Outsourcing seems like its going to be a big campaign issue, with both Edwards and Kerry spending lots of time talking about it. We've discussed it at length on this blog
I wonder, what are the real policy options for dealing with American job loss to workers in poorer countries? My list of options seems pretty wimpy and uninspired.
I'd like to learn what you all have heard or thought about dealing with this.
Let's work from the following assumptions (start another thread if you don't agree with these) :
a. Free trade of goods, services, and labor is a generally positive thing
b. Its important to keep Americans employed in good, high-paying jobs, with an acceptable unemployment rate (say 4 to 6%)
To start things off:
For the recently fired:
- A strong safety net, with unemployment and health benefits
- Strong re-education, training program so people get the latest skills
- Support for helping find new jobs (although I'm skeptical about this because of Monster.com, and that most good jobs are gotten through social networking)
Education and research
- Strong K to 12 education system
- Continue American leadership in its university and community college system
- Strong government support for both basic and applied research to keep America at the leading edge of the technology curve
Keynesian
- Create government paid jobs in slumps
Tax credits??-
Don't give tax credits to firms who outsource. OK... I'll be honest, I've heard this about a million times, but never have seen the underlying facts, can anyone enlighten me here?
Free marketeers
Take no action, allow for lower cost of goods and services in US to create wealth and let the market take its course. (we've seen that, politically, this don't fly)
Recognize that more job loss has happened due to technology, then all the Indians and Chinese put together.
I know there's got to be more then this... this list just doesn't seem to cut the mustard.
haha, what a hard question. My two cents are:
1) Restrictions on outsourcing could take our country down the same road that farm subsidies and price supports have (BIG-hidden-tax bills).
2) For most small and medium businesses, outsourcing is a good thing. It helps to leverage available capital. Projects get completed that otherwise would not happen, and these companies will have the chance to move up the value chain (and maintain or grow their local staff).
Sounds like one vote for the 'free-marketers'.
Posted by: danny | February 26, 2004 at 06:48 AM
To throw out another viewpoint, at his February 15 lecture, Noam Chomsky was asked a question about outsourcing by a technology worker who recently lost his job. If you go to 01:18:35 on the audio stream (found at in the Recent Forums section of the Technology and Culture Forum), you can hear the question and the response.
Early in the response he references a New York Times opinion piece by Jagdish N. Bhagwati that he uses as a straw man to argue against. The article is an elaboration on the free market position Adam posted.
Chomsky claims that economic models might show that outsourcing is good but economic models don't represent the real world.
He says that "...outsourcing is internal to the corporation..." and that "...outsourcing has nothing to do with economic efficiency..."
I think the end of his ramble contains an idea that we can add to our list. He says that we could work to bring up standards and conditions in other countries. We could develop better trade regimes and work with countries to improve working conditions and environmental protections. It is not a swift measure but it may be one that has long term value.
I would like to hear people's thoughts on these ideas along with Adam's ideas. I can't say that I have my head all the way around this one.
(Incidentally, if you go to 1:33:49 on the stream, Chomsky answers a question about the presidential election and provides what I think is a pretty good argument for why not to vote for Nader - even if you are progressive.)
Posted by: Tom | February 26, 2004 at 08:53 AM
Something to add to that last post, one of my problems with the "raising the conditions" position I described above it that I don't know what the conditions really are in India or China. Maybe someone with more knowledge can comment. Today's Thomas Friedman opinion piece includes this description of the workplace in India:
"All the computers are from Compaq. The basic software is from Microsoft. The phones are from Lucent. The air-conditioning is by Carrier, and even the bottled water is by Coke, because when it comes to drinking water in India, people want a trusted brand."
That sounds like pretty good working conditions - and most of the other articles I have read about white collar working conditions in India are about the same. Is this one of the reasons that white collar outsourcing is scary? The usual arguments about working conditions don't hold?
