fn IBM and more out-sourcing

[bigred]

Dear IBM "managers" - please join the Supreme Court yo-yos who recently voted for more "eminant domain" and jump off a cliff. TIA.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/24/news/fortune500/ibm_india/index.htm?cnn=yes

(PS LOL @ "it's not about cost savings")

[Ladyhawk]

Senior Vice President Robert Moffat, in an interview with the newspaper, said the move is not entirely about cost saving.

Right. It's not entirely about cost saving. But I'm sure it's mostly about cost saving.....

However, there is an ugly truth we need to face. The U.S. is behind in the education game. I heard a stat recently that said that, by 5th grade, US students are typically ahead in science and math scores (globally) but by 8th grade, we're way behind. So, not only does IBM (and other corps.) get workers cheaper....it seems they get better workers cheaper.
:(

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
I heard a stat recently that said that, by 5th grade, US students are typically ahead in science and math scores (globally) but by 8th grade, we're way behind. So, not only does IBM (and other corps.) get workers cheaper....it seems they get better workers cheaper.

Yeah, but that's during puberty. We can't help it if it hits us harder that those Euro-weenies who have been in a population decline for decades. We make it up in higher education where we learn to handle our academics and our sex lives.

[corplinx]

There is a burgeoning tech sector in India right now. Makes sense to establish a larger presence there. You have Oracle in Bangalore and other large tech companies with sizable R&D there.

Contrary to some of my naive american friends, I know that Indian high tech isn't just outsourced tech support call centers and outsourced java programming.

[joe1347]

Originally posted by corplinx


Contrary to some of my naive american friends, I know that Indian high tech isn't just outsourced tech support call centers and outsourced java programming.



All too true. Unfortunately, outsourcing threatens almost EVERY job in the USA, which still seems to elude the mainstream press and public plus the politicians. Athought I don't think that the politicians care as long as the corporate donations keep rolling in. Enough ranting - it's Saturday and way too nice outside for this topic.

[zenith-nadir]

"Outsourcing" is a fancy word used by Americans to deligitimize the inevitable shift to globalization.;)

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
"Outsourcing" is a fancy word used by Americans to deligitimize the inevitable shift to globalization.;)

Perhaps. And maybe "globalization" is a fancy word used by greedy corporations to dodge legitimate concerns of the inevitable shift to higher unemployment in America.

[Manny]

Well, both are true. Look, people have been decrying global inequity of wealth for decades (or longer). Things like what IBM is doing are narrowing the gap. It's going to require adjustments in the United States, to be sure (though not as large for us as for Europe). But in the long run this is a good thing for the world.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by manny
Well, both are true. Look, people have been decrying global inequity of wealth for decades (or longer). Things like what IBM is doing are narrowing the gap. It's going to require adjustments in the United States, to be sure (though not as large for us as for Europe). But in the long run this is a good thing for the world.

But, IBM isn't doing this to "narrow the gap, Manny". IBM is doing this to make money, period.

I already know TOO many people pushed out of their jobs by outsourcing (excuse me, 'globalization') whose prospects for new employment are low unless they take 25%+ paycuts and/or are willing to vacate their field of expertise. How is globalization good for America ? Look at the number of people who have spent years in the I.T. industry who have been squished out. What are they supposed to do? How just does it sound to tell an American worker that, despite the fact that s/he got an education and worked hard to pursue a dream, s/he needs to step down so that less fortunate people in the world can start making the kind of money s/he used to?

I get it that proponents of globalization truly believe that leveling the playing field across the world will make the world a better place to live. I disagree. All it sounds like to me is an effort to force Americans to have a decreased quality of life so that others can have an increased quality of life. And this benefits America, how exactly????

[geni]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
But, IBM isn't doing this to "narrow the gap, Manny". IBM is doing this to make money, period.

I already know TOO many people pushed out of their jobs by outsourcing (excuse me, 'globalization') whose prospects for new employment are low unless they take 25%+ paycuts and/or are willing to vacate their field of expertise. How is globalization good for America ? Look at the number of people who have spent years in the I.T. industry who have been squished out. What are they supposed to do? How just does it sound to tell an American worker that, despite the fact that s/he got an education and worked hard to pursue a dream, s/he needs to step down so that less fortunate people in the world can start making the kind of money s/he used to?

