On the topic of outsourcing jobs

[Hey Bubu]

The newest Fast Company has an article on the problem many people have faced recently. Outsourcing of jobs elsewhere.

In a globla economy how do we protect our own and still keep money (the bottom line) flowing.



I can see why companies do it, yet I don't think it is "fair" for our people to be loosing jobs to someone outside our country.

What would your suggestions be?

Originally posted by TypeH

I can see why companies do it, yet I don't think it is "fair" for our people to be loosing jobs to someone outside our country.

Why not?

CEOs have a fiduciary duty to seek out and earn profits for the shareholders of the corp he or she runs. That is their primary and fundamental duty.

Certainly losing jobs sucks. Are you saying it is unfair for some one else to have a job somewhere else?

[Adam D]

Originally posted by TypeH
The newest Fast Company has an article on the problem many people have faced recently. Outsourcing of jobs elsewhere.

In a globla economy how do we protect our own and still keep money (the bottom line) flowing.



I can see why companies do it, yet I don't think it is "fair" for our people to be loosing jobs to someone outside our country.

What would your suggestions be?

Workers will have to stand up against corporations.

Originally posted by Adam D
Workers will have to stand up against corporations.

workers of the world.....untie!

[Hey Bubu]

Originally posted by xiannaix
Why not?

CEOs have a fiduciary duty to seek out and earn profits for the shareholders of the corp he or she runs. That is their primary and fundamental duty.

Certainly losing jobs sucks. Are you saying it is unfair for some one else to have a job somewhere else?

Companies have moral and social values to adhere to, those values and standards will of course vary depending on which country a particular company is at. People used to look to their jobs as a place where some sort of loyalty could be built. This is of course not the way in our time.

In a global economy it would be obtuse to think that certain jobs would stay here in our country. We have gone from a product based economy to a service based one, yet even those jobs are leaving our shores.

There were arguments that techs were getting paid too much and in some instances I see that. The salary that some of these help desk people got was quite nice. The salary that companies are paying overseas are minuscule in comparisson and the amount of work has in some instances doubled.

Board members of a company will always look at the bottom line, and of course covering costs and earning a profit is a must.

I'm still trying to formulate a viable hypothetical solution.

[Adam D]

Unfortunately, I think that nothing will be done until things get much worse.

[Hey Bubu]

Originally posted by Adam D
Unfortunately, I think that nothing will be done until things get much worse.

Like I said, globalization is here to stay. The rising technological infrastructure of india and the addition of lower standards of pay make it a perfect target to move certain operations there.

The lower levels of bureaucracy BS and workers rights make these new markets even more appealing.

Originally posted by TypeH
Companies have moral and social values to adhere to, those values and standards will of course vary depending on which country a particular company is at.

No they don't. Companies are ammoral - they have a duty only to their sharehoders to make money through whatever legal means available. (i'm speaking corporations here mostly)

Originally posted by TypeH
People used to look to their jobs as a place where some sort of loyalty could be built. This is of course not the way in our time.

Never was. That our grandparents may have lived well through the manufacturing phase of our economy simply means their era was less economically and commercially volatile - not that emplyers had bigger hearts.

Originally posted by TypeH
In a global economy it would be obtuse to think that certain jobs would stay here in our country. We have gone from a product based economy to a service based one, yet even those jobs are leaving our shores.

true. We live in odd times. Jobs are stratifying. Top end with lots of education or service/labor without. In between are hard fought after.

Originally posted by TypeH
There were arguments that techs were getting paid too much and in some instances I see that. The salary that some of these help desk people got was quite nice. The salary that companies are paying overseas are minuscule in comparisson and the amount of work has in some instances doubled.

Board members of a company will always look at the bottom line, and of course covering costs and earning a profit is a must.

I'm still trying to formulate a viable hypothetical solution.

was not meaning to tell you that you were wrong BTW - just wanted to hear your response as to why. I have no idea where I come down on the issue - in general I'm a free-trader but I am also quite adamant (I always think "Don't drink don't smoke" whenver I use that word...) about doing what we can to strengthen our job base without interfering too much - not sure if it can be done.

[Hey Bubu]

Originally posted by xiannaix
No they don't. Companies are ammoral - they have a duty only to their sharehoders to make money through whatever legal means available. (i'm speaking corporations here mostly)

Well they do and they don't corporations have changed some what over the years. Ultimately what matters to top management are revenues, but there is a certain level of morals and values that are expected of a company, which vary depending of where the company is at. If you notice Forutne 500 companies are ussually the ones that take excellent care of their customers and employees.

Never was. That our grandparents may have lived well through the manufacturing phase of our economy simply means their era was less economically and commercially volatile - not that emplyers had bigger hearts.

This was all dependent on the job of course. Generalizations are indeed a bitch. LOL

was not meaning to tell you that you were wrong BTW - just wanted to hear your response as to why. I have no idea where I come down on the issue - in general I'm a free-trader but I am also quite adamant (I always think "Don't drink don't smoke" whenver I use that word...) about doing what we can to strengthen our job base without interfering too much - not sure if it can be done.

Wasn't taken as that, I REALLY try not to imply any particular "tone of voice" to replies, unless certain explicitives are used. heheh. Seriously though, it is a touchy subject? Do we try to increase the level of education even more, so that our populus strives for a higher spot in the global economy? If we do or do not, we still have to remember that we will always need tradesmen/women to an extent. How do we protect our economic interest while still advancing an unstopable global economy?