Posted by: Tom | February 26, 2004 at 09:02 AM
One of the problems that I have with the "raising the conditions" argument is that environmental and working-condition standards are not what developing countries want because it looks like protectionism. If countries can't compete with their natural resources (think US agricultural subsidies) they have to compete with cheap labor and environmental exploitation.
I have two thoughts: one on "raising the conditions" and the other on creating jobs and dispelling uncertainty in the US.
The US-Cambodia bilateral textile trade agreement rewarded Cambodia with higher import quotas if they developed capacity to ensure worker rights. The International Labor Organization determined Cambodia's compliance and some attribute the agreement's success to the ILOs role as a credible third party assessor. (I read an article by Regina Abrami in support of this system but others find it inequitable.) It seems that creative trading schemes like this (not necessarily bilateral) have potential if they can be designed in to the WTO regime. Thoughts? Is this 'fair' trade?
In the US, its interesting to look at the arguments of some of Adam's free marketeers: Alan Greenspan and Jagdish Bhagwati.
Greenspan believes that a flexible labor market and innovation are a means to decrease unemployment. "In the 1990s the broadened freedom to discharge workers rendered hiring them less of a potentially costly long-term commitment." In a society at the forefront of technology, new businesses are created and destroyed; workers must be hired and fired. (Chomsky sees a flexible labor market keeping labor (or the poor) scared so they wont ask for benefits.)
An important observation (Greenspan) is that we can identify the jobs that are vulnerable to being displaced by foreign or domestic competition but "In economies at the forefront of technology, most new jobs are the consequence of innovations, which by its nature is not easily predictable..."
I think the public doesn't do well with this uncertainty and they won't argue against technological innovation, so they blame outsourcing for job loss - it's identifiable.
Bhagwati believes: Americans' increasing dependence on an ever-widening array of technology will create a flood of high-paying jobs requiring hands-on technicians, not disembodied voices from the other side of the world.
So here's my question: what would a policy look like that takes some of the uncertainty about new jobs away, and recognizes the flux created by innovation, by creating incentives for hands-on technicians for new technologies. (Nick Ashford says, "design work in"). Could a policy be designed to help create these service jobs as new technologies are developed without trying to direct the technological innovation itself? What about incentives for leasing instead of buying new technologies to create service jobs (and avoid waste)? Or is labor just too expensive for this to be realizable?
Posted by: Kate | February 26, 2004 at 02:08 PM
Bhagwati seems slightly out of touch on this issue, as he later on, in the same piece argues that few of the highly skilled research positions are likely to be outsourced in a major way.
Major companies like Microsoft and Google are already putting some of their most advanced positions in India and China.
However, there are still a very large number of Indians and Chinese that are completely cut off from the global labor market. These people (perhaps 50% of the population?) live in areas of poverty, and have not benefited from the influx of foreign capital.
In our own country, if we're hoping to achieve a far better rate of employment (4-6% in well paying jobs), I would look to policies that give our workers and future workers advantages over foreign workers.
>improved public transportation systems (focus on trains and subways in major cities as well as special truck and delivery roadways and highway lanes)
>benefits for workers/companies that telecommute/allow telecommuting (perhaps reduced federal income taxes for workers that work from home)
>government sponsored high speed Internet in all homes
The transportation improvements are for the benefit of businesses (for trade) and workers (for commuting).
Telecommuting is for the purpose of reducing the workers out of pocket expenses and for improving productivity.
The Internet is to ensure ready access to information for training and improvement, as well as to promote the acceptance of telecommuting.
Again, none of these 'policies' are designed to fight the flux of jobs to other countries, but perhaps they could prepare the workers of a country to be more productive.
Posted by: danny | February 27, 2004 at 08:47 AM
This was the very topic of lecture yesterday in Ashford's class. One novel idea that we kicked around to combat outsourcing was to look for ways to decrease the cost of employing labor in the US. On top of a base salary, pension, and health benefits that employers must pay for or on behalf of their employees, there is also a fair amount of tax. If these taxes were decreased, as opposed to capital gains, it would make employing Americans cheaper. And, of course, since this was Ashford afterall, we should tax the hell out of pollution.
