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!

Small Town USA Competing With India

Zonk posted about 9 years ago | from the now-that-sounds-like-a-plan dept.

United States 496

William Hood writes "According to a news article at ABC, companies are sometimes opting to outsource to rural USA rather than foreign countries. Although it still achieves the same result of lowering the value of a job, I think the idea of moving to a larger house that costs less in a town with no traffic is a much better option than flying to Bangalore to train your replacement." From the article: "Sebeka is 14 miles from the closest traffic light, hours from the nearest Starbucks coffee shop and a far cry from the Chicago suburb he left. 'There is no traffic,' said technical consultant Clayton Seal, who also works in Sebeka. 'Anytime, day or night, you can cross Main Street -- almost don't have to look 'cause there's nobody there.' Seal also lost his job to outsourcing."

cancel ×

496 comments

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

Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (3, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | about 9 years ago | (#13417019)

How exactly do you buy a larger house on a smaller salary? Chances are, if they move you to a more remote and cheaper part of the country, they're going to reduce your salary to an adjusted range for that region.

So let me get this straight... you move away from your family and friends. You pull your children out of their school, away from their family and away from their friends. You go through the trouble of selling your house and moving to a new place and buying a new house on your reduced salary. You lose the conveniences and diversity of a big city.

And what do you end up with? A job that could still always be outsourced if someone gets that bug up their ass. And what happens when that position is no longer there? Well, now you're stuck in the middle of nowhere and will probably have to move again because your new little podunk town isn't where all the jobs are - just your current one.

But if you want to inconvenience your family and live like a nomad, at the beck, whim and call of your employer - go for it.

For the record, my employer did this recently, too. But I refused to follow along unless they not only retained my previous salary dollar for dollar (not just salary GRADE), but gave me an increase. Most people, however, are not in a position to make such demands and will be in the "do it or we give your job to some guy in Russia" category.

Even companies that are doing this then move on to the next step of outsourcing, because no matter how cheap they can find labor in America, it's cheaper elsewhere. There are places without OSHA. Places without the same expectation of benefits. Places without the same taxation requirements or insurance. Places with cheaper construction, electricity and maintenance costs. If you can hire an engineer for $4-$7/hr outside of this country, why would you ever waste your money hiring an American when they could make more than that at Burger King?

To stay employable in the future in this country, you need to have highly marketable skills that are unlikely to be shipped overseas. Brush up on your ability to push a broom or ring up a cash register.

Seriously, any and every job that can be outsourced, eventually will be. I can't think of many that could not be. Even surgery eventually (since we saw the story of a surgery taking place across the ocean, via a remote/robot). Management could be handled overseas. Product manufacturing can be done over seas. Taking orders at a fast food drive through can be done overseas. Gas pumping can be automated. Even cashier work will eventually be automated. I guess security guard work is probably a sure bet. Police work. Janitorial work. And, I suppose, hollywood/acting type of work. Maybe teaching?

And yes, I'm a little bitter because I was too young to get into the game to enjoy the dot-com insanity and profit from it and now it feels less like a career every day and more like an 8-5 burger flipping job.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417051)

Hello this is HAL,
How can I help you?
Would you like cheese with that hamburger?

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (1, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about 9 years ago | (#13417074)

Well, I don't know about that - but do you remember the story from Oregon (my home state) where McDonald's had outsourced the drive through ordering position to a call center in the midwest (North Dakota, I think?). There's no reason they couldn't outsource that overseas for even less money... except people overseas probably are developing a high enough standard that they likely wouldn't take such a menial job for $2/hr, while an American would lap it up for $5/hr.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417068)

Life sucks. Find another damn line of work. Parent is trolling.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417104)

Parent is a exec of a major IT company trying to justify outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417142)

Parent is a exec

Not you though. You need to go back to the third grade to learn grammar.

Oh yea, you are a fucking retard too. Read the Fucking article and read the actual posts before you begin posting your meaningless 12 year old opinion.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (1)

Synn (6288) | about 9 years ago | (#13417111)

How exactly do you buy a larger house on a smaller salary? Chances are, if they move you to a more remote and cheaper part of the country, they're going to reduce your salary to an adjusted range for that region.

I live in Fort Lauderdale Florida, I used to live in Fort Wayne Indiana. The same house in Fort Wayne would cost me 3-5x as much in Fort Lauderdale. Salaries here are higher, but not 3-5x higher.

On the flip side though, things like groceries, cars, cable tv, computers and so on all cost the same in this country no matter where you live.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (1)

chrisopherpace (756918) | about 9 years ago | (#13417143)

You don't work as a Guidance Engineer for the Geek Squad- do you?

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (5, Informative)

Uhlek (71945) | about 9 years ago | (#13417153)

Obviously written by someone with no knowledge of the housing market.

Most large metropolitan areas are, and have been the last 5 years or so, in the middle of bubble markets. Some are worse than others, but in almost all cases, those that make the median incomes cannot afford the median home.

Take where I live, Washington DC. We're in one of the worst bubbles in the history of the United States. People who make six-figure salaries cannot afford homes within 50 miles of the District. Even housing in far-flung communities like Fredericksburg VA, Waldorf MD, and even Martinsburg WV are skyrocketing.

The reason is speculation. People are willing to purchase homes they cannot afford out of the concept that they will make massive returns on it later on. They're right -- up to a point. Eventually (many are saying within the next couple years) the price point will level off because there simply aren't enough people who can afford those prices, then once it levels off, the speculation will end, and prices will plummet. Personally, I think it's all a scam engineered by real estate investors, which is why I'm renting.

Rural areas have been spared this. Making 100k a year, you can only afford to rent in and around DC. Making 50k in a rural area, you can afford a large home with acrage and still have enough left over for a very comfortable lifestyle. You won't be wearing the latest fashions and drinking at the finest clubs, but, you won't be expected, to, either.

There's always other friends, and besides, children would probably be better served growing up in a rural area vice a city, with all the problems that they come with.

It's all contingent on what's important to you.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417221)

+ You make $100k in a big city where the average house price is $250k.

+ Your employer cuts your salary 40% to $60k to match the cost of living in your new city.

+ The average house costs $175k in your new rural paradise.

