages, long lines for groceries, lack of choice in goods. If you want the government to manage payment and cost of goods sold, you should try emarxistbay.com and try to set prices for goods without considering what people would pay for them. We are already buying billions of material from China, material which is too expensive to manufacture in the US because of all the red tape, taxes, and lawsuits that are filed against US companies. Last time I checked, the US has been increasing its GDP year after year. Getting raw goods cheaper from overseas means that the US can manufacture goods here. Lower prices for goods means a higher standard of living for all. Impoverishing the US for China, at 24 cents an hour? Programmers in India are already working for $12000/year. Stop making up numbers.

Re:It IS good for us. (1)

crotherm (160925) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092706)


As these countries get richer, they need to build up their military to defend against the Terrorist Threat. And who makes the best weapons? Why USA of course.

Re:It IS good for us. (0, Offtopic)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092763)

Actually, sorry, China surpasses us there too- that's why we're disabling our ICBMs to build a missile shield- because their missiles are more accurate than ours.

Re:It IS good for us. (1)

MrDiablerie (533142) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092595)

How much stuff do you buy that's made in america anymore? Nowadays most of my gadgets come from Asia. DVD players, computer components, TVs, cars...

Re:It IS good for us. (3, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092606)

"Outsourcing also raises the amount of money third world countries have. As they get richer, they start buying more expensive luxuries made in the industrialized nations."

No they dont. They buy stuff made in India, China nad Taiwan.

"In the end, it will help our economy. Also, it is true that we do lose jobs to outsourcing. Like the article mentioned, however, we gain new skilled labor positions that are better paying than the manual labor positions that were eliminated."

Realy? Name them. If outsourcing jobs creates jobs, where are they? Why do we have such high levels of unemployment in the IT industry if all these jobs are being created?

Re:It IS good for us. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10092693)

troll alert

Re:It IS good for us. (1)

Svennig (665498) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092625)

Have you looked at where those "expensive luxuries" are manufactured?

In the UK we don't even make our own lightbulbs any more for gods sake; manufacturing is dead.

What will happen is that, as more and more money pours in, the exchange rate will even out and it won't be as tempting to outsource due to the overhead it imposes.

Re:It IS good for us. (1)

forgotten_my_nick (802929) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092633)

> As they get richer, they start buying more expensive luxuries made in the industrialized nations. Which are probably being made in the poorer countries anyway to keep the prices down, so they can cut out the middle man altogether. The US already outsourced a lot of its manual work years ago.

Re:It IS good for us. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10092650)

Right. There's only a few things that are in demand from 1st world countries. Cars. Boats. Airplanes. Maybe computer stuff. And parts for all of the above.

Since most of the computer stuff is produced over there anyway, it's cheaper there. Been to singapore? CHEAP stuff. But that applies to automobiles, too. Many manufactuers are setup globally. Chevy, Ford, Honda, VW!!! all have factories in China (which is undergoing the world's largest industrial revolution RIGHT NOW), and many of the consumables for North America are made in Mexico.

So, that leaves very little for more advanced countries to make... Most of these "2nd" world countries are pretty advanced, and they're catching up to the US. In reality all that means is that everything is going to be spread thin an far. And for good reason, Americans are upset about it. And for good reason. We're facing a huge lifestyle change in the next 10-15 years, and it's coming from all angles.

Re:It IS good for us. (1)

huchida (764848) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092700)

Outsourcing also raises the amount of money third world countries have. As they get richer, they start buying more expensive luxuries made in the industrialized nations.

Problem is, few expensive luxury items come from America any more. Really, the only thing we do have that is in high demand is real estate, which is coincidently being rapidly priced out of the average American's range.

Perhaps I'd being a little xenophobic, but look at New York City. It's become the playground for wealthy foreign nationals, and the middle class Americans have been almost completely displaced. Los Angeles is almost as bad, I was recently looking for a house and was outbid over and over again by the same.