I think this is a good idea, but I'm not sure how much this tax is, as there were few specifics given, and there seemed to be a bit of handwaving. If this "employment tax" were signifigant, I am extremely suprised that this wasn't the first thing to go at the end of the bubble.
Also, just reflecting on the Friedmann piece that Tom pointed out, I think its fun to look at the products that the Indian 24/7 call center uses: Compaq computers (manufactered and assembled in Taiwan/Malaysia), Coke (bottled in India), and Microsoft code (being written increasingly in India and China). (I'm not sure if where Carrier's plants are). The point is they are buying a brand, and the bulk of the profits are pasted on to American corporate executives, with almost nothing going to blue collar workers in the US. That's pretty much my beef with a lot of outsourcing: it's ecomonically efficient, but it promotes greater economic stratification. It widens the gaps.
Addressing Kate's comments on "designing work in," I think that as long as there is no international regime that would be enforcing this globally (fat chance), there would always be an incentive for others to take the work out, produce more efficiently, and have a lower cost.
It's all about somehow lowering the cost of American labor with respect to the global market without lowering the quality of living for American labor. While I would love to have many of the public infrastructre policy ideas that Danny suggested, I don't see them substantially lowering the cost of hiring American labor, especially since many of these are extremely expensive, and will come out of public coffers one way or another. It's raising taxes. While I'm not opposed to raising taxes, I don't think that these plans have a great ROI. Look at Palo Alto, look at Austin. They don't have public transportation, and business is doing fine. I sincerely doubt the addition of public transport or public broadband would have signifigant effect in lower the cost of employment.
Posted by: Chris G | February 27, 2004 at 02:18 PM
Chris, I agree with you that Kate's "designing work in" sounds very tricky to implement. All the trends now are towards "designing (expensive, American) work out" via out sourcing and technology. And, I'm also with you on the infrastructure points from Danny. I do like the tax idea, and would like to learn more about it.
I think I've figured out more about the tax breaks for off-shoring. As I understand it, when companies pay firms in other nations for goods or services, the American company can take a tax write off.
I learned about this on NPR when they were talking about corporate logos and other such intelectual property. Apparently, firms create a dummy corporation in a tax haven like Bermuda. They then sell them the rights to their logo for a pitance. The American firm then pays the Bermuda dummy corp big bucks to licence the logo each year, and are able to write off this "expense". While the dummy corp recieves the cash at a very low tax rate. (Sorry, tax rant.)
So, I think this may be the "tax break" for firms that out source jobs. The only solution I can imagine is to change the tax code so that $ paid for services from foreign firms couldn't be deducted.
Posted by: Adam | March 02, 2004 at 12:48 PM
"...what types of policies can be implemented in the real world to help Americans who lose their job to workers in poor countries."
How about live below your means, save money for a rainy day, keep one eye on the future of your profession, and be prepared and willing to learn new skills in transition?
It's your life, shouldn't you be responsible for it?
Posted by: David Andersen | March 02, 2004 at 11:17 PM
And Hillary Clinton Chimes in with her ideas via a Center for American Progress talk this morning...
Posted by: Adam | March 03, 2004 at 02:50 PM
Perhaps I am a cynic, but I only see a minor benefit for offering businesses tax breaks in exchange for creating new jobs.
An action like this does nothing to make an American worker more competitive, and does nothing to promote a company to operate more efficiently. In fact, as real costs continue to rise, the tax credits will become a crutch, that companies become dependent upon.
Also, the issue of offshore tax havens (think Bermuda) is a very different one than offshore outsourcing (think India). In general, the accounting principles of popular offshore outsourcing locations (Philippines and India) are pretty similar to those of the United States.
One of the root thrusts behind offshoring is that it really IS expensive to employ an American worker in/near a metropolitan area.
Consider the cost of housing in Silicon Valley. The monthly mortgage payment that an engineer pays on his $500,000 house (this is an average cost) is enough to happyily employ 4-5 engineers in India per month.