Originally posted by TypeH
Well they do and they don't corporations have changed some what over the years. Ultimately what matters to top management are revenues, but there is a certain level of morals and values that are expected of a company, which vary depending of where the company is at. If you notice Forutne 500 companies are ussually the ones that take excellent care of their customers and employees.

What I am saying is that as a matter of law the leadership of a Corp must use their best judgment to make money for the shareholders. They have a fiduciary duty to do sio - if they breach that duty they may be held accountable to the shareholders....not fired - but liable for losses.

Originally posted by TypeH
This was all dependent on the job of course. Generalizations are indeed a bitch. LOL


Wasn't taken as that, I REALLY try not to imply any particular "tone of voice" to replies, unless certain explicitives are used. heheh. Seriously though, it is a touchy subject? Do we try to increase the level of education even more, so that our populus strives for a higher spot in the global economy? If we do or do not, we still have to remember that we will always need tradesmen/women to an extent. How do we protect our economic interest while still advancing an unstopable global economy?

Good questions all. raise the overall quality of or level of education for the population as a whole and nothing has been accomplished in a relative sense.

I think outsourcing is a horrible idea and has already gone too far.

[KING SIZE]

outsourcing is convenient short term, but when the people who make up the middle class here can no longer afford to buy the things that their outsourcers are offering with their stolen jobs then it's all going to come tumbling down. everything is a cycle, and outsourcing is only going to cause problems in the end. greed only causes everything to crumble.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by silent grooves
outsourcing is convenient short term, but when the people who make up the middle class here can no longer afford to buy the things that their outsourcers are offering with their stolen jobs then it's all going to come tumbling down. everything is a cycle, and outsourcing is only going to cause problems in the end. greed only causes everything to crumble.

Indeed.

[johnny861]

Here's a thought.. 60% of American manufacturing is done in America. Technological advances have reduced the domestic workforce needed to operate these factories is down by over 50%

The estimated number of technology jobs exported overseas to India alone, sits at about 75,000 jobs.

That's about 0.0005% of the total American workforce exported to India.

While a backlash over jobs is understandable, resorting to protectionism would be counter-productive.

A study by the McKinsey Global Institute has found that offshoring benefits the American economy far more than previously thought.

Many people believe that the U.S. economy simply loses money spent for services abroad. But far from being a zero-sum game for the economy, offshoring is all about mutual gain.


With India, it is estimated that as much as $1.46 in new economic value is created for every dollar American companies spend offshore. Both countries win. Counting the advantages such new business brings Indian workers, firms and governments, the McKinsey Global Institute estimates that India gains a net benefit of at least 33 cents from every dollar the United States sends offshore. America, meanwhile, earns a benefit of at least $1.13 for every dollar spent.

Why are the U.S. benefits so much greater? Offshoring creates value for individual American companies and frees U.S. resources for activities with more value added. For example, firms pass cost savings on to consumers through lower prices and to investors through higher profits. Companies also get new sales from Indian firms that boost imports from the United States. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy redeploys workers who lose their jobs from offshoring in ways that boost growth as well.

Going forward, as the United States ages and a growing share of the population retires, maintaining our standard of living will require some combination of increased innovation and ever-greater productivity gains - including offshoring activities to where there are more workers - or increased immigration. Offshoring will likely prove to be easier to embrace.

The difficulty with this global wealth-creation story is that people are hit disproportionately, and there prevails a static view of jobs in the economy, with each loss a vacancy forever.

But focusing on job losses misses the bigger picture. The losses are part of an ongoing economic restructuring with which the U.S. economy is well acquainted. Technological change, economic recessions, shifts in consumer demand, business restructuring, and public policy can and frequently do result in job losses.

According to widely cited figures, over the next decade the United States will lose roughly 200,000 service jobs each year thanks to the offshoring boom. While that sounds alarming, we have to put it in perspective. The U.S. economy today employs more than 130 million people; in the last 10 years alone it has created 35 million new jobs.

Even in good times, layoffs far exceed the job losses predicted from offshoring. In fact, because of the resilience and flexibility of the U.S. labor market, displaced workers find new jobs here at twice the rate of other advanced nations. While this environment can cause pain and dislocation for families, overall it helps explain why our economy's growth and productivity outpace the rest of the world's.

For society, the offshoring controversy resonates in the broader debate over trade and globalization: What should we do when something that benefits most people also hurts some of them?

Several measures could ease the effects of the transition without great cost to the economy. Training programs, generous severance packages and enabling portability of health care are good examples.

So are innovative insurance programs. The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that for a small percent of the savings from offshoring, for instance, firms could purchase insurance for their displaced workers that would cover their loss of wages until they gain new employment.

We must also set the short-term disruptions to people's lives against the larger consequences of resisting change. If U.S. companies can't move jobs abroad, they will face great risks from global competition - not just from other developed countries, but increasingly from companies in the developing world.

This could ultimately weaken the economy and throw more people out of work, in addition to forfeiting the new economic value and the chance to create jobs with higher value added.

The openness of the U.S. economy, particularly in its labor market, is among its greatest strengths. The threat today is that public policy will make the economy less flexible. To do so would endanger the well-being of the United States and of the global economy.

[HomoSexualPredator]

Originally posted by johnny861

Going forward,

buzzword alert.