In the end... (1)

DrCode (95839) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092703)

...we're all dead. But it's nice if, until then, we can work at jobs that utilize our skills and have a chance to earn a decent living.

Something Similar (5, Interesting)

xeon4life (668430) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092550)

I've been hearing more and more often about something similar. While not the same idea, it's the idea that America "recycles" (to be put in an Economists terms) jobs every year, something in the order of 50 million or so if I'm not mistaken, and that outsourcing somehow is just a natural process of this recycling...

If you ask me, I think Economists have it tougher than Computer Scientists, but that's just my opinion. :-P

-Devin Torres

Re:Something Similar (1)

tenton (181778) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092711)

They do on some level; that's because they are really studying people (hence why it's a social science).

While we may think computers are irrational and do random things sometimes, people (even large groups of them...perhaps especially large groups of them) are worse.

Re:Something Similar (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10092742)

"While not the same idea, it's the idea that America "recycles" (to be put in an Economists terms) jobs every year, something in the order of 50 million or so if I'm not mistaken, and that outsourcing somehow is just a natural process of this recycling..."

Your body constantly recycles blood cells.

But if you start losing blood cells faster than they're being produced, you're in deep shit.

Maybe what she means to say is .. (3, Insightful)

YankeeInExile (577704) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092551)

Since not all jobs can be efficiently outsourced, a company that raises their productivity by outsourcing the jobs that can be will have more resources to devote to those that can't be

Re:Maybe what she means to say is .. (4, Insightful)

haruchai (17472) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092668)

EXACTLY!! Unfortunately, the only jobs they don't try to outsource are the executives ( honestly, they should try harder) and, those newly-freed up resources - usually cash - go into the bigwigs pockets in one of two ways.
First, they get bigger raises, expense accounts, golden parachutes for reducing the company payroll. Second, the stock exchanges usually reward the newly productive company with an increase in share price, making those executive stock options more valuable.
It's win-win if you have the key to the big boys' bathroom.

I've heard this argument before... (3, Insightful)

tekiegreg (674773) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092554)

...and it appears valid at first bite. Ultimately the corporate motive is to make more profit however, so money saved by outsourcing probably wouldn't drain into more programmers (or whatever position abroad) more likely into the bottom line for the shareholders...not an entirely bad thing if you're a shareholder but if you're an employee...

Re:I've heard this argument before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10092639)

well one thing to note is about 50 or 60% of americans are shareholders

Re:I've heard this argument before... (3, Interesting)

DrCode (95839) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092677)

I don't see stocks doing so well these last few years. Looks to me like the savings are more likely going into the executives' pockets.

Yep its the Slashdot '???' Step (1)

Evil Pete (73279) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092740)

As in

  • ???
  • Profit

Isn't this just 'trickle down economics' all over again. Which BTW doesn't work!

Admin jobs (2, Insightful)

usefool (798755) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092555)

For adminstrative jobs that require physical presence and attention, outsourcing might be good.

However for jobs that can be done remotely (like programming, call centre etc), it's still a bad sign.

So those who can identify this change of job demand and acquire a different trade quickly, they may still survive in this outsourcing trend.

Re:Admin jobs (1)

forgotten_my_nick (802929) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092648)

> For adminstrative jobs that require physical presence and attention, outsourcing might be good. I admined three machines one time. Not one of them was in the same country as me and I had no problem maintaining them. I could even remotely kick the power if it was absolutly required. So don't go assuming that your job is safe either.

This is a totally outrageous claim... (4, Interesting)

tao_of_biology (666898) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092558)

OK, first of all, where is the evidence outsourcing jobs overseas makes anything cheaper?

Last time I checked the market set the price (with obvious unnamed monopoly exceptions *coughMicrosoftcough*). The price the company pays for the production of the item has negligable impact on price--and that's fine. The price people are willing to pay for something has a much bigger impact on the price. All outsourcing overseas does is fatten the profit margin for the sales of these IT projects. So right there, her basic premise is crap.