What about the cost of education? How much is a 4 year degree from MIT these days?
The real costs for an American are much higher - which is why I proposed policies that would better allocate workers (telecommuting), and better prepare workers. (how many people can MIT train per year? OpenCourseWare IS on the right track - but the training it provides is not exclusively for Americans).
Posted by: danny | March 06, 2004 at 07:18 PM
Wednesday's Wall Street Journal has a nice story (Access through VERA). ValiCert Learned Key Roles Must Remain in U.S. For Outsourcing to Work
In short, the lesson is:
It's either offshoring or perishing. However, companies must also think about what their core responsibilities are and keep those jobs in the US.
My personal opinion on offshoring is this:
A small fraction of the total US white collar jobs are being offshored currently. The current trand is such that offshoring will only have to grow unless the US decides to radically change its trade and business policies, which I doubt is going to happen. The fact is that one can not keep the cake and eat it too. Knowledge at Wharton had a good article about the need to talk sence about outsourcing. Those jobs are going out to India, East Asia, East Europe, you name it. Kerry's policies on outsourcing are fine, but don't be wondering if the rest of the world calls America a hypocrite.
One of the main reasons that the Dollar is not having a free fall is that most of the Asia doesn't want that to happen. China has more than $ 400 billions of foreign exchange, India over a 100B, South Korea over a 150B. The fall in dollar will be devastating to these countries, because considerable advantage of outsourcing will be lost.
I once again direct you to the two very distinguished economists who champion free trade:
Milton Friedman and Lester Thurow.
Posted by: Anup | March 06, 2004 at 11:00 PM
50 members of the House of Representatives have their own ideas about how to keep US firms from outsourcing jobs. They are submitting a bill, the Defending American Jobs Act - that would deny U.S. companies federal financing and loan guarantees if they outsource jobs.
The bills author, Bernard Sanders of Vermont has pointed fingers at firms such as Motorola and GE who have both outsourced jobs, and recieved credit from the Import Export Bank
I don't support this bill. The Im-Ex bank is a mechanism to provide subsidised credit to US firms for stragetic trade reasons. Its decisions should not be mixed up with the political battle around out sourcing. The sometimes questionable policies of the Im Ex bank are a different story altogether.
It will be interesting to see how this bill fares in an election year where job loss is such an important issue.
Posted by: Adam | March 07, 2004 at 05:15 PM
The interests of big business are driving the off shoring of jobs. EVERY professional job is at risk of being off shored due to labor arbitrage not free market dynamics!
Silence Or Compliance
Raymond Donald Pairan Jr.
Copyright (c) 2004 All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION
This paper is just a further elaboration on some of the topics that I presented in my work entitled “The Economy” which I hope has inspired the moral, the passionate, and displaced future working slave class to start inquiring about their ultimate condition within the hands of the business/political elite. It is absolutely wonderful that certain members of the media have started to question the direction and motives of the business/political elite and have beat the bushes where they’ve been hiding thus exposing their true motives to the clear light of day. But make no mistake the business/political elite will stop at nothing to eliminate any opposition be it ethical government, the media, or any other encumbrance that inhibits them from achieving their goal of creating a subservient working class and a contrasting unencumbered business/political elite power base.