How exactly are you going to buy a bigger house, now? Yes - housing is cheaper, but your salary is proportionally smaller, too.

Most big companies are not going to pay you $100k in HickSticks, Nowhere just because that's what they pay people in San Francisco for the same position where your HQ is.

Of course, I'm talking about the difference between maybe Portland/Seattle compared to, say, Wichita. The average housing price in Wichita buys you essentially the same that the average housing price in Portland and Seattle would. You're not getting more space or anything in the bargain. And once you factor in the adjusted salary for cost of living, you have about the same buying power for the same house quality as you would have with the bigger salary on the west coast.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (3, Informative)

aka1nas (607950) | about 9 years ago | (#13417267)

Where do you live that a house near, let alone in, a big city is only $250k? In SoCal, the average house price is well over $400k now. Somewhere in the midwest, you can buy a decent home for closer to $100k depending on area.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (1)

BackInIraq (862952) | about 9 years ago | (#13417287)

Of course, I'm talking about the difference between maybe Portland/Seattle compared to, say, Wichita. The average housing price in Wichita buys you essentially the same that the average housing price in Portland and Seattle would. You're not getting more space or anything in the bargain. And once you factor in the adjusted salary for cost of living, you have about the same buying power for the same house quality as you would have with the bigger salary on the west coast.

I think the article was talking about towns more like Salina that Wichita. Or maybe Tonganoxie. You know, actual small towns, not undersized cities with delusions of grandeur. And housing in a place like Salina, KS or State Center, IA is cheaper than housing in Seattle or San Jose, even after adjusting for median income. Housing in both major and minor urban areas is in the middle of a huge bubble, but there are plenty of towns in the sub-10k range that have not yet been hit, or have not been hit as hard.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (1)

creimer (824291) | about 9 years ago | (#13417155)

Well, now you're stuck in the middle of nowhere and will probably have to move again because your new little podunk town isn't where all the jobs are - just your current one.

If the house out in the country is set on a farm, the land can be rented out to be farmed. There are many different ways to use the land bring in some income. Living out in the country is a different lifestyle and you have to be more resourceful since you have to work for it. It's not like living in the big city and expecting everything to be there for you.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417196)

yea, you can rent the land out but the way the system works now a days is that the landlord is expected to pay a major portion of all expenses, from seed, chemicals, electricity, natural gas and for the pumps. But they only get back 1/10 of what the crop was sold for.

got to love farming

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (1)

zbend (827907) | about 9 years ago | (#13417303)

Farming has a become a hobby, an expense not a source of income.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (5, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 9 years ago | (#13417156)

" How exactly do you buy a larger house on a smaller salary? Chances are, if they move you to a more remote and cheaper part of the country, they're going to reduce your salary to an adjusted range for that region."
Easy they cut your salary by 20% and homes cost 1/5 what they do where your from.
I am thinking of doing this with our current tech support center. The difference is that we are planning on paying the same as we currently do. We are in South FL and frankly we can not FIND anyone that will work for $12-$15 an hour to do tech support. Home prices have gone up over 100% in the last 4 years. The average home costs over 200k now. The schools are over crowded and traffic is out of control.
Depending on what is important to you small towns can offer a better standard of living than a big city for a fraction of the cost.
If you want.
Clean air.
Good primary schools
little traffic.
Outdoor activities like, cycling, hiking, camping, hunting, and fishing.
Then a small town might just be perfect for you.
If you want
clubbing.
bars.
Chinese food that will melt your eyeballs at 2:00 am
Art galleries.
Live Theater.
then yea a big city is a good choice.
Yea you do sound bitter. My customers do not care that that a home is going to cost 300k here soon. They do not care that gas is almost $3 a gallon. They do not want to pay twice what they are paying now for technical support. I do care that the people that work for me can not afford a home and that the schools that they have to send their kids too suck.
We will give them a choice. They can stay hear of move at the same pay.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (1)

Doppler00 (534739) | about 9 years ago | (#13417234)

Wow, houses are less than 300k there? Around where I live the average home is still like $600k.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | about 9 years ago | (#13417274)

In Cary, NC(which is close to a lot of tech companies, specifically Red Hat), the average home is probably around $200k.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (1)

ipjohnson (580042) | about 9 years ago | (#13417333)

Lots of places have very nice homes for under 300K you just have to move out of LA/NY/BOS/....

Check out upstate New England and NY state.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (3, Funny)

Hugonz (20064) | about 9 years ago | (#13417259)

What if all I want is proper HTML, maybe some bullets here and there??? couldn't resist, sorry.

Heh heh... (1)

msimm (580077) | about 9 years ago | (#13417164)

Don't you have any friends outside of major metropolitan areas? Mine laugh when I tell them what I pay and what I'm getting for what I pay. I live in San Diego and the prices here (like a lot of other places) put shoe-box sized pieces of property into ranges I'd call pretty high.

Local economy, population density, there are a lot of things to take into account. So I don't think its so far off saying in a smaller part of the country, even with the reduced salary things like house-size will increase even as cost (often dramatically) decreases. Apple to oranges.

Anyhow, a lot of people live in urban areas for other reasons and the trade-offs to moving into a bigger house in a smaller town with a smaller economy might not do.

Personally I'm getting a little sick of the riduculous prices on just about everything. A quarter of a million dollars for a postage stamp sized piece of property far enough outside the actual metropolitan area that I can't actually enjoy it without commuting into it (with heavy, typical Southern California traffic) isn't sounding so good.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (1)

jonadab (583620) | about 9 years ago | (#13417197)

> How exactly do you buy a larger house on a smaller salary?

Buy it where real-estate values are lower. This is pretty basic. The cost of living difference between Galion, where I live, and Columbus, one hour to the south, is at least an order of magnitude overall, and the difference is larger for real estate than some other things. (New cars, for instance, are basically the same cost here as there.)

> You lose the conveniences and diversity of a big city.

Diversity I'll give you, but convenience? If there's anything less convenient than living in a big city, I'm sure I don't know what it is.

And yeah, being asked to relocate by your employer is a bummer, but it's not a _new_ bummer; employers have been asking employees to relocate for decades; it's just that previously they mostly moved people *toward* the bigger cities.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417207)


Seriously, any and every job that can be outsourced, eventually will be. I can't think of many that could not be. Even surgery eventually (since we saw the story of a surgery taking place across the ocean, via a remote/robot).