I get it that proponents of globalization truly believe that leveling the playing field across the world will make the world a better place to live. I disagree. All it sounds like to me is an effort to force Americans to have a decreased quality of life so that others can have an increased quality of life. And this benefits America, how exactly????

The goods on offer in your shops should be cheaper and of better quality. Closeing your market to outside competition is a mistake in the long run (see japan to start with).

[geni]

Originally posted by manny
Well, both are true. Look, people have been decrying global inequity of wealth for decades (or longer). Things like what IBM is doing are narrowing the gap. It's going to require adjustments in the United States, to be sure (though not as large for us as for Europe). But in the long run this is a good thing for the world.

The EU just picked a reasonabley sized pool of cheap labour (the issue that britain economic future may rely on importing large amounts of it is secondary). The UK at leasxt has to a lrage degree already moved away from manufactoring and the like.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by geni
The goods on offer in your shops should be cheaper and of better quality. Closeing your market to outside competition is a mistake in the long run (see japan to start with).

And what difference does that make, Geni, if you are unemployed and can't afford to buy the goods, anyway???


ETA: and what proof is there that the goods would be 'better'?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
And this benefits America, how exactly????

In the short run, maybe it doesn't. What realistic options are there, though? The United States can't close it's markets to foreign products -- too much of the US' affluence is based on international trade.

As for what they have to gain in the long run; well, trade, science and technology and even to some degree the arts all exhibit the behaviour of network economy: the larger the number of nodes in a network, the greater the gain per node.

Consider the political, technological and scientific progress that has happened over the last few centuries -- primarily driven by a few hundred million people in Europe and North America. Now imagine the development that we might get if we could also get China, India, the Middle East and Africa up to a fraction of the economic and scientific powerhouse that the USA is today.

Trade is almost most profitable between near equals. Although the profit per unit is less than for trade between inferior and superior (the profit for the superior, that is), the number of units is far greater.

[geni]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
And what difference does that make, Geni, if you are unemployed and can't afford to buy the goods, anyway???


None whatsoever. However that wasn't the question you asked. You asked what the benifit to America was. There is also the issue of greater markets availible for you exporters


ETA: and what proof is there that the goods would be 'better'?

I take it that you have zero confidence in the free market then? If you have a closed market then the comapanies suppying you only have to be better than every other US comapany. If you have an open market then they have to be the best on the planet. Of course you can trying going the french way and claim that thing that are french are automaticaly better but in the long term that tends not to work out.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
In the short run, maybe it doesn't. What realistic options are there, though? The United States can't close it's markets to foreign products -- too much of the US' affluence is based on international trade.

When did we start closing our markets to foreign products? Seems everything I buy lately is made in China, Taiwan, Japan or India.

As for what they have to gain in the long run; well, trade, science and technology and even to some degree the arts all exhibit the behaviour of network economy: the larger the number of nodes in a network, the greater the gain per node.

Does the U.S not share it's science and technology with other nations now? Do they not do the same with us? Has every nation been hoarding its discoveries in medicine and technology from each other?


Consider the political, technological and scientific progress that has happened over the last few centuries -- primarily driven by a few hundred million people in Europe and North America. Now imagine the development that we might get if we could also get China, India, the Middle East and Africa up to a fraction of the economic and scientific powerhouse that the USA is today.

Well, first of all, I think "political progress" is an oxymoron. :D
Secondly, I don't believe that adding more cooks always produces a better broth. Besides, we may be talking decades before countries like Africa and the Middle East are near capacity intellectually and technologically to produce any true development, aren't we?

Trade is almost most profitable between near equals. Although the profit per unit is less than for trade between inferior and superior (the profit for the superior, that is), the number of units is far greater.

Yes, but what does it cost to get all countries to a 'near equal' status and how many years will that take? And how much of that burden are Americans willing to bear? A small share? The lions share? Sorry, but I just can't get all excited about Americans losing their jobs and their prosperity all so that 'someday' other countries can be as strong and prosperous as we 'used' to be.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by geni
None whatsoever. However that wasn't the question you asked. You asked what the benifit to America was. There is also the issue of greater markets availible for you exporters

I asked how outsourcing benefits America. Your answer was better and cheaper goods. My point is that your answer isn't a good one since unemployed Americans can't buy the better/cheaper goods so there is, in effect, no benefit to America. You seem to agree with me on this point.