SILENCE/COMPLIANCE
At this point in time the media has the business/political elite (forgoing referred to as the controllers) on the defensive at least within the United States, which is in the mist of a presidential election year. Make no mistake the controllers would like to and will eventually silence all media dissent against their planned worldwide domination of all elements that can negatively effect their goal of sucking every last drop of revenue from the world into their realm. If this means devising a means of quelling dissent from those within the media that don’t wish to go quietly with the controllers view – so be it. Keep in mind that money and power are the driving force of the controllers and everything and anything that inhibits their eventual control over these elements in their eyes must be eliminated. This could mean the off shoring of media jobs to compliant outlets such as India where in the case of the English speaking world there exists a future working slave class that speaks English rather decently. The controllers could then eliminate media disseminated descent to their plans of complete global control over all the factors of production including the eventual working slave class. This means that no job is safe from the plans by the controllers to evolve all jobs into mere subservient, compliant, malleable factors of production. Time is limited for the controllers and others that support the free trade (code word – free) subjugation over all workingmen and women. The ideologue's within the future working slave class will blindly follow one another lock step onto the slave ship that will set sail for their future of no dissent, compliance, no morality, no freedom, no future but one of subservience. The time is very near at hand so those within the media that are the moral voice of dissent must take our case to a fever pace in order to expose and keep all rouses from becoming the new molded distorted facts that can be espoused by the controllers. For the controllers their religion is money and power because for them nothing else matters. If they can gain control over not only you the educated working, the hard factory working, the service sector working, then they will be free to build a truly worldwide free market economy where they are free to do what they wish when they wish it.
BEND THE TRUTH LIKE LIGHT THROUGH A PRISM
If you say something enough and if you change the dynamics and distort the facts to your liking then eventually it will be believed by enough people to become the truth. Basically, the controllers just prior to taking complete control over all media dissent will be hard pressed to dispute facts such as 3 million jobs lost in under 3 years, poverty within the United States at record high levels, whole town centers across rural America with a preponderance of vacant store fronts, a trillion dollar deficit, most states within budget crisis, a college education now getting further from the reach of most Americans, and the list goes on and on. Historically speaking when facts don’t convey what the power elite (in our case the controllers) wish than they just change the way those facts are presented so they convey a distorted picture favorable to those in control. This is nothing new and has been employed quite successfully by those in power many times in the past in the form of propaganda. We must maintain focus on the standard measures used within the past and not let the seeping of new measures (touted by the controllers) distort the facts.
THE TIME IS NOW
It is imperative that we work with the media while it is still free to convey the truth about the controller’s objectives and goals. Time is quickly running out for the average working citizen to maintain some semblance of influence over their respective governments. The controllers will and are gaining control over these governments covertly, directly, and through draining the government treasuries converting partially effective governments into impotent shells of past power. Once the controllers are finished with governments than even the political elite will be at jeopardy of becoming obsolete. So those within the political elite may be enjoying the fruits of soiled money conveyed to them by the business controllers but make no mistake once the business controllers have achieved their objectives they will dispose of even the political elite thus eliminating this drain on their coveted profits. There exists one goal of the controllers and that is to extract and drain as much wealth from the world as is possible. The controllers have no God, no religion, no morals, no scruples, and no conscience but only one overriding unquenchable desire – the complete control over all aspects of their bottom line. They will stop at nothing to satisfy their additive need to acquire more and more wealth at the expense of anything that gets in their way. Any worker that is currently employed by a firm that has global reach over its factors of production (and this doesn’t include many small to medium sized firm’s playing by the rules) are at risk of being eliminated. This includes every imaginable profession since there currently exists the technology and desire (by the controllers) to out source any profession – first and foremost the media (the thorn within the controllers side). It is imperative that in the next few weeks and months that all of us that count ourselves among the working class keep abreast of issues, meaningful relevant facts, and not be swayed by propaganda spewing from the controllers. We must make our voices heard through written, vocal, and peaceful dissent to the path that the controllers are leading us down. We must not and cannot follow the controllers blindly into a future of no government and working slave subservience. Remember the controllers will use key phrases such as “free market”, “household survey”, patriotism, and many others to sway global opinion towards their way of reasoning. Also, keep in mind there are many honest, decent, caring employers (mostly small, medium, and large sized businesses) that are playing by the rules and respect their workers, and communities. It is probably only a few but powerful firms making up the Fortune 500 that are the real controllers of a destiny of worker subservience. I will continue to write the unpopular truth be it what may come. You should continue to question, reason, and judge the facts and not be swayed by propaganda. Let the facts speak for themselves because they surely will if given the chance!
Posted by: Raymond Pairan Jr | March 13, 2004 at 07:22 PM
This is worth a reading:
Where have all the jobs gone?