I can just imagine the first malpractise suit for when someone dies because there was an internet outage.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417210)

And yes, I'm a little bitter because I was too young to get into the game to enjoy the dot-com insanity and profit from it and now it feels less like a career every day and more like an 8-5 burger flipping job.

So, basically what your saying is that your entire post some angst-ridden monologue because you didn't win the dot-com lottery. Boo Hoo.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (3, Interesting)

SwedishChef (69313) | about 9 years ago | (#13417239)

How exactly do you buy a larger house on a smaller salary?

Anyone who has watched "What You Get for the Money" on cable tv knows that what you get depends more on where you are than on what you make. Rural America is no different. In N. Dakota you can buy 300 acre farms for less than a studio apartment in San Francisco. But unless you are a damn good farmer (or semi-retired) you might not want to move there.

However there are lots of places with most of the amenities of big cities without the high prices. In Moses Lake, Washington, for instance, you can buy a nice 3br, 2ba ranch house for under $100,000; often lots less. Or a condo on the water with dock for your jet-skiis for $129,000. And about 2.5 hours to Seattle or 1.5 hours to Spokane if you really *must* get to a big city.

Want Internet? Moses Lake has DSL and cable Internet plus Fiber-to-the-home in many places (not all) at reasonable prices (under $50 per month for duplex 1mbps). And power rates that are among the lowest in the country at under 4 cents per kw/hour.

Moses Lake has an entire former B-52 bomber base with a 13,000 foot runway and tons of room for construction of new buildings in case you don't like the old Air Force hangars.

Recreation? The lake itself is great for water skiing, kayaking, sailing and jet-skiing. We have hundreds of acres of sand dunes south of town for 4-wheeling and off road motorcycling. Bird hunting in the fall, fishing in the summer and deer and elk close by if you really have to go kill something. We are 1.5 hours from ski resorts and x/c ski areas, Moses Lake has a *FREE* ice skating rink in the winter, bike trails, tennis courts, a dozen baseball fields, great parks, and friendly people.

Ever want to learn to fly gliders? One of the finest locations for soaring flight is run by the Seattle Glider Council and located at a former WWII training base in Ephrata; only 20 miles away. This is where the Seattle pilots come to really learn to fly gliders.

Top it off with free concerts in the park every Saturday during the summer, a Community College and affiliations with several 4-year universities, splendid weather featuring summers with rainy days you can count on the fingers one hand and friendly people.

So not only can you buy a bigger house on a smaller salary but you get a better lifestyle too.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (1)

nomadic (141991) | about 9 years ago | (#13417328)

However there are lots of places with most of the amenities of big cities without the high prices. In Moses Lake, Washington, for instance, you can buy a nice 3br, 2ba ranch house for under $100,000; often lots less. Or a condo on the water with dock for your jet-skiis for $129,000. And about 2.5 hours to Seattle or 1.5 hours to Spokane if you really *must* get to a big city.

Since when is Seattle a big city? And Spokane?! You can't even make an argument for that one...

Start your own business (1)

blitz487 (606553) | about 9 years ago | (#13417246)

And yes, I'm a little bitter because I was too young to get into the game to enjoy the dot-com insanity and profit from it and now it feels less like a career every day and more like an 8-5 burger flipping job.

Why don't you do like I did when I lost my job and start your own business? Oh, that's right, it's easier to be bitter and argue that the world owes you a living.

Re:Larger house on smaller salary, huh? (4, Insightful)

rpozz (249652) | about 9 years ago | (#13417312)

Don't worry about it.

Firstly, offshore outsourcing in computer science appears to be grinding to a halt, according to a few sources, mainly because overall it doesn't really save money. Slashdot won't report it because their parent company, VA Software actively supports outsourcing. OSTG has plenty of adverts on it (not here though obviously - two-faced bastards).

Secondly, no manager wants to get too carried away with outsourcing, because inevitably their job is next, especially seeing as they will have an enormous salary.

Finally, as even Slashdot will report, India is becoming too expensive(!!) for outsourcing. However, not many countries have as many English speakers as India, so it isn't as easy to achieve.

There's a good joelonsoftare article on why it makes sense to hire programmers based on skill, rather than salary.

It wasn't HIS job (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417024)

Seal also lost his job to outsourcing

Ah, yes. Them dang foreigners are stealin' our jobs.

Wake up. It was never Seal's job in the first place. No-one owns a job or has a right to a job.

Re:It wasn't HIS job (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about 9 years ago | (#13417145)

On the other hand, a company that gets massive tax breaks and general corporate welfare on the cost of american citizens should not be able to sell those same american citizens out for cheaper foreign labor that the citizens that helped get and keep the company running in the first place could not ever possibly compete with, simply because they had the misfortune of living in a top-society that values the Fortune 500 more than they value employing americans and keeping the economy strong?

How is the economy going to work out when the only jobs in this country are service jobs and everything that is consumed is produced overseas? Including knowledge and intellectual property.

No, nobody has a "right" to a job - but that doesn't mean anyone has the right to sell the entire country short, either. There is a serious difference between the freedom of the employer and the freedom of the employee in this country. You probably couldn't even live on the street for what they're paying in a lot of cases overseas. Are you suggesting that people in this country are just whiney and lazy because they can't compete with a position that requires 10 years of experience and a 4 year university degree on $6/hr?

Wake up and stop buying the Fox News Channel business-line hook and sinker. Not everything big business does is glorious and representative of democracy and freedom. A lot of it is underhanded, backstabbing and unpatriotic. Like using offshoring as a forceful threat to induce Americans to accept lower wages and worse working conditions.

Re:It wasn't HIS job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417209)

Sheesh. Other countries have been outsourcing software development to the USA for decades. As soon as there's movement the other way it's all "It's not fair!".

Re:It wasn't HIS job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417247)

Care to provide any examples for your blanket comment? Bear in mind that "outsourcing" means taking job A in in company 1 and moving job A to company B. In other words, buying software from MS or IBM is NOT outsourcing.

Re:It wasn't HIS job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417191)

Carly Fiorina? Where ya been since getting shit-canned from HP?