I mean, is she REALLY saying that companies will have more money to pay you with, because they don't have to pay you? WTF.

Re:This is a totally outrageous claim... (5, Insightful)

enjo13 (444114) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092615)

No, her basic premise is sound economics. What outsourcing really does is grow the economies of those other countries. The money going into those economies results in higher economic spending power among the outsourcees. They in turn buy more goods, which employs more people in their local economy. This causes economic growth... at the same time it provides the ability for people in these countries to start their own business, utilizing cheaper local professionals, to produce products and outcompete the American companies. That sounds scary... but the net gain is cheaper goods and services for US as well. This in turn enables all of us to have more spending power and allows OUR economy to grow as well. This creates more jobs.. etc.. etc..

It's the concept of competitive advantage. The workers in India have a competitive advantage as they can do the IT jobs cheaper, and ostensibly at or near the same quality level. By allowing them to take that advantage they win (their economy grows), but they also begin producing products that out-compete the more expensive American products. This is the exact same cycle we saw with Japanese cars (which has come full circle with those companies opening up manufacturing plants in the United States).

Re:This is a totally outrageous claim... (1)

tao_of_biology (666898) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092661)

Yeah, but I think cars is a totally different ballgame. The cost of producing a car has historically had a MUCH bigger impact on the price of the car, then the cost of producing software has had on the price of producing software.

I mean, has Microsoft lowered their price on a single product as a result of having to compete with linux which has a slight competitive advantage in the price arena.

Software prices seem entirely set by demand... as supply is practically infinite and the cost of producing software (once it's written) is minute.

True, I'm no economist... but I just don't think this passes the "common sense test".

Its does delay some price increases. (2, Interesting)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092707)

I don't believe it reduces prices but it does delay some price increases. The market is pretty competitive across the board and pressures on this market prevent any real changes in the costs of most goods. So what is a company to do? Try to do the same for less. This allows some, not all, companies to be able to forgo raising their prices.

Of course its all a vicous circle. Eventually one of the companies succumbs to the fact it will have to raise prices... and they lose a little marketshare but it evens out usually as others end up with the same issue.

However it is just as outrageous to not believe that using cheaper resources doesn't result in lower costs.

Seems to me that too many people can justify the milkman losing his job to technology, the seamstress to technology, and even the gas attendants to technolongy. Yet threaten the geeks and they act as if its the coming of the end.

Face. The economy churns through jobs all the time. Some of these go overseas which does result in lower costs for people here. Just as the cost of clothing is less when it comes from China so can the cost of tech.

Like that nice PC you got there? Cheap memory eh? Where is the crying over the person whose job was lost to a PC?

Sorry but the world maturing does suck at times for those caught up on the wrong side of it. Getting emotional and claiming its all a lie won't make it stop.

Remember 138 million jobs exist in this country and compare that to the number outsourced. Also remember that the number of people who are employable will decrease over the next 10 to 15 years... so...

how do you dumbasses manage to breath? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10092748)

yeah because when evil corporations get rich they just hide the money under their big corporate mattress and never buy anything.

dude! someone is going to end up with that money and they are going to put it somewhere. they might hire people or they might buy a car or a jet or invest it in other companies. anyway you slice it that money gets put back into the economy and ends up creating more jobs.

but hey go on and believe whatever you like. just try not to choke on your drool while you're learning to tye those shoe laces. WTF.

it sure is (5, Funny)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092565)

Thanks to outsourcing, everything I buy at WalMart with my unemployment check is cheaper!

CEOs (3, Insightful)

savagedome (742194) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092566)

Well, nice arguments and all. But fuck that. They can say all they want but before we stop paying multi-multi-millions to these greedy ass CEOs/CTOs and such, I don't want to listen to nothing. Do they have any answer to "If the CEO took a 50% pay cut, we could add another 2000 jobs in my company right now. So, why doesn't he?"

I guess I am just a little bitter but since they have announced 'massive' layoffs mid-sept, I can't do nothing but rant...