Excerpts:
Posted by: Anup | March 23, 2004 at 05:24 PM
News.com asks the same question as us, and give's their take.
http://news.com.com/2010-1011-5177976.html
Posted by: Adam | March 31, 2004 at 12:59 PM
Hmmm.
1. "- A strong safety net, with unemployment and health benefits "
So this would be available if you're fired but not if you're working? What if the employers doesn't offer health insurance for their workers? Would you suggest that people should actively seek getting fired to gain health beenfits?
If not then you're advocating a nationalized health system.
Either way you're creating a new entitlement that will require an increase in taxes to be properly funded. If the taxes are laid on corporations, then they'll have even more incentive to not create jobs domestically. If you don't, then you are further burdening workers who haven't been lucky enough to get fired.
2. "- Strong re-education, training program so people get the latest skills"
In what? Is the next big thing biotech? Are you suggesting that people should seek to get graduate degrees in biochem? Is the assembly line guy at the local Ford plant (just closed down) look at perhaps learning bioengineering? And how many would we need? Would there be limits or quotas? If everyone got trained in the same thing then there would be a glut of labor and an enormous waste of training money. So who goes where and who gets to decide? If someone chooses the wrong career, can they try again by getting retrained? Is the retraining benefit applicable each time they get fired? How long do you need to be employed before you can get fired and then go back to school? Can you make a career of getting fired and going to school?
Is there really an actual connection between employability and education? Why? Aren't the jobs most associated with education all being outsourced? I know engineers and programmers who don't have jobs due to outsourcing, but a plumber friend of mine is busy as hell. Should we convert the nation from a country of educated white-collar workers to a more pedestrian blue-collar workforce? Why not?
3. "Support for helping find new jobs (although I'm skeptical about this because of Monster.com, and that most good jobs are gotten through social networking)"
If there's no support for getting new jobs then people are left on their own to find jobs? What if you cannot find a job?
4. "- Strong K to 12 education system"
See #2.
5. "- Continue American leadership in its university and community college system"
See #2 plus:
Since outsourcing is a good thing, shouldn't we explore the applicability of outsourcing to hgiher education? Wouldn't it save a great deal of money? Perhaps a low cost online education employing english speaking professors located in low cost third world nations would be effective? How about hiring local graduate students to deliver lectures and to offer, for an hourly fee, mentoring in specific subjects? Wouldn't this reduce the cost of education drastically? Isn't that desirable?
Wouldn't this result destroy the domestic college system? Wouldn't that be a good thing since outsourcing is good?
6. "- Strong government support for both basic and applied research to keep America at the leading edge of the technology curve"
But isn't research costly? Wouldn't it save a significant amount of money by outsourcing research? Research seems to be a very labor intensive process, by reducing the cost of labor more research can be gained for the same cost. A terrific increase in value. Since oursourcing is a good thing, shouldn't we outsource research? Aren't many companies currently engaged in doing just this?
Also research is very different from applying the research in a commerical product. This effective divorces the product from the process so the research can be accomplished anywhere and it wouldn't have, aside from governmental controls on technology exports, much impact on where the commercialization takes place. So if we do spend a lot of money on research, and not outsource it which sounds ridiculous eh, then why would the commercialization take place domestically?
Would it be more cost effective to create a startup in a low cost country? The same amount of venture capital can accomplish so much more with lower costs. Isn't this going on right now as there is a reduction in venture capital available for domestic startups?
So the most cost effective process is to outsource the research, and thereby gain more research for the dollar, and then outsource the commercialization. Wow! Profits all around!
7. "- Create government paid jobs in slumps"
Wouldn't this require an increase in taxes? Wouldn't this add to the tax burden of corporations when they are least able to pay? If the burden doesn't fall on corporations, then how will workers pay when they are losing jobs?
Wouldn't this result in massive borrowing resulting is a severe impact on private and corporate borrowing?
LOL.
Posted by: ed | March 31, 2004 at 04:08 PM
As if 16 comments weren't enough...