Re:It wasn't HIS job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417212)

It actually was his job. You see, when someone is employed we refer to the position they fill as the "person's job." It's just how we do things. And in the same way that you may lose your job to automation, your own incompetence, a more qualified candidate, or the boss' nephew, you may also lose your job to outsourcing.

Only on /. (1)

khasim (1285) | about 9 years ago | (#13417241)

Only on /. would an anonymous post be mod'ed up to +4 for semantically parsing the words "his job".

If it wasn't his job, why was he getting paid by his employer for doing it?

Re:Only on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417288)

You parse syntactically, not semantically, you four-digit, brown-skinned cunt.

Re:It wasn't HIS job (2, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 9 years ago | (#13417256)

By the same reasoning, no one owns an employee, but we still have everything from overexcessive "we own everything you think" IP contracts, to no-compete contracts.

That's the thing I don't understand - by all means have a laissez-faire approach if you really think that works better, but that should work both ways, in the employee's favour as well and not just the employer's.

Sounds like a change for the better. (5, Insightful)

FireFlie (850716) | about 9 years ago | (#13417026)

Although it still achieves the same result of lowering the value of a job

We are still a capitalist society. If someone is willing to do a job just as well (or better) than the guy currently doing it, and for less money, what do you think will happen?

For the guy that is accepting the job out in the country this may be an good thing idea because the cost of living is often much less out in the country than in the burbs or in a big city. I'm sure there are also people out there that like both working with computers and living on farms, all with the added benefit of having little to no commute to worry about.

Another good side effect of this would be bringing money into smaller, rural communities without bringing in Walmart (I live in Kentucky and there are many such areas neighboring the town that I live).

Regardless, I agree with Hood, I would very much prefer to hear that jobs are being outsourced more and more to Americans rather than being sent overseas to India.

You're the first person who's thought of this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417094)

Wearestillacapitalistsociety. Ifsomeoneiswillingtodoajobjustaswell(or better)thantheguycurrentlydoingit, andforlessmoney, whatdoyouthinkwillhappen?

Baaaa-aaaaaah, baaaaaa-aaaaaaaaah, baaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaah.

Re:Sounds like a change for the better. (3, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about 9 years ago | (#13417110)

Except the reason that people are now in the position of being willing to do the job for this pay and these circumstances is only because the alternative is for those jobs to go completely away thanks to globalization. I'm all for capitalism, but while my employer has a global work force to choose from, I do not have a global pool of employers to choose from.

This isn't a good thing. If we weren't so lax about allowing offshoring like there was no tomorrow, people would not be accepting these jobs for pennies on the dollar in the states.

This is nothing more than the result of corporate strong-arming. And capitalism is all about free enterprise and pursuit, yes? Yet I only see the free part being attributed to the corporations.

And as some whiney bitch posted elsewhere in this thread about "people need to find another line of work then" -- the fucking point is today it's tech jobs. Tomorrow, it might be your job. Or your mom's job. Again - find me a job that couldn't be outsourced? Pretty much all of them eventually could be. And if we don't stand up, check for our own nuts and stop buying the whole "but this is the way a free society works!" bullshit, we're going to send all of our jobs offshore. Then we're going to be stuck importing everything. All of our money will (and already is) going out... and not coming back in... We are reducing our own country's value for the same of a few lame ass CEOs and a small echelon of the investor-class.

Re:Sounds like a change for the better. (1)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | about 9 years ago | (#13417255)

Of course you have a global pool of employers to choose from. You just have to accept whatever wages they'll offer you. If it can be done on a computer, it can be done by Americans for foreign companies.

Re:Sounds like a change for the better. (3, Insightful)

BackInIraq (862952) | about 9 years ago | (#13417323)

All of our money will (and already is) going out... and not coming back in... We are reducing our own country's value for the same of a few lame ass CEOs and a small echelon of the investor-class.

But I would think that this can't go on forever. Once all the jobs are outsourced, we'll hit the point where we can't consume the products India and China are exporting, at any price. Then it will be a wake-up call for them, because it sucks to be a business when your biggest customer is gone. Eventually we'll see Indian and Chinese companies outsourcing to the US, because we're so poor we're willing to work for less.

But in the long run what I see happening, the final effect of the global economy, will be a sort of equalizing effect when it comes to wealth across the world. Indians and Afghanis and Mexicans become more wealthy, and Americans less. The humanitarian in me cannot help but see that as a good thing. Of course, the American in me thinks it freakin' sucks.

That, and it wouldn't happen overnight, and the process wouldn't be pretty. I'm talking "Gee, doesn't the Great Depression look like it might have been a fun thing to live through" not pretty.

Re:Sounds like a change for the better. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417354)

-1, Unemployed whiner.

As a consultant, I've worked tech jobs in 4 countries on 3 continents in the last year. If you have valuable skills, you have a global pool of employers.

If you think somebody owes you a cushy job, well, you're stuck sitting at home posting on Slashdot all day.

3rd world what? (0, Flamebait)

joey_knisch (804995) | about 9 years ago | (#13417045)

Enter 1000 jokes about Nebraska being 3rd world...

Not that they wouldn't be justified.

Rural area? (0)

Infinityis (807294) | about 9 years ago | (#13417046)

Great, sign me up! Wait, what? Rural areas don't get cable, you have to use satellite for the TV channels? What about DSL...no?

Seriously, my parents live in a rural area and the best option they have for internet connections is dialup (even worse, they have AOL). Unless you also want to spend money on a satellite internet connection, be prepared to go back to the internet stone age. The only way to get around this currently is to BE a high speed ISP branching out to a rural area.

Re:Rural area? (1)

TykeClone (668449) | about 9 years ago | (#13417073)

I live in a small rural town and have had DSL longer than many larger communities in Iowa. From speaking with the phone company, everyone in their area can have DSL - even if they are in an acreage outside of town.

Re:Rural area? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417120)

My parents live in the booneys in NC - they have fiber available. Why? Guess it is easier to install new cable than it is in the city. :\

Re:Rural area? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 9 years ago | (#13417229)

I have friends in rural Idaho, Utah, Texas, and Georgia. They all have DSL and or cable. I think it really depends a lot on the area. Some small towns are running fiber everywhere to attract companies.