I take it that you have zero confidence in the free market then? If you have a closed market then the comapanies suppying you only have to be better than every other US comapany. If you have an open market then they have to be the best on the planet. Of course you can trying going the french way and claim that thing that are french are automaticaly better but in the long term that tends not to work out.

Zero confidence in the free market? No. Little confidence? Yes. Is the U.S not participating in a free market now? Frankly, most of the defective items I've purchased were manufactured in other countries. I just had (yet another) nasty incident last week having to return a very expensive item (made in China) because it was defective. This seems to be the norm, anymore. You can't buy an electronic device without hoping it doesn't blow within 6 months after purchase. Why do you think you have to 'buy' extended warranties on practically anything anymore to ensure your satisfaction. An extended warranty? On a refrigerator....a stereo....a television set? This hardly constitutes the 'best of the planet' hypothesis for me ....but, perhaps others are happy with paying less for a particular good and then paying more for a warranty ....

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Sorry, but I just can't get all excited about Americans losing their jobs and their prosperity all so that 'someday' other countries can be as strong and prosperous as we 'used' to be. The current economic evolution is inevitable becasue making a profit is what business is all about. Businesses will always pursue the lowest-cost structure. This means less skilled work will move out of the U.S. to emerging economies. This reality has some benefits; living standards around the world rise and importing goods and services which are produced or provided at much lower costs abroad increases the purchasing power of Americans.

The reason service jobs, like IBMs, are moving overseas is that they need hardly any infrastructure. Many of these positions need only a desk, a computer, and net access. I know people would just love to have legislation blocking jobs from moving overseas....but that is short-term thinking and protectionism which will only make American companies less competitive in the end.....which would ultimately lead to that company ceasing to exsist, then everyone involved would lose their job instead of 13,000 workers in Europe and the United States.

[geni]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
I asked how outsourcing benefits America. Your answer was better and cheaper goods. My point is that your answer isn't a good one since unemployed Americans can't buy the better/cheaper goods so there is, in effect, no benefit to America. You seem to agree with me on this point.

You economy can function quite happily with higher levels of unemployment. You also have the advantage of larger export markets (if you don't think your country can't make anything that anyone else wants to buy I would suggest emigating). The european steel industry is more efficinet than its US counterpart mostly because it had to be due to more internatiuonal competition. Of course this doesn't matter at the moment since the price of steel has jumped somewhat due to demarnd from china (a clasic case of bigger export markets)




Zero confidence in the free market? No. Little confidence? Yes. Is the U.S not participating in a free market now?

Nope.


Frankly, most of the defective items I've purchased were manufactured in other countries. I just had (yet another) nasty incident last week having to return a very expensive item (made in China) because it was defective.


I suspect you find that most manufacuted items you buy come from china. On the other hand Toyota produce many car that are better than thier US made equiverlents (pitty about the rest of the japanese economy).


This seems to be the norm, anymore. You can't buy an electronic device without hoping it doesn't blow within 6 months after purchase. Why do you think you have to 'buy' extended warranties on practically anything anymore to ensure your satisfaction. An extended warranty? On a refrigerator....a stereo....a television set? This hardly constitutes the 'best of the planet' hypothesis for me ....but, perhaps others are happy with paying less for a particular good and then paying more for a warranty ....

It appears to be what the consumer wants.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
When did we start closing our markets to foreign products? Seems everything I buy lately is made in China, Taiwan, Japan or India.

Yes, but the only way to effectively prevent outsourcing is by closing your markets for foreign products. Otherwise, your home-made products will be outcompeted by cheaper foreign equivalents -- remember that companies outsources to low-cost lands in order to reduce costs.

Edited to fix tags.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by geni
You economy can function quite happily with higher levels of unemployment.

Happily for who?