Re:CEOs (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10092649)

Take your excellent diction, rhetoric, and ability to reason, couple it with your driving work ethic, and your scamtastic signature, and I am certain you will have no trouble finding your next job.

Do you want fries with that?

Less cost = More buying? (1)

rlanctot (310750) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092580)

I don't think that less cost necessarily leads to purchasing more products. If anything it means companies will spend LESS overall on software and shift the money they were going to spend into other areas...

Good for managers and stock holders maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10092584)

Not so good for those of us who have skills other than sitting behind the biggest desk in the department.

Executive Summary (5, Insightful)

Lord Grey (463613) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092585)

  1. The .com bubble bursts, causing employees working for firms whose primary business is selling IT products to lose their jobs.
  2. Bigger IT companies that didn't actually fold outsource some work to reduce expenses.
  3. Due to public demand and reduced expenses, non-IT companies buy more computer crap.
  4. Non-IT companies have to hire the old IT employees to run the new computers.
Net result: Those employees eventually have jobs in computers, just not with computer companies.

This actually makes sense, and I've seen it here locally. A lot of people I know who were laid off from startups are now working for their old customers. The problem is, this trend can take years. The number of businesses that totally went under put a ton of IT talent out of work. Compensating for that will take some time. That's not good news for the employees who haven't landed a job yet.

Re:Executive Summary (3, Interesting)

subterfuge (668314) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092686)


Net Result [Appendix A]: Those employees are now doing essentially the same job for substantially reduced income and benefits.

Reganomics all over again (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10092588)

Yes, because trickle-down has worked so damn well, both times (Regan, now Bush) it's been tried.
What REALLY happens is that the owners/higher ups just get bigger bonus's and the rest of us are screwed.
Excuse me while I go get ready for my job at Burger King. You want fries with that?

it really works (5, Funny)

zippo01 (688802) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092589)

I outsouced my /. reading to India, i pay 4 dollars a day. They even make quality posts about random topics on it.

Help Desk (1)

The_Real_Nire (786847) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092590)

If anything, the jobs that might be created is Help Desk Support for all the products that were outsourced and made/bought so cheaply. The support would more likely be done here, because of american intolerance/lack of understanding for foreign accents, so to speak.

So this begs the question, are those really the jobs you want?

In the long run, we will all benefit (4, Insightful)

dogfart (601976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092591)

But as the economist John Maynard Keynes said, "In the long run, we will all be dead."

time frame? (2, Insightful)

spammeister (586331) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092592)

But what is the realistic time frame for the world to become rich enough to afford all this wonderful crap we first worlders take for granted? 20, 50, 100 years? This isn't an instantaneous merry-go-round of wealth.

Of course! (1)

xsupergr0verx (758121) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092596)

If "eating Cheetos and drinking Mountain Dew Code Red while complaining on a message board about how Lucas ruined the Star Wars movies while arguing about whether Padme or Leia is hotter" all day instead of working is better for you, then yes.

Yes it is.

Yes, but how long? (3, Insightful)

gargonia (798684) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092597)

I keep hearing this argument made in favor of outsourcing jobs, but what I never hear is a realistic estimate of the amount of time that has to pass before the good stuff comes back our way. If there's a fairly quick turnaround on work returning to the country of origin then it's a good argument, but I suspect that the amount of time that has to elapse in order for the jobs to start coming back is more likely to be measured in decades than years.

Jobs in the right places, better jobs globally (2, Insightful)

gofreemarket (783820) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092613)

The difference is that there will be 1) jobs which are more productive / efficient for the world and 2) a more equitable distribution of wealth in the world. 1 - Technology made automated manufacturing lines possible, reduced the number of manual manufacturing jobs initially. This freed up people to do other types of work. If a machine / program can do a good job in a certain area, why tie a human to that work? It makes sense to free up people as much as possible, to do things machines can't, utilizing more creativity and ability that machines do not have. Technology will help that. 2 - pausing on the debate of how outsourcing can actually bring jobs back to the US, many people who complain about outsourcing just don't care about people outside the US. Outsourcing means better pay for people in countries not as rich as the US. Its fair for people in other countries to be paid well for similar work we do in the US. If you have any moral sense, you would care also about the wages of people overseas. -Edward

how much IT can you use? (1)