Evil quote from article (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417049)

Debronsky said the town's isolation will help guarantee workers will stick around. "There's no other work within two, three hundred miles," Debronsky said with a smile.

Translation: "We can treat these people like complete shit if we choose, and most of them will just roll over and take it due to the hassle of relocating to find alternate employment."

OMG (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417056)

At first I thought "Small Town USA outsourced to India"

Political Remodeling (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417075)

This should have an interesting effect on the political demographics of small-town USA.

Rural areas? How about just cheaper states? (1)

Cerdic (904049) | about 9 years ago | (#13417095)

This seems so extreme. How about instead of going from NY,NY or SF,CA to Nowhere,USA they just go to a cheaper state in a decent city. Like places in the Midwest (the Baltimore based company could have tried a suburb of Chicago or something and saved money).

I'm going to college in a pretty rural spot right now, and it's driving me crazy after living in various metros. The food choices suck, the entertainment is low, and I'm sick of all the poorly maintained pickups.

Re:Rural areas? How about just cheaper states? (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | about 9 years ago | (#13417144)

Heh, depends on the rural area. My favorite place in the world is State College, you have any type of food you can imagine, there are plenty of entertainment options both on and off campus(theatres, cinemas, bars etc), a somewhat decent public transportation system if you don't want to use your bike, and the cost of living is almost nothing. Not to mention you are only a few hours drive from NYC, DC, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh.
It's also pretty rural(and thus cheap!) as well. I was renting an apartment that covered everything but electricity(but they paid for the gas heating and cooking), phone and internet for $270 a month. I had my own room and only had to share a bathroom with 1 other person. For about $100 more per month you can get your own bathroom and a roomier kitchen in a very modern apartment. You can eat well for about $50 a week etc. Rural doesn't have to mean it sucks!

Re:Rural areas? How about just cheaper states? (1)

TykeClone (668449) | about 9 years ago | (#13417168)

State College is about as rural as Des Moines and Fargo. For city dwellers, I'm sure that it sounds as if it is rural, but it really isn't.

Re:Rural areas? How about just cheaper states? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417356)

But the internet porn is the same...

Good or bad, depending on what's important to you (3, Interesting)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 9 years ago | (#13417101)

Living in the city is important to some people, but not to all. I lived in Seattle for a dozen years. My wife comes from a small town in eastern Washington state (we met in college in Seattle). Every time we go back to visit her folks, I always end up thinking "this is such a wonderful place - too bad there aren't any jobs".

Personally I'd take this sort of job in a short second. Friendlier people, a real sense of community, no commute, an amazingly lower cost of living... sure sounds good to me. Plus it'd make my wife happy - she's still a small-town girl at heart.

Good things about rural areas (5, Insightful)

Infinityis (807294) | about 9 years ago | (#13417107)

Some positive things I can personally attest to about living in a rural area:

Your kids can graduate as Valedictorian or top 10% with relative ease

You can turn your TV/music way up and no neighbor cares.

Because it takes longer to get from A to B, you get a lot less visitors, particularly annoying visitors.

You actually take grass for granted (note: When I went to college, people were surprised at how I would cut across a grassy area without even thinking about it--apparently grass was respected if it was next to a sidewalk).

More space for personal projects.

Less traffic (as pointed out in the article).

No "Homeowners Association"...if you want to do home improvements or park cars in the yard, have at it.

An excellent view of the night sky.

Those are just a few of the things I miss about living in a rural area...

Re:Good things about rural areas (1)

Doppler00 (534739) | about 9 years ago | (#13417257)

You actually take grass for granted (note: When I went to college, people were surprised at how I would cut across a grassy area without even thinking about it--apparently grass was respected if it was next to a sidewalk).

I noticed this to when I moved to large city. I'm always amazed to see people do 90 deg turns on sidewalks instead of walking on the grass. What is it about urban grass that makes it so special? Are people so worried about getting their shoes dirty?

Non-potable water (1)

lullabud (679893) | about 9 years ago | (#13417344)

It might be the fact that they're watering the grass with non-potable water... sometimes I walk by the park down the street when the sprinklers are on and honestly it smells like sewage. That is yet another thing that makes me miss the country and the mountains... nature. Nature waters with fresh clean rain, not recycled grey water.

Being where the action is has a certain cost. (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about 9 years ago | (#13417108)

While it's probably a better cost cutting measure than outsourcing because lower cost of living - the whole bad thing about being in a super rural place is that you are miles from nowhere - and travel is getting more expensive and a PITA (to fly).

The other problem - even with the internet - is that you are isolated from the action - only so much business (to business) can be conducted over email/websites (talking about more major deals). Many clients still feel more comfortable with someone they can meet face to face.

This type of move is good for a programming/manufacturing (branch of the) business but not something that involves sales. Or something that is obviously website oriented. Otherwise you end up losing more than you save. It's not something I'd recommend to a small company trying to start up.

The catch ? (2, Informative)

rkt (9943) | about 9 years ago | (#13417109)

There is no problem doing this in a small US town.

The problem is that u need to find very well trained people who are willing to live there and work from there and still be happy with what they get paid.

Its a funny thing that u guys think there are no traffic lights in india. The cities where these outsourcing companies work from are not 14 miles away from traffic lights and not 50 miles from a starbucks like coffee shop. Its hard to see how a computer savy group can live without computer shops around, without the modern amenities and most importantly without coffee !!

Re:The catch ? (1)

creimer (824291) | about 9 years ago | (#13417211)

Its hard to see how a computer savy group can live without computer shops around, without the modern amenities and most importantly without coffee !!

You can order computer equipment from Newegg [newegg.com] . As for coffee, get yourself an expresso machine and make your own. :P

Re:The catch ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417290)

What makes you think there's no coffee? You can get a cup at the local diner, served with a smile by a woman named Mabel who addresses you as "Hon".

Outsourcing should be illegal. (1, Insightful)

Khyber (864651) | about 9 years ago | (#13417116)

USA Companies always say that they support the USA. How do you support our country if you're sending our jobs overseas? How can you support America by giving jobs we need to other places overseas? Some companies say they're patriotic - how does taking a job from an american and giving it to someone 5k+ miles away make a company patriotic?

Outsourcing of our jobs should be made illegal. You're doing nothing more than hurting your fellow countrymen..

