 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
National job relocation doesn't hurt the economy the same way as international job relocation. Thats why outsourcing is considered the greater of two evils.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Templar
Tell that to the losing region. The fact that the south was doing so well because of low wages and union busting should worry everyone. And how many communities were destroyed in Ohio and Michigan just so some capitalist could make a few extra bucks? |
I wasn't saying that regional job relocation wasn't bad... just that international job relocation was WORSE... in a national sense, regional job relocation doesn't make a massive difference, given the fact that the taxed wealth is usually about equivalent. International job relocation loses the original country tax revenues and additional recycling of wealth, having knock on effects on other jobs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:34
|
|
Here is my take:
1) Normally in economic downturns these things happen as the economy does some shifting and reorganizing.
2) Outsourcing makes sense for certain functions, but is ridiculous and immoral for other functions.
Where it works:
For software vendors, having a 24/7 support line available with top quality engineers all time, outsourcing to India or Australia makes sense. These people are working "normal" hours in their respective countries, are highly skilled, speak English well, and best of all aren't "taking" jobs from Americans. Because trust me you aren't going to find that the quality and quantity of engineers that are available to work at 1 in the morning. So the time difference is a major thing when a company wants to expand its service.
Priya. 
Where it doesn't work:
It's outright DESPICABLE for government agencies especially to be outsourcing. The government should ALWAYS be a place where citizens can find a stable job. Culturual differences also make government jobs highly sensitive to knowing the people you are serving.
3) Outsourcing isn't always superior. There have been alot of horror stories about poor service due to language and cultural barriers. Companies can also get bad press if workers find out they are outsourcing jobs that could have been done stateside.
4) Normally in an economic downturn, foreigners get scapegoated. In the late 80s and early 90s it was the Japanese. But if you've ever seen some of the HUGE, I mean HUGE, factories, and headquarters, the Japanese built in America, where they were creating highly paid, skilled jobs for Americans, the scapegoating wasn't fair. I've worked for a Japanese company and so I appreciate them bringing their business to the US. It's the best job I ever had, and sometimes I regret not staying but my current job is the bomb so everything works out. 
5) The US is ALWAYS going to be the best place for foreigners to invest. Every generation, someone new will come along. In the 60s and 70s, Europe was strong. In the 80s, it was Japan. Now we have Korea and China coming along strong. But the US will always be there.
But I know that this downturn has been one of the toughest ever. We will be back. And trust me, the next boom is going to be way bigger than the last. And the good thing about it is that the bottom isn't going to drop out. Sure, there will be another downturn, but it won't be such a hard fall. We will be okay.
USA! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
|
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
No doubt some tech companies are "hot," but isn't outsourcing an issue? Are these companies doing much hiring here in the U.S.?
A couple of things come into play. First, product design and marketing really have to stay in the U.S. Those functions aren't getting outsourced. Then, if you look at smaller tech companies, some of which have been growing at 30% a year right through the recession, they tend to outsource less than the giants do. So again, techies should focus their job hunts on the leaner, nimbler players. But, you know, outsourcing may turn out to be a temporary phenomenon anyway, especially in (high-tech) customer service, where there is already a backlash brewing because of language differences and other problems. One thing outsourcing does is, it distances you from your customer, and that is never smart in the long run. There have also been problems with piracy by overseas contractors. And the current vast wage differential (between the U.S. and other countries such as India) is likely to be short-lived. When you add all this together, my view is that more companies are going to realize, "Hey, we don't have to ship operations overseas. We can get a lot more efficient at doing the work here in the U.S., and keep our customers happy, too." |
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/anni...00.html?cnn=yes
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
[attempted threadjack]This isn't something the really applies to outsource IT tech support, but would something like this be possible:
If a company wishes to do business in the United States, and has operations outside the United States, those international operations must comply with EPA guidelines for the environment, as well as workplace safety guidlines, or suffer the same penalties/fines they would suffer in the US for such non-compliance. Repeated non-compliance = expulsion from the US marketplace.
Thus, a multinational corporation seeking to cut costs by setting up production in 3rd-world countries would be forced to pay attention to the environment (not that our standards are really all THAT stringent) and the safety of their employees. I left out wages, because I think it's dumb to try to force a particular wage level on a different economy.