The european steel industry is more efficinet than its US counterpart mostly because it had to be due to more internatiuonal competition. Of course this doesn't matter at the moment since the price of steel has jumped somewhat due to demarnd from china (a clasic case of bigger export markets)

Wait a minute. Didn't you just say that better and cheaper products are supposed to result from globalization? Isn't steel a fine example of how international competition does not necessarily promote cheaper products?

Nope.
Wow. You mean the U.S has been producing only for itself, importing nothing and exporting nothing all these years?

I suspect you find that most manufacuted items you buy come from china. On the other hand Toyota produce many car that are better than thier US made equiverlents (pitty about the rest of the japanese economy).

Toyota may produce a better car but, guess what? They're a hell of a lot more expensive to fix and maintain than a domestic car. Hence, they aren't cheaper.

It appears to be what the consumer wants.

The consumer has no choice, Geni. If I plunk down $1500 for a laptop and want to be sure I don't get screwed when I have problems with it in a little over a year (and it's almost certain I will), I have to fork out another $250 - 300 to avoid forking out another $1700 (since the price will go up). So far, I fail to see what's so "free" about a free market.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Yes, but the only way to effectively prevent outsourcing is by closing your markets for foreign products. Otherwise, your home-made products will be outcompeted by cheaper foreign equivalents -- remember that companies outsources to low-cost lands in order to reduce costs.

But, won't that always be a problem, anyway? Regardless of any globalization, there will always be countries who will outbid on some services/products than other countries and they, as a result, will corner the market on those goods and services. Where is the free market, then? What happens when there is no one cheaper to outsource to?

The idea of globalization looks pretty and I wish I could be more optimistic about it. But, all I see is the decline and fall of America. Who is going to see America as the "cheaper foreign equivalent" for anything? Unless, of course, the idea is to take away as many jobs and as much business from the U.S. as possible, forcing it to reduce it's prices so that it can stay alive in a "global economy" whose sole purpose seems to be to beach the U.S. economy permanently, anyway.

It all looks like a global shell game to me.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
What happens when there is no one cheaper to outsource to?

Then you don't outsorce, because there's nothing to gain.

The idea of globalization looks pretty and I wish I could be more optimistic about it. But, all I see is the decline and fall of America.

An America whose rise and prosperity comes from its trade with the world around it.

Who is going to see America as the "cheaper foreign equivalent" for anything? Unless, of course, the idea is to take away as many jobs and as much business from the U.S. as possible, forcing it to reduce it's prices so that it can stay alive in a "global economy" whose sole purpose seems to be to beach the U.S. economy permanently, anyway.

Outsourcing is nothing new; jobs has moved between countries for as long as there has been countries, and with technological development whole occupations have disappeared -- sometimes seemingly overnight. It didn't kill the US' economy before, why should it do so now?

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Then you don't outsorce, because there's nothing to gain.

So, America will always outsource IT tech to India since it will never be cheaper here. Result = don't get a degree in Computer Sciences in America since it will be worthless. Don't apply for Customer Service jobs, either (one of the lowest paying around) since that can be done cheaper elsewhere, also.



An America whose rise and prosperity comes from its trade with the world around it.

Fact: In the year 2000, Americans bought 368 million dollars more goods and services from other countries than we sold to them. (Can you say "trade deficit"?)

Fact: Foreigners now own over $8.6 trillion of U.S. assets, up from $725 billion in in 1982.

Fact: Foreign companies have spent $900 billion in the past several years buying U.S. companies. U.S. companies, OTOH, have spent $419 billion buying foreign companies. (Source: Thomson Financial Securities Data)

Fact: The U.S. unemployment rate is currently at 5.1%

Fact: Goldman-Sachs estimates that the U.S has sent 400,000 service jobs overseas. The Information Technology Association of America says we've sent 104,000 IT jobs overseas. All this since the year 2000. That's a half million people who lost their jobs or didn't have the opportunity to apply for it.

Fact: Forrester Research estimates that 3.3 million U.S jobs will offshored by 2015. Several universities call this estimate "conservative".