Oh, hell, what am I saying. It's not like *ANY* big company truly cares.

Outlaw Outsourcing.

Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417217)

>Outsourcing of our jobs should be made illegal. You're doing nothing more than hurting your fellow countrymen.

If you really believed that, you'd be doing everything in your power to support Microsoft to help extend the American hegemony over world computer technology and bring foreign wealth into the United States.

Whatever happened to "the right tool for the right job"?

Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. (2, Insightful)

littlerubberfeet (453565) | about 9 years ago | (#13417222)

Market economics will eventually take care of outsourcing.

If all of our high-paying jobs are going elsewhere (say, manufacturing to China) then US residents will be working for much lower wages in service industries. We won't be able to afford the very goods that we USED to make, causing US companies to fail, cycling us into a depression, until we become the cheap labor again. In the long term, outsourcing hurts corporations as much as us lowly workers.

That being said, we need to stop corporate tax breaks for outsourcing and understand that US corporations are nothing without US consumers and US workers. A global economy can only work if we grow in such a way to bring standards and wages up around the world...Corporate-dominated market-economics destroys the very consumers needed to sustain capitalist growth.

Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. (1)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | about 9 years ago | (#13417297)

Outlawing outsourcing would be a restraint of trade. Thats not very capitalistic. You see, what people who understand economics can see is that globalization is not going to bring about the end of the Western world. There will be some uncomfortable shocks to be sure but we'll be alright. In the process the rest of the world will be brought up and everyone will be better for it. Its a good thing people like you are being ignored.

Can't happen (0, Flamebait)

ylikone (589264) | about 9 years ago | (#13417308)

That can't and won't happen (making it illegel to outsource). As long as north america has a strong capitalist force which everyone embraces, it will continue to be fine to outsource. What will happen is that eventually it will level out all around the world. The global economy will make everybody poor. Except the rich who run the corporations, they will get richer. The gap between rich and poor will widen significantly. What will happen then? Maybe a revolution.

Re:Outsourcing should be illegal. (0, Flamebait)

benjamindees (441808) | about 9 years ago | (#13417319)

How do you support our country if you're sending our jobs overseas?

Ding ding. Here's your wake up call. These companies are supporting the country by shipping jobs overseas to free up Americans to fight in foreign wars.

The US gov't won't outlaw outsourcing because it's by design. As outsourced techies are working at McDonalds, the people who should be working at McDonalds are being shot at in Iraq.

If everybody had jobs they could do right here, no one would voluntarily sign up to fight the Jews' wars for them. And the last time they tried to force people to fight a needless war, all hell broke loose.

Future's so bright ya gotta... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417126)

...wonder what these corporate clowns are gonna do when they wake up one day and realize they've gutted their own consumer base.

Amerrika (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417132)

Well, wake up amerrikans! Your life costs too much. To you, and to the world. Jobs are being outsourced because even your society can't sustain (by exploitation of the rest of the world) your own inflated luxuries.

--
Eat at Joe's.

world communications cap the common worker (1)

icecow (764255) | about 9 years ago | (#13417133)

No surprise here. In the past America's high economic success allowed even unproductive Americans high levels of access to piss away resources. Globalization is changing all of that. Now the domain of the wealthy are peppered across the earth and taking a new form that resembles a mega-global reincarnation of the Lord/Serf era.

Unaware to the causes (2, Interesting)

[cx] (181186) | about 9 years ago | (#13417150)

If someone is going to do the same job as you for less money and arguably as well, or even better, not many people are going to keep you on the job just because of the fact you live in the same country as them.

In a capitalist country, how could you justify it as a citizen to keep your job when someone else is willing to do it for cheaper?

That's how the game is played, the harder you work and less you complain the more likely you will have a job. This whining about outsourcing is just a bunch of over-priviledged people who are used to having it easy.

If you want your job back, move to India and work for $5/hour, that's right you didn't just want "your" job (its a position, not a posession) you wanted the paycheck.

Get into a field of work that can't be outsourced if you want job security.

[cx]

Re:Unaware to the causes (1)

littlerubberfeet (453565) | about 9 years ago | (#13417272)

Granted, US workers probably need to become more efficient, but: If all of our high-paying jobs are going elsewhere (say, manufacturing to China, or tech support to India) then US residents will be working for much lower wages in service industries. We won't be able to afford the very goods that we USED to make, causing US companies to fail, cycling us into a depression, until we become the cheap labor again. In the long term, outsourcing hurts corporations as much as us lowly workers.

Also, $5 an hour isn't accurate. It is closer to 30 CENTS an hour for some jobs. Maybe $2 if you have remarkable English skills. Hard-working Non-complaining workers have been outsourced. They never opened their mouths until the stench of burgers at the golden arches became too much.

I am working in a field that can't be outsourced. I chose it in part for that reason. Some people don't have a choice though...I am lucky to be able to afford a full college education. Some people have to start work right out of high school.

If we have to compete in a global marketplace, we should at least have the same benefits as Indian, Chinese or even European workers: Some amount of Gov't healthcare, access to higher education, and perhaps a government that doesn't give tax breaks to companies that outsource US jobs.

Re:Unaware to the causes (1)

ergo98 (9391) | about 9 years ago | (#13417341)

That's how the game is played, the harder you work and less you complain the more likely you will have a job. This whining about outsourcing is just a bunch of over-priviledged people who are used to having it easy.

You sound like an Uncle Tom - "Yes massa, I'll work hard without complaint, because that's my lot in life". What a load of bullshit, and it's an attitude that will guarantee you a lower class hard working existence until you die.

In the enlightened world, people are less servile and aren't confused into thinking that brainless hard work makes them worthwhile, and prefer to work smart while looking out for #1 (themselves). It's for this reason that self-employment and extreme capitalism is so common in North America and Europe. It's why most of the hard working, non-complainers are working for large Western corporations, that are full of endless ranks of idle middle-managers. Feel proud.

On the other hand, the industrious hard working folk of Somewhere in SomeThirdWorldNation can feel foolishly confident and proud that their meager paradoxically existence guaranteeing them a job, until BigCo decides that the pickings are even better in North Korea, and moves on. Already many large corporations are grumbling about India's tech sector being "too priviledged", to use your servile talking points.