KingPrad (518495) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092617)

How many "IT products" can a business use? If they've got 1500 employees then they need, say, 1500 computers. They aren't going to buy 2000 computers because they are 2% cheaper - businesses are just going to chalk the 2% savings up to extra profit. Extra profits are invested somewhere else or returned to shareholders. The shareholders are the executives, investment firms, and a bit of it is owned by employees. If the "IT products" are routers, networking cable, PBXes, servers, etc the argument is the same. Are you going to buy an extra PBX because they are cheaper? Ridiculous!

Re:how much IT can you use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10092699)

If the "IT products" are routers, networking cable, PBXes, servers, etc the argument is the same. Are you going to buy an extra PBX because they are cheaper? Ridiculous!

I may buy an extra Blade Server or Hotspare/standby device.

BTW: Over 50% of Americans now own stock. So "a bit owned by employees" is probably closer to 1 in 2. Where do you think those investment firms get their money?

When I Read This Argument... (2, Insightful)

Richard Whittaker (759551) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092622)

All I can think about is the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where they are using 'logic' to prove that a witch weighs the same as a duck...

Figures lie and liars figure (4, Informative)

Naum (166466) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092628)

From 1999 to 2002 (last available data), the number of "programming" jobs in the U.S. earning on average $64,000 fell by some 71,000. But jobs held by application and system software engineers earning on average $74,000 increased by 115,000. Thus, even as it increases the number of IT jobs, global sourcing of software and services changes the nature of IT jobs, moving them up the skills ladder and diffusing them throughout the U.S. economy.

First, basing conclusions on an incomplete dataset is foolhardy. The quoted numbers do not capture the complete status of affairs. Much work in IT is done via contract/consultancy and those job losses arn't reflected in the numbers listed. If Fortune 500 companies replace domestic consultants with those working for offshore vendors, it really won't register in those quoted statistics. But it's been happening on a grand scale - as I type this, I am surrounded by ~500 offshore visa workers.

Numbers aside, there is a larger theme that Ms. Mann and others of her ilk neglect - if lower end "grunt" positions are being snuffed out in lieu of higher, "up the skills ladder" posts, then shortly, in a few years, both ends will inevitably be filled in such capacity. Where, pray tell, do qualified IT "engineers" earn the experience and prove their mettle? By toiling on systems bottom-up and then gaining an appreciation and understanding of complex system underpinnings. Or am I to understand that these ranks are now to be filled entirely by MBAs and sociology majors? Young folks are choosing alternate career paths, heeding the alarms that the parents and older friends send their way.

One more time (3, Interesting)

Nuttles (625038) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092632)

I am a programmer, I make my money from making programs. I expect to get paid very well for what I do. I have spent thousands of dollars in not only college expenses, but also other training and materials. If x number of programming jobs are exported to another country because U.S. coorporations don't want to pay what I expect how does that benifit me the programmer? The economy as a whole 'may' not be hurt, but actually helped, but in the end there are less programming jobs out there than if there weren't outsourcing programming jobs. The big picture doesn't make me feel better.

Nuttles
Saved By Grace

Re:One more time (5, Insightful)

gofreemarket (783820) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092655)

I'm sorry, in the short term it might not benefit you as the programmer. But you were the one that chose to do programming and because of your choice, you have to face the fact that thousands of people overseas whose families earn 1/10th of your income also need to eat. They'll be asking the question how come they can do similar work as you and me and are willing to be paid 1/5 to 1/10th of what people in the US earn, but they shouldn't get the jobs?

Re:One more time (4, Insightful)

sabat (23293) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092669)

Well, slow down a little -- the world doesn't owe you anything because you made all that effort. Whether it's fair or not, it's up to each of us to find a way to be valuable to a company.