-Arrian |
Many ways to get around this. Private labeling by third party companies, distributors, etc. Let alone the enforcement?
As for stingency of environmental standards, you really need to have dealt with the regs first before making broad brush judgements.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
More government now to deal with outside companies. A function of the already too powerful EPA. ugg. |
Well, given that this should help the host countries of these facilities, I hope we could convince their governments to assist us in the regulation (though that raises issues of bribery of the local officials by the companies, I know).
As for the regs, well, I'm most familiar with the guildelines for cleanup of a historical pollution problem, as opposed to regs for current operations. What I know from the cleanups is that they take FOREVER, sometimes due to the government moving with all the speed of a glacier, but also because businesses will try almost anything to avoid having to pay for a cleanup. Look at what GE did with the Hudson River PCB thing. I've seen similar stuff, just on a small scale.
So while the government is certainly to blame for some of the problems, so is private industry.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
|
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Well, given that this should help the host countries of these facilities, I hope we could convince their governments to assist us in the regulation (though that raises issues of bribery of the local officials by the companies, I know).
As for the regs, well, I'm most familiar with the guildelines for cleanup of a historical pollution problem, as opposed to regs for current operations. What I know from the cleanups is that they take FOREVER, sometimes due to the government moving with all the speed of a glacier, but also because businesses will try almost anything to avoid having to pay for a cleanup. Look at what GE did with the Hudson River PCB thing. I've seen similar stuff, just on a small scale.
So while the government is certainly to blame for some of the problems, so is private industry.
-Arrian |
I'll not argue that.
But your example go to the heart of what I talk about. The whole regulation issue has come down to nothing but employment for lawyers. Couple that with fear of litigation and US companies have opted to move out rather than risk continued operations.
As you are aware the precedents are set that even if companies are operating in good faith and operating using good acceptable practices of today they can be held liable for operations today if and when regulations changed in the future (ex. Superfund cleanup) Why would anyone with half a brain operate manufacturing in the US knowing that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
|
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
As you are aware the precedents are set that even if companies are operating in good faith and operating using good acceptable practices of today they can be held liable for operations today if and when regulations changed in the future (ex. Superfund cleanup) |
Yes, this sucks in a major way.
First, the principle blows. You operate in a totally legal manner, obeying your permits, etc, and then you get slapped with a cleanup bill.
Somebody has to clean it up. Which means somebody has to pay to clean it up. The Superfund thing was born of a desire to "make the polluters pay!" It just doesn't often actually work that way. What actually happens is that a few big polluters actually get nailed (after decades-long legal and PR battles, like in the case of GE), but also a host of small businesses that didn't really do anything wrong get nailed too. And then there is the insurance angle.
Insurance policies written 40 years ago are being dug up and claims are being filed. They were written in an era that pre-dated Superfund law, and thus did not contemplate this stuff (just like Joe's widget shop didn't contemplate that sending his waste to a licensed landfill was going to bite him in the ass 20 yrs later). By the 70s, you had the beginnings of pollution exclusions. By the mid-80s, there were much better ones, and specialty lines of pollution insurance. But various state court cases have often re-written insurance policies for public policy reasons. Sometimes I see the logic to the decisions, and agree. Often, however, I wonder how in the hell they could have made such a decision. "Sudden and accidental" =! "unexpected and unintended," unless of course you're in New Jersey (and now some other states too).
Basic concept: Insurance company sold insurance the gas station. The gas station paid premium! The tanks leaked. Ergo, insurance company should pay for the cleanup. Nevermind the policy conditions/exclusions. Insurance companies are evil anyway!
So you have lawyers in the fight between companies (responsible for pollution) and the government, lawyers in the fight between the companies (over who is liable for what) and lawyers in the fight between the companies and their insurers (over whether or not it's a covered loss). And sometimes lawyers in the fight between insurance companies over who owes what.
And in the end, who pays? The public, of course. Insurance premiums rise, the cost of doing business rises... etc.
But how do we fix it? There's the rub.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-03-2004 10:54
|