In the end, though, I completely agree with you - Any sort of protectionist or entitled grumblings are misled, and ultimately those who are downtrodden about outsourcing just need to look at the massive and continuing tech industry right here in North America. A tech industry that is actually growing, despite the fact that workers are demanding more and more (some niches are back up to over-100K average salaries. Again, feel great about the fact that you've been suckered into working for 6 rupees a day).

I'll work for $12/hr or 25k/yr (3, Interesting)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | about 9 years ago | (#13417171)

I can code anything you can imagine, and work with any software program. I live in nowheresville PA :P Nothing to do here but bum on the internet 24/7 and wait for Dungeons and Dragons Online to be released.

I actually lived in Sebeka (4, Informative)

Chaos Engine (54555) | about 9 years ago | (#13417178)

I lived in Sebeka in 1990, it was a really nice little town. Good school, nice people, a public pool and ice rink. It even has a little river running through it.

I don't remember it being THAT small tho. I wouldn't want to live there now, but if I ever wanted to raise a family I could think of worse places.

How can you go wrong living in a place less than 10 miles from Nimrod, MN??

Protectionism (4, Insightful)

MrSteveSD (801820) | about 9 years ago | (#13417186)

My boss is always looking to outsource our jobs to India, China or Poland. Fortunately they are so paranoid about people stealing our business ideas, they never go through with their plans.

You will notice a distinct lack of protectionism when it comes to outsourcing jobs. When our industries are being undermined by cheaper foreign imports, the government starts introducing tariff barriers and/or quotas. This is because the rich people at the top of the chain are being affected. In contrast, job outsourcing benefits these same rich people, so there is no reason for the government to introduce protective measures. The government only protects its direct paymasters, not the little fish.

It's great, short term. (1)

khasim (1285) | about 9 years ago | (#13417289)

Sure, off-shoring the workers saves money for the people at the top ... but someone has to manage those workers and that means they will start to learn your business.

Eventually, they will be able to take your business away from you. After all, all of their people will be working for 1/10th the cost (even the CEO's) and how will your business be able to compete at that rate?

I believe the goal for most of the companies doing the off-shoring is to make big profits, quickly, and retire before the real bill comes due.

Re:Protectionism (1)

Safe Sex Goddess (910415) | about 9 years ago | (#13417302)

Agreed. Does it make sense to throw thousands of people out of work in America so that you can make $2 billion in profits instead of $1 billion?

How much profit is enough?

I'd like to see us move to a mixed economy. It always gives me the creeps to think that people are making profits on war, medicine, medical care, and insurance. Especially those who raise prices in times of disasters.

Necessities at cost, luxiries for profit.

At least the money is staying in country (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417214)

OT: Housing in the big cities sucks! Yes I make almost double what I would back home in the Midwest. I am paying 40% more for housing for 20% less space which sucks.

Cookeville Tennessee USA (1)

SumDog (466607) | about 9 years ago | (#13417215)

I went to school in a place called Cookeville. It was only about an hour and a half away from the city of Chattanooga where I grew up, and before I knew it, I totally hated the small town feel. Cookeville was a place where old people went to die and it drained the life out of everyone there.

If you're thinking about going to Tennessee Tech, don't! It's the worst school in Tennessee; probably the entire south.

While there a lot of my friends got jobs in call centers for SunTrust Bank. There was even a data center there for Fleetguard and the traditional factories.

I guess if you dig that environment, it's not to bad. They did have a wallmart and a StarBucks on campus.

I do miss the $300/2 bed room places sometimes compared to living back in the city, and the nice parks and waterfalls, but other than that I really don't miss bumble-fuck backwater America.

Interesting (4, Funny)

digitalgimpus (468277) | about 9 years ago | (#13417219)

Sometimes I wonder if it's harder to understand tech support outsourced to India, or southern US.

Outsourcing work to people's homes... (5, Insightful)

UpLateDrinkingCoffee (605179) | about 9 years ago | (#13417226)

What surprises me is that firms seem more than willing to outsource entire projects to another country or to some out of the way rural place, but as soon as the subject of current employees working from home comes up, it immediately get's dismissed for reasons usually related to "making sure the work is getting done".

The old hometown ain't what it used to be (1)

GrmpyOldPgmr (824319) | about 9 years ago | (#13417230)

It's actually not a bad little town to live in. Yeah, they've had DSL for several years now. Yeah, they've had cable TV for a looong time. It's not as bad as you'd think. There's little traffic but not no traffic. Just enough to keep you on your toes when trying to cross the street at midnight after a night at the municipal liquor store on Main St. There's people there that I went to high school with that got a better job, because of that company, than anything else available around there. That's a bunch of less jobs that got shipped off to India. Everyone thought it wouldn't last either but they have so something must be going right there. They've even got a *gasp* website. http://www.sebeka.com./ [www.sebeka.com] Yee haw!

Re:The old hometown ain't what it used to be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417307)

Neither is the web site,
http://www.sebeka.com./ [www.sebeka.com] ==
No web site is configured at this address.

Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't (4, Interesting)

gregwbrooks (512319) | about 9 years ago | (#13417244)

God, I love it when people talk about all the horrors of moving to scary, unconnected "rural" America.

A few data points from Plattsburg, Missouri (pop. 2,375), where I call home... based on what I can tell (and I've lived in Chicago and SoCal, as well as other rural areas) these data points could be duplicated in many areas:

  • Wages are lower, but the variance in housing prices and other cost-of-living items far outstrips the wage differential. The wage thing doesn't faze me because I'm self employed and, before that, I drove into Kansas City (higher wages) for work. Still, it shows up in a lot of small ways, like the fact that it's cheaper to get your car fixed or your air conditioning unit installed. Housing, on the other hand, is a shocker for anyone who isn't used to these sorts of prices. I paid $145k for a fully restored Victorian painted lady; there are small-but-cute houses in town for about $80-90k and I think the nicest Victorian on the market right now is about $225k. Compare that with the metro market of your choice.
  • "Rural" doesn't mean "no access to a major metro area. I'm 35 miles (and 35 minutes - there is no traffic) from the Kansas City metro area.
  • No crime and good schools. 'Nuff said.
  • Yes, Virginia, there is connectivity in the boonies. You just have to shop for it. We had to have DSL and we had to have it with a provider that wouldn't get its corporate panties in a twist if we wanted to run mail and web servers. It wasn't that hard to find.
  • One downside: The housing market isn't very liquid. A house put on the market in my town will take about six months to sell. That number is trending down as people discover the area, but it's still a far cry from the sell-it-in-a-weekend character of a hot metro market.
  • Another downside: Less access to fast food. We don't have any fast food in town -- the closest is about 13 miles (and 13 minutes!) away. On the upside, I've dropped 20 lbs. since I moved there. ;)

Re:Get a clue about what "rural" is - and isn't (1)

nomadic (141991) | about 9 years ago | (#13417348)

"Rural" doesn't mean "no access to a major metro area. I'm 35 miles (and 35 minutes - there is no traffic) from the Kansas City metro area.