If they export our jobs, they'll get what they pay for (and usually do -- witness the failure that is outsourcing).

The only bad part of that situation is that it takes CEOs and boards a few years to figure out that they're not getting what they pay for when they outsource (shoddy code, slow response time, lack of understanding of American business, ad nauseum).

The reason outsourcing fails is that you can't easily just cut off one part of an organization and throw it across the world. To make that really work, you'd need to move the entire organization to that country -- and now you've just outsourced everyone except the board. Oops.

Outsourcing creates jobs? (2, Insightful)

tokachu(k) (780007) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092647)

Wow! Sounds like a good plan. When do we start seeing these promised results?

Oh, and did anyone read that USA Today article where people would rather pay $400 for local tech support than pay $20 for an offshore call?

Typical woman.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10092657)

Can't be trusted to manage money.

This is the same backasswards logic they use to spend spend spend.

Protect yourself by becoming useful (5, Funny)

Inthewire (521207) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092663)

Become a security guard for rich people.
Build trust over a decade or so.
When the upcoming collapse is in full swing, abuse that trust by handing the boss over to the tar-n-feathers brigade.
Ya gotta think long term.

Economic Voo Doo !! (1)

ElDuderino44137 (660751) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092665)

"meaning more products to make & manage = net gain of IT jobs in the US"

Do these jobs pay above minimum wage?

--The Dude

Explain (1)

mauriatm (531406) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092666)

I won't pretend to know all the issues involved in outsourcing as it is currently used. I am curious though as to what people think.
Is outsourcing good/bad in the U.S. because the U.S. loses jobs?
Is it good/bad that a developing country (say India) receives jobs?
Is the economy of the U.S. (a world power) more important than the economy of a developing country?

Basic economics (5, Interesting)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092673)

It's basic economics. What is described is how it works in theory. However, the theory requires perfect knowledge for all parties involved, zero costs for movement of capital (human and otherwise). I'm also unsure how comparative advantage [google.com] (Google and David Ricardo are your friends) works in a market that is essentially saturated.

Perhaps the thing that really needs to be looked at is that IT support is viewed as a commodity. Support offered in India or Russia is viewed as the same quality product as that offered in the US. If this is the case, quitcherbitchin. I doubt you are buy American in other walks of life. If there is a difference in quality, it's time to express that. Was it Dell who found that their business customers wanted US tech support instead of Indian tech support? (or HP?) The product wasn't a commodity, so it couldn't be switched.

Rather than gripe about losing your job, explain why it's better that you have it than someone in another hemisphere.

And if you made it this far, here's a link to a non unreadable article [slashdot.org] . Will Taco et al. ever admit they are wrong with this color choice?

Final proof that all economists are pot heads (0, Troll)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092684)

And don't know a damn thing about what they claim to be experts in. Anybody who hires an economist might as well be hiring a crystal ball worshiper for all the good the information will do you.

Dogma BS again .... (1)

OldHawk777 (19923) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092695)

Catherine Mann has little understanding of technology (another pseudo-savant for US). Reality is that technology at a time-rate of about twice Moore's Law will have significant human factor improvements. The more and cheaper products will be made overseas where it is cheaper to manufacture as stated. The human-factors improvements (that track with Moore's Law) will mean less requirements for highly qualified systems/IT/network administrators/managers. IOWs, Device quantities increase, features and functions improve and human-factors are part of the improvements. IT will be easier to install, initialize, configure, maintain, upgrade, ... less requirements for IT jobs in the USA for US.

Catherine Mann is a plutocrats dogma monger telling US all will be okay. Next week the Republicans, just as the Democrats did recently. Don't worry be happy, you fools, all is okay in time you will be dead and not ever need to be bothered again.

erm... no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10092710)

She's got an interesting argument: outsourcing means cheaper IT products, meaning businesses will buy more, meaning more products to make & manage = net gain of IT jobs in the US. Ummm, did you follow that?"