For more chilling facts about the future of offshoring by the U.S. and the adverse impact it will have on this country, look here:

CFO. com survey (http://www.cfo.com/printable/article.cfm/3014067?f=options)

Many of the CEOs surveyed indicated that many of the jobs offshored paid in excess of $50,000 in the States. Now, what do you suppose that does to the quality of life of Americans? The average cost of a house jumped up 12.5% in the first quarter of 2005...the highest hike in 25 years! (The avg price of a home in Florida? $218,000!) How do you afford that on less than $40 or $50k a year?

Outsourcing is nothing new; jobs has moved between countries for as long as there has been countries, and with technological development whole occupations have disappeared -- sometimes seemingly overnight. It didn't kill the US' economy before, why should it do so now?

Depends on your definition of a burgeoning economy, I guess. Unemployment always plagues the U.S.. But, offshoring adds a guaranteed threat. I wouldn't care if other countries invested in us as we do them, but that is clearly not the case.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Toyota may produce a better car but, guess what? They're a hell of a lot more expensive to fix and maintain than a domestic car. Hence, they aren't cheaper.


Toyota IS a domestic car you big silly. Japan outsourced those jobs to the U.S. years ago. Nissian was first though...I think. It caused a real stink in Japan. Workers were complaining about all the lost jobs.

Ironic, huh?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
I wouldn't care if other countries invested in us as we do them, but that is clearly not the case.

Umm... A few lines earlier you said this:

Fact: Foreign companies have spent $900 billion in the past several years buying U.S. companies. U.S. companies, OTOH, have spent $419 billion buying foreign companies. (Source: Thomson Financial Securities Data)

[Daylight]

Is there any evidence a company that outsourced benefited the consumer?

I think all of us that have to use call centers for whatever reason can say the quality went down.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Daylight
Is there any evidence a company that outsourced benefited the consumer?

I think all of us that have to use call centers for whatever reason can say the quality went down.

The goal of a company is to sell a product and/or service to a consumer at the maximum profit possible. It is not necessary to make the consumer perfectly happy with the product/service, it is only necessary to make him happier with yours than he would be with another's.

They are not in business to help America. They are in business to make a profit. If helping America helps them make a larger profit than if they didn't help America, then helping America is profitable. Otherwise, it isn't in the business equation.

No matter what they say to a reporter or in a press release, it's about maximizing profits. That's all. Nothing else.

And that's a good thing.

If you want a feel-good social program, visit a church or a YMCA. If you want a hand out, go play guitar on a street corner or something. Don't screw around with my stock holdings or I will pummel you (metophorically speaking...not).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by corplinx
There is a burgeoning tech sector in India right now. Makes sense to establish a larger presence there. You have Oracle in Bangalore and other large tech companies with sizable R&D there.

Contrary to some of my naive american friends, I know that Indian high tech isn't just outsourced tech support call centers and outsourced java programming.

I heard the exact same argument 15 years ago.

[Daylight]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
The goal of a company is to sell a product and/or service to a consumer at the maximum profit possible. It is not necessary to make the consumer perfectly happy with the product/service, it is only necessary to make him happier with yours than he would be with another's.

They are not in business to help America. They are in business to make a profit. If helping America helps them make a larger profit than if they didn't help America, then helping America is profitable. Otherwise, it isn't in the business equation.

No matter what they say to a reporter or in a press release, it's about maximizing profits. That's all. Nothing else.

And that's a good thing.

If you want a feel-good social program, visit a church or a YMCA. If you want a hand out, go play guitar on a street corner or something. Don't screw around with my stock holdings or I will pummel you (metophorically speaking...not).

Ok, then can we stop saying “it’s what the consumer wants� or “it will reduce the cost to the consumer� since these are pure marketing hype BS to make it sound like a good thing to everyone?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Daylight
Ok, then can we stop saying “it’s what the consumer wants� or “it will reduce the cost to the consumer� since these are pure marketing hype BS to make it sound like a good thing to everyone?

No, because it IS what the consumer wants and it will reduce the cost to the consumer. What starts as a motivation for maximizing profits ends up making customers happier. It's happens through a series of regenerative feedback effects. If it isn't what the consumer wants then that will create a market niche and the consumers will dive, headlong, into it and the original company will lose profit. It's fairly straightforward even if you have no background in economics. Problems/hitches can arise (monopoly power, corruption, politics, fraud, etc) but generally it works very well.