This editorial from Reason, a libertarian magazine, offers their two-cents. (Hmmm... if I add up all these two-cents, maybe we could buy some outsourcing work done on this blog.)
The basic premise is that if you are against outsourcing, you must also be against productivity. Also, they try to equate free trade to fair trade, but I think they fall short by not including the ideas about equal worker health and safety laws. The author Sullum also puts the debate in context:
While this may be a big election year issue, I would say its too small thus far to significantly impact the economy, one way or the other.
Posted by: Mike | April 05, 2004 at 09:26 PM
Someone at Slashdot just started this debate by asking the community:
KoshClassic asks: "To state it simply, in today's global economy, the IT worker in America is in direct competition with IT workers in countries such as India who are willing to do the same job for less. Much of this willingness has to do with standards and costs of living in these other countries, and without lowering ours or raising theirs, the American IT worker can not compete on even terms if the only consideration is cost. What should American IT workers be doing to differentiate ourselves from our overseas counterparts, to add the kinds of value for employers that will make them want to look beyond direct costs and see other benefits that will make it worthwhile for them to keep these jobs in the US? I'm not sure what the answer to this question is, but I am convinced that the answer lies in trends and industry wide changes, rather than just individuals polishing their own resumes. When an employer decides he needs to fill a programming position, what is going to make him want to fill that position in the U.S. rather than overseas, even before individual candidates are considered"
Some interesting viewpoints coming out of it
Posted by: Adam | April 19, 2004 at 08:18 PM
This is from a website titled "Stop IT outsourcing to India" a.k.a. NoJobsforIndia.
For no good reason it reminded of the following:
Posted by: Anup | April 30, 2004 at 04:32 PM
This is from a website titled "Stop IT outsourcing to India" a.k.a. NoJobsforIndia.
Even I was prompted to say WTF!
Posted by: Anup | April 30, 2004 at 04:37 PM
:), Anup, unlike you, i did say WTF.
i then scrolled down the page and looked at the disclaimer..
"Disclaimer: Information on this website is not represented to be correct"
Adam- great site! One are which I am curious about is the marketing/communication strategies employed by both camps. How and to whom are the (opp/prop)onents of outsourcing communicating their message- and why they are doing so.
I think such half assed websites as above( and there are more rabid ones out there) are hindering the cause of outsourcing opponents. Elections can be won on public outcry, but government policy is less susceptible to theatrics.
My take is that showing jobless joe-sixpack with a "will code for food" poster is a no-win strategy in the long term. If the pro-outsourcing lobby wanted to, they could match every such poster with a a few million ravenous, undernourished children benefiting from the trickle down effect of outsourcing.
What is curious is why the pro-outsourcing crowd has not played this game, and instead the approach has been to either 1.stay quiet, hoping for an aura of dignified silence, or 2.quote.make up statistics, or 3.spend crazy amount of money on lobbying and indulge in backstage skullduggery..
-amrith
Posted by: amrith | May 14, 2004 at 05:55 PM
What ever they say towards out-sourcing, this is definitely gaining momentum over many businesses today and in the future to come, I believe!
Posted by: vmware capacity | December 27, 2009 at 03:27 AM
This was very interested and informative. However, you neglected to mention Autodesk's products (Inventor, AutoCAD, Showcase), which seems to be an oversight. Also, at Autodesk University I recently heard of a new 3D holographic technology that could be used in place of 3D printing. Not sure if it has a place in this article but thought I would mention it. Overall a very nice and effective job.
Posted by: Roca Wear Purses | December 27, 2010 at 06:33 AM
Nice post!
Outsourcing the lead process increases the company’s sales and revenues while cost is reduced. Anyway, thanks for sharing this post. Looking forward for your next post.
-fern-
Posted by: Outsource Call Center | January 05, 2011 at 01:54 AM
I have read many articles about this topic but this is unique is very interesting and it has a lot of good information of profit for me... Well keep doing that good job thanks for all..
Posted by: Costa Rica Doctors | January 07, 2011 at 12:22 PM