Kansas City isn't a major metro area, though.

Blame the In-Jinns! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417254)

It's all we have left!!!

Where I live is a perfect example (3, Interesting)

ShatteredDream (636520) | about 9 years ago | (#13417258)

I live in Harrisonburg, a college town in VA where $35,000 would actually be a pretty good starting salary for a programmer since the cost of living is $17,000 a year. I'd rather be paid $40-45,000 a year here starting out than $60,000 in Fairfax, VA which is a pretty large IT area in the US, because the money would go farther here.

Seriously, these companies are abysmally stupid. They can always hire an English-speaking CS or CIS student and start a new branch in bumblefuck USA for much less than going to India. The best part about it for the management is that it's all domestic and if they do it right, they can drive out that day and talk to the team in person.

Like many CS students here, I'd rather work in this town for $45,000 because it's close enough to bigger areas that it's not a struggle to get out on the weekend, but it's small enough to make an entry level salary really attractive. I can honestly say that I'd be very happy making that same salary around here for 4-5 years because barring VA's tax rate going through the roof (yeah, fuck you Gov. Warner!) it'd be easy to really save and invest A LOT out here on that kind of salary.

Outsource to bumblefuck USA, not Bangalore India. That should be our new anti-offshoring slogan :-D

Outsourcing (1)

fossa (212602) | about 9 years ago | (#13417260)

I've heard from a tech company based in the US that it now costs the about same to manufacture a Silicon wafer in Asia as it does in the US. Not sure if we're talking bare Si, or an IC, or both. Also not sure if the reason is due to increased salary demands, or rising shipping costs or whatever, but I found it interesting.

Corporate welfare to small, not global, businesses (3, Informative)

Safe Sex Goddess (910415) | about 9 years ago | (#13417263)

During the Democratic presidential primary I heard one candidate talk about the need to stop giving welfare money to large corporations but instead give tax breaks and incentives to small businesses. The rationale is that small businesses keep jobs here in America rather than outsource them. I like the idear not only because it keeps jobs in America, but it fits in well with the American Dream. Giving people the opportunities of making a good living while being your own boss.

From the blurb (1, Flamebait)

deepestblue (206649) | about 9 years ago | (#13417266)

... moving to a larger house that costs less in a town with no traffic is a much better option than flying to Bangalore to train your replacement ...

If moving to a smaller town is an option, why isn't moving to Bangalore? Oh, I know - "irreconcilable cultural differences". Somehow, when immigrants to the US encounter the same culture shock, it's all right because they're getting "a better life". Talk of being spoilt.

Disclaimer: I'm an alien in the US. From India, at that.

Re:From the blurb (3, Insightful)

Dielectric (266217) | about 9 years ago | (#13417361)

It's not an option because the Indian government will not allow US citizens to work there. They've got an amazingly one-way division of labor.

Re:From the blurb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13417364)

Simple, the better life is here, not in India. You see people flocking to the US by the thousand, but you don't see the same for India, now do you?

Unitelligible English? (1)

dratox (894948) | about 9 years ago | (#13417276)

So now when I have to call tech support it's going to be:

1. Dial
2. Howdy Thar, hows you doin-
3. *CLICK*

If only there were no language barrier...

Great.. (0, Redundant)

EiZei (848645) | about 9 years ago | (#13417284)

.. now people get to decipher thick hillbilly accents instead of thick indian accents.

already happening (1)

toy4two (655025) | about 9 years ago | (#13417313)

My company just opened a Somerset, KY help desk. Beat the company I just left where I had to train my replacement in Tijuana Mexico!!

the true reason for outsourcing call centers is, (1)

pair-a-noyd (594371) | about 9 years ago | (#13417326)

because they know we can't f*cking kill them!

Many scumbag corporations, especially utility companies hide in concrete and brick towers without windows and when you call about a problem with service or billing a computer decides if it should route your call to India or Pakistan. And when the idiot on the other end just doesn't get it, and you are at the point of killing them if you could, they just grin and hang up on you knowing that you have no power what-so-ever, that they control you and the situation 100%.

Many years ago when everything was made here, serviced here, answered here, there was accountability. Now, they have you by the short hairs and they know it.

What can you do? Nothing. Bitch a little but in the end you still have to dish out the bucks and take what they give you, even if you don't like it at all..

Bribery (2, Interesting)

MrSteveSD (801820) | about 9 years ago | (#13417350)

This is slightly off-topic but I was thinking about why governments do not protect workers from outsourcing and I had an idea... The Government makes decisions that favour big business, since big business is the government's paymaster. Sometimes these decisions involve sending us to war and getting us killed just so they can get more bribes and directorships from companies like Halliburton. I have a radical proposal. Why don't we just bribe the government directly? Imagine if everyone in the country gave £10 a year to a special government bribe fund. You would have several hundred million pounds (or dollars if you're American) with which to bribe the right people. Suddenly we might be able to create legislation that benefits the public at the expense of big business. Bribing the government to get what you want would be a lot better for your health than protesting. When you protest, you have to stand out in the rain and get clubbed over the held by riot police. You don't see the board of directors of Raytheon protesting in the street. They are smart enough to know that bribery is far more effective. For example, if the government was being bribed by arms companies to invade Iran, we could counter-bribe and prevent it. This kind of thing could even work internationally. Many people around the world would be better off if the U.S. did not invade Iran. On an international scale you would have many billions of dollars in the bribe kitty! How can we go about pulling this off?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>