Outsourcing is the practice of moving lower-end jobs from the origin country (in this example, the US), to foreign countries (in this example, India - sorry smocc) where labor is less expensive. There is a lot of controversey over this topic. People claim it hurts this economy or that economy, it steals this job or that, and all sorts of things. I was wondering what the thoughts forum members on outsourcing is, considering many of our members are not from the US.

Here is a simple example. AT&T, a US corporation, has moved it's call centers (tech support and product assistence) to India, because Indian labor is less expensive than American labor.

Are you for outsourcing, or against? What is the reasoning behind your stance?

[Hah, not anymore.]

I don't like outsourcing labor to where children, the elderly, and other weak people are forced in laboring to make our products but barely make anything. I think Nike and a bunch of other shoe companies have been doing this for years. As to outsourcing programming/tele aid jobs I don't care. It might benefit the company in the short run, but I think in the long run people will switch to some other company (because of the slowly degrading quality of products and aid) that outsourcing will be a pain to the comany in the long run.

ERROR

Now my oppinion is: It's fine India needs jobs they have 1 BILLION people!

Well, computer programming is a very effective job to outsource these days, and I may have a job doing coding sometime in the future, so I guess I should be kind of against it. But it's nowhere near enough of a threat to kill my interest.

Well first off, it appears good for the company because they end up spending less. But I am against it for a number of reasons.
- Inexperience. You can train them, but the fact remains that cultural differences, plus no engineering knowledge of the product (they probably have a FAQ book they look through to help you) plus language barrier == unhappy customers who can't get their questions answered in a timely fashion, if at all.
- It serves to lower the standard of living, in the long run. If every industry did outsourcing in some form or another (assume everything can be outsourced somehow), then the standard of living in the US (etc) would lower and the world standard of living (specifically, where outsourcing was going to) would raise. In the long run they would equal each other and level out. It might be selfish of me, but I for one like having the stuff I do, and I'm sure you do too.

Luckily, these two points work against each other (a company will likely still hire some local people for more because they KNOW more). So I'm not dead set against it. At least not yet.

It's not just low-end jobs anymore. More and more white-collar jobs are being offshored--R&D, financial services, information technology, programming.

[QUOTE=The Mega-ZZTer]Well first off, it appears good for the company because they end up spending less. But I am against it for a number of reasons.

- It serves to lower the standard of living, in the long run. If every industry did outsourcing in some form or another (assume everything can be outsourced somehow), then the standard of living in the US (etc) would lower and the world standard of living (specifically, where outsourcing was going to) would raise. In the long run they would equal each other and level out. It might be selfish of me, but I for one like having the stuff I do, and I'm sure you do too.[/QUOTE]

But couldn't one say that it might improve the standard of living here a bit because the companies that outsource can give products that are cheaper for us? Because the labor to produce the good is less expensive, we can afford more products and services?

I think that outsourcing has way too much of a negative image. Sure, one could say that outsourcing can lead to job loss in America. But unemployment is a normal part of our nation and our economy. Compared to amount of people that lose jobs from other than outsourcing factors, this issue affects a rather small percentage. New technology in factories can take out more jobs.

If Nike goes to some African country and pays $1 for people to make shoes, wouldn't it mean the people are making much more than previously? Sure, alot of hard work for a dollar, but it is a stable job for money. Plus, outsourcing can bring new technology and some medical benefits to terribly poor nations. If people have more purchasing power, they can help their economy.

"They took yer job!" [/southpark]

Outsourcing is a dicey issue. There are three ways of looking at it, and the way you look at it depends on which side you're on.

Of course, if you're a worker that is about to get replaced, outsourcing is a bad thing.
They took your job and they throw you out on your a** in the street. you have to find a new job, so you might have it rough for a little bit.

On the other side, you have investors who are happy when a company trims the fat and outsources labor for cheap, b/c that promotes efficiency, and that might make your stock go up. If this is you, then outsourcing is a good thing.

If you are a consumer that buys products or services from this company, then you're stuck somewhere in the middle. Outsourcing will ultimately benefit you b/c if the company does not outsource, then the company will have to pay higher wages. to compensate for this, they will charge the consumer more. In this way, outsourcing is good. However, as a consumer, you may also be a worker (for another company) who is just like the worker who has been replaced. It may happen to you too eventually, so in that case, outsourcing would be a bad thing.

100% against outsourcing. I can't live off a sack of rice.

...care to elaborate? A sack of rice is better than no sack of rice.

Tell unions to stop demanding ridiculous benefits and pay raises to companies and you won't see outsourcing as much. Besides us giving these poorer nations jobs would bolster their economies. Good economies == no anti-U.S. setiments. And that's a good thing.

I agree with the above.

Besides companies failing their moral obligation to pay their employees decent wages and using the IMF and similar organizations to stack the deck, I have no problem with outsourcing. In some third-world countries (like India), local entrepreneurs are becoming successful selling to their countrymen, because (exploitative) first-world companies nevertheless introduced the necessary capital through their (pitiful and immoral) wages. There's been news stories recently of sweatshops leaving whole countries (in favor of other, poorer countries) because the prevailing wages have risen high enough.

Unfortunately, the US is screwed. It no longer has anything to offer except a market for international goods. Everything it does can be done better, more efficiently, and cheaper by people whose standard of living could, and will, rise meteorically for decades before it approaches America's. And are hungry, both literally and figuratively. Once our collective credit runs out, all our smart people leave for better opportunities elsewhere, and the last box ever made of American Culture sits moldering on the shelf of some east asian retailer, we'll have nothing but dirt-cheap resources and a bloated population, spoiled on years of decadence, that refuses to be dirt-cheap labor.