Yes, and those additional products will be made and managed overseas. Anyone want to explain why cheaper products == hiring back US workers? As long as there are large cost savings of going overseas, there's no reason for US companies to come back here...

Re:erm... no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10092759)

Heh, not to mention India and China both have more than a billion people each. I doubt a shortage of labor would ever occur. So, why would those companies ever hire back US employees??? Simple supply and demand-- the high labor supply over there also keeps labor costs low. Cathy, what the hell would change that fact?

One key assumption many have (4, Interesting)

madro (221107) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092715)

is that economics is a zero-sum game. Lower costs supposedly means more profit to executives, but no increase in jobs. Higher overall demand supposedly means higher demand for outsourced workers.

What the author is trying to point out is that whole new markets of opportunity will open once the cost of basic programming activities is low enough. One of the benefits of open source software is that poorer countries can now obtain technology that before was out of their reach (or they can at least extract higher discounts from proprietary vendors).

I have a friend who works as a software consultant customizing proprietary accounting software for small/medium enterprises like those described by the author. That's the basic outline of the future -- smaller companies could benefit from technology that goes beyond office applications, but to more backroom ops, or e-commerce opportunities, or whatever. You won't get paid based on your ability to write something that can be written cheaply overseas to target a generic problem -- you'll be paid to tweak that piece into something that gives a competitive advantage to your customer ... or you'll be paid to integrate that piece with other pieces that can be picked up cheap as open source software or as cheaply developed components.

Many industries assemble cheaper components into an overall design that delivers a value greater than the cost of the parts. Software, as an intangible good, provides some interesting (perhaps worrying?) differences that make economic analogies a little tricker to apply.

But I think while some components are open to a research/science approach (algorithms, maybe frameworks) I think the majority of software is close to manufactured goods in that customer requirements drive a solution that isn't generically applicable or saleable (a problem for Microsoft-ish companies that try to sell the same thing to everybody). The world of de facto standard products gets a lot of press because it's typically winner-take-all (google, MS Office, MS IE), but the growth in demand and in jobs will be in the world of tweaked software.

How can you compete with $9.60/hour? (2, Insightful)

mc6809e (214243) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092717)

I just recently came across this site. [kasamba.com]

Some of these guys are charging $0.16/minute for programming help ( $9.60/hour). Hell, the 976-HOTT girls make much more than that.

I should have gone into the sex-talk business instead of programming.

Indeed (1)

Craig Ringer (302899) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092725)

Not only do I get it, but I think similar things apply to the software market when it comes to free/libre software.

High volume shrinkwrap software is likely to take a hit. So is infrastructure software. That'll free up cash - home and office users who aren't buying expensive OS, AV, and office software. That cash goes back into the economy. Some of it will go to higher-level software, some to cusomisation and services. It'll all still be taxed.

Good for you? Not if you sell shrinkwrap software, but probably yes if you're a custom software house or "value added" provider. Good for the industry? Hard to tell.

The end of the world that'll cause governments to collapse and countries to fall into anarchy? Hardly.

Outsourcing = wages go down for you, up for execs (2, Insightful)

Serveert (102805) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092727)

Wages in IT have remained flat in the US/gone down whereas for execs it has gained at least 20% just in the last year and that is average for the last few years.

That is what outsourcing gives us. So get to the top while you still can, you're either at the top outsourcing or you are outsourced.

Art (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092752)

I believe alot of good programing could be equated to the work of a craftsman or artist. I can see codemonkey products using this argument, but not for the highly crafted products. If DOOM3 was outsourced, it probably would have sucked and we would not gotten that program, no one would have made any money off it, AND there are no new jobs for anyone for the next project...

Trickle-down Reaganomics? (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 9 years ago | (#10092761)

I kinda have to disagree with all of that. Current trends is not that business uses the money it saves to buy new stuff, it's that the money they save, they tend to apply to top executive bonuses and salaries. The trickle stops at the top, generally speaking.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...