[tedly]

How is it, with burgeoning companies in the non-US, we never hear of corporate management being outsourced? There must be lots of Indian CEOs that are willing to work for less than 400x the average industrial wage.
See it isn't all about saving money.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by tedly
How is it, with burgeoning companies in the non-US, we never hear of corporate management being outsourced? There must be lots of Indian CEOs that are willing to work for less than 400x the average industrial wage.
See it isn't all about saving money.

Yes, it is. If an Indian CEO could do the same job (make as much profit) as an American CEO, and could do so at half the price, you'd be hearing a lot about them.

Actually, if you look around, you might find a few. Maybe not many in the top 500, but I suspect they are there. Indian, Iranian, Italian, Mexicans, Brits, heck, even French and Canadians.

Edit: well, maybe not canadians.

[Daylight]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
No, because it IS what the consumer wants and it will reduce the cost to the consumer. What starts as a motivation for maximizing profits ends up making customers happier. It's happens through a series of regenerative feedback effects. If it isn't what the consumer wants then that will create a market niche and the consumers will dive, headlong, into it and the original company will lose profit. It's fairly straightforward even if you have no background in economics. Problems/hitches can arise (monopoly power, corruption, politics, fraud, etc) but generally it works very well.

Help me here. Currently we’ve seen the product quality go down when outsourced and the US unemployment rate go up (I haven’t checked in a couple months) and/or job quality go down so there is less money in the US economy. Every outsourcing company just absorbs the gain and does not pass it on to the consumer.

I don't see the justification of the "good for the consumer" part. What consumer in their right mind would want lower quality for the same price?

Also, what event occurred so that the original company suddenly started losing profit?

[geni]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Wait a minute. Didn't you just say that better and cheaper products are supposed to result from globalization? Isn't steel a fine example of how international competition does not necessarily promote cheaper products?

The steel market is not free trade it's way to political. It takes time to build extra production capacity and some was dumped just before the current price rise. Fluctations will still happen.


Wow. You mean the U.S has been producing only for itself, importing nothing and exporting nothing all these years?


There are a hudge range of positions between an open market and a closed market. Noty even north korea has a completely closed market and no one has a completely open one.


Toyota may produce a better car but, guess what? They're a hell of a lot more expensive to fix and maintain than a domestic car. Hence, they aren't cheaper.


So it look like there is a gap in the market for a cheap form of mantanece for toyotas.


The consumer has no choice, Geni. If I plunk down $1500 for a laptop and want to be sure I don't get screwed when I have problems with it in a little over a year (and it's almost certain I will), I have to fork out another $250 - 300 to avoid forking out another $1700 (since the price will go up). So far, I fail to see what's so "free" about a free market.

But is there much of a market for highly reliable laptops? If you look at computer reviews reliabily doesn't tend to appear on the lists. Instead the consumer appears to want more power and cheaper prices. High reliabilty laptops did exist at one point. At todays exchage rates they come out at about $2200.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
No, because it IS what the consumer wants and it will reduce the cost to the consumer. What starts as a motivation for maximizing profits ends up making customers happier. It's happens through a series of regenerative feedback effects. If it isn't what the consumer wants then that will create a market niche and the consumers will dive, headlong, into it and the original company will lose profit. It's fairly straightforward even if you have no background in economics. Problems/hitches can arise (monopoly power, corruption, politics, fraud, etc) but generally it works very well.

I think we've shown that the free market does not necessarily produce a 'better' product and it does not appear to produce a 'cheaper' or 'less expensive' product. As Daylight so accurately pointed out, offshoring call centers has not proved efficient for Americans who have to utilize them. (I've got gads of stories on that!) But, corporations make a profit so they're not going to stop offshoring customer service. If the consumer is ticked coz the person on the other hand doesn't speak english, too bad. If the problem can't get resolved, good for IBM, since they won't have to absorb any cost to fix it. Great strategy.

Globalization may work for the rest of the world, but, based on most of the responses I've seen on this thread, it appears a bygone conclusion that America will be picking up the tab for it. Even if goods are produced cheaper and/or better, unemployed workers don't buy much. Workers who earn less than they did will give up purchasing a new car or new anything, for that matter. Only the essentials will be purchased. Forget about pursuing an advanced education. In the U.S., it will be worthless. Bigger home? Not. I've already seen 3 major grocery/department stores within 3 blocks of each other close over the last 6 months. (Michigan's unemployment rate is 7.1 compared to the national 5.1)

But, I guess that's ok so long as the corporate execs and shareholders live comfortably, right? Apparently, it's no longer American to care about Americans.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Daylight

I don't see the justification of the "good for the consumer" part. What consumer in their right mind would want lower quality for the same price?

This won't be an issue in the future, Daylight, since globalization removes consumer choice from the equation. Long as business makes money, you'll take what you get and like it.

Also, what event occurred so that the original company suddenly started losing profit?

The same event that occurred with Enron and scandalized KMart: Greed. Used to be when you bought stock, you were concerned only with market, weather, or technology trends. Today you have to factor a CEO's desire to carry the most gold while standing on the shoulders of those who earned it for him into the equation. You've got to bet on the integrity of the people who run the corporation.

I, too, have invested in international and domestic markets. I hope globalization helps those stocks do well. Coz Ed knows, I'll need the cash when I can't even get a job doing telemarketing for more than $5 or $ 6 an hour....

[geni]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk

Globalization may work for the rest of the world, but, based on most of the responses I've seen on this thread, it appears a bygone conclusion that America will be picking up the tab for it.


European labour markets will be effected by it to a greater or lesser extent the UK has already lost much of it's manufactoring industry. The alturnative though is worse. I bleive it was your Admiral Perry who demonstrated this.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Daylight
Help me here. Currently we’ve seen the product quality go down when outsourced and the US unemployment rate go up (I haven’t checked in a couple months) and/or job quality go down so there is less money in the US economy. Every outsourcing company just absorbs the gain and does not pass it on to the consumer.

I don't see the justification of the "good for the consumer" part. What consumer in their right mind would want lower quality for the same price?

Also, what event occurred so that the original company suddenly started losing profit?

I'll try to answer your post and Ladyhawks at the same time. Forgive me (both of you) if I miss a point.

If you see product quality go down due to outsourcing then why do you buy the product? Maybe a specific example (product/service) would help. You'll have to provide the example.

At any rate, if the quality goes down, and they are not the only market in town (monopoly) then choose a product that is 100% Made In USA. Go ahead. That's a 'marketing' term, btw. It has also become, undeservingly in many cases, a euphemism for twice as expensive and poorly constructed. But in many cases the 'expensive' part is very true. Sure, you want a better quality product, you just don't want one at X2 the cost of the lesser quality product because it isn't seen as cost effective by you when you are at the store making the purchase, which is the ONLY time it counts.

If you think I'm wrong about any given product or service then ask yourself why you aren't making a mint selling that product or service yourself. Yea, that's right, put your money where your mouth is and take advantage of the market niche you seem to think exists. You'll probably see your niche evaporate into bankruptcy. But . . . maybe not. Give it a go. If you're right, you'll make a killing.

[geni]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


This won't be an issue in the future, Daylight, since globalization removes consumer choice from the equation. Long as business makes money, you'll take what you get and like it. [/B]

Vacume cleaner manufactors thought that as well. Looks like they were wrong.

[Ryokan]

Americans and their navelgazing... You're not alone, you know. How about what's good for the world, and not just your neck of the woods?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ryokan
Americans and their navelgazing... You're not alone, you know. How about what's good for the world, and not just your neck of the woods?

What is good for us is good for the world, that's why.

re china:


This growth in Chinese imports into the United States has resulted in imbalanced trade between the United States and China. The U.S. trade deficit with China in goods is large and more than doubled between 1995 and 2000. So far this year, the U.S. has a $125 billion (annualized) deficit with China, our single largest bilateral trade deficit.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/mankiw_testimony_house_ways_and_means_oct_30.html

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by Ed
What is good for us is good for the world, that's why.

Right...

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Ryokan
Right...

Glad you agree.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by geni

But is there much of a market for highly reliable laptops? If you look at computer reviews reliabily doesn't tend to appear on the lists. Instead the consumer appears to want more power and cheaper prices. High