Well, you accept the risk as a low opportunity-cost worker when you choose certain jobs. So if it gets outsourced, it's not like you are being cheated. However, like somone said above, more and more "better" jobs are being outsourced.

Companies will outsource no matter what if the marginal benefit outweights the marginal cost. However, a more expensive worker may produce more marginal benefits than costs. Like someone said above, it is expensive to train someone to specialize in a field. So in a companies case, they will keep the workers that are experienced because their benefits outweigh the companies cost of hiring a new worker and training them. It very much depends on job field. If you are in a low opportunity-cost field, your job is more likely to be outsourced.

Also, outsourcing does help keep business' running. The problem with minimum wage is that it keeps business's that shouldn't be in business, in business (if that makes any sense). If a company can't support a minimum wage, it shouldnt' exist. Outsourcing allows companies to pay cheaper wages while not tanking themselves.

Outsourcing is a tricky issue, like Pagewizard said. Economically, it makes sense, but personally, I would hate to have my job outsourced. On another note about unions, Gandalf preaches the word!

The one thing you just gotta realize is that it's a business doing business. They are going to do it, no matter what.

I only care if people do their jobs right.

Agree 100%. I not only hate unions, I outright despise them. They have too much power and leverage for their own good, and their biggest flaw more often than not is that they look at things only from the workers' POV and are either incapable of seeing or else refuse to see the big picture. If I ever own businesses, I will do whatever I can to keep the unions out of the picture. And no, I am not doing that to take advantage of the workers, I simply want to offer them a better deal than the union ever could. The workers would get fair treatment under my system, and I would get what I want, which is more direct control over my work force. The presense of unions only creates unnecessary tension between employers and employees, and this is immensely counterproductive.

I know that companies can sometimes be abusive and workers sometimes need a degree of protection, but iversely unions have the power to cause misery for everyone just b/c they think that they are entitled to something (Californians undoubtedly remember the big grocery store and MTA strikes a few years back. The unions wanted ridiculous benefits, and in the end nothing was resolved)

The best way to run a business is to treat your work force well. Give them what they need and be fair with them so the workers themselves will tell the unions to go to hell when talks of unionization come up. Happy workers are good workers. If yu treat your workers well out of your own choice and free will, they will go the extra mile for you more often than not. It sounds cliche but its 100% true.

Take Starbucks for example. Each worker (erven part time) gets full health coverage, and that has been in place for a long time. People at Starbucks always seem happy to work there and it shows in how they deal with customers, unlike other places I go to where I can tell that people hate their jobs.



I've said this before and I will say it again--Businesses that are unreasonable towards their employees just dont understand that workers and owners share a symbiotic relationship, and both NEED each other. Without one the other would not survive for very long, so it is totally stupid to screw your workers if you are a business owner b/c karma has a way of puting you in your place in such situations.

Say what you will about our "exploitation" of foreign workers, but it's clearly a step up from where those workers were before: either being paid even less by indigenous companies, or unemployed and without a steady source of income altogether.

I just have to say that the worst union by far is the teachers union esp. here in California. I am thoroughly convinced that they absolutely do not care for a child's education but only care for their own *** and job security. See election results for Prop 74. That proposition would require teachers to teach longer before getting tenure. And once tenure is acquire, it would be hard to fire the teacher. The teacher's union put up a HUGE campaign to see 74 be defeated. In the end, the union won. Teachers have to teach not but two years consecutively and they're basically in it for life. They teacher's union has the California state legislature by the sack and probably a good chunk of the people too. Meanwhile CA is no where near the top when it comes to academic performance.

I probably derailed this thread (sorry Steven) but it was a rant needed. Although you might be able to squeeze what Page and I went on about in your paper...if possible. Ooooh. I wonder if we can bring in teachers from say Japan, India, or somewhere in Indonesia and see how they perform[/thread save].

What I find quite idiotic is that some companies are outsourcing tele-sales to India.
What this results in is people getting cold-called at 2am.
"Hello sir, I am to be calling you if you would like to switch to 3G mobile telephones?" "It's 2 in the morning!!"
"How very much do you pay each month for your phone at the moment?"
"What?" (bugger this) *click*

On top of that the accent itself is often very thick and the line can be quite bad. I can't see how in these cases the reduced staffing costs could offset the reduced sales. Most annoying of all is that you can place yourself on a list here that means other companies are not allowed to cold-call you, but once they're based in India they can do as they please since it only applies to companies in the UK.

EDIT: JG, won't that just backfire on the Teacher's Union though? New teachers will only be offered short term contracts and the kids will ultimately suffer as each year they have a new teacher who doesn't know the system at that particular school quite so well.

Don't get me started on unions in the UK. Most Britassians will agree, the London Underground unions (and rail unions in general) are money grabbing gits (language warning). They get paid £30k last I heard for a job that you get trained for in a couple of days! They still moan and complain. All they have to do is make sure the train stops at the right place and gets going again, they need no special qualifications, they get all sorts of other benefits and a cushy wage.
A little while ago the rail union went on strike after a driver was fired when someone photographed him sitting back and reading a newspaper rather than watching the tracks! Each time they do this they attack the commuters and affect business throughout London.

Outsourcing rules.

Jobless hippies need to recognize.

Michael: Except the unemployed were subsistance farming before, so income was a moot point. They may be making more but they often have less. Also, significant investments in, I don't know, growing coffee beans, financed by debt while prices were strong would result in all sorts of starving pseudoslavery when prices collapse. It's much easier to buy in than cash out.

It's beside the point anyway. Moral obligation.

I am in favor of manufacturing jobs being moved overseas, but I think that the corporations that do so should be taxed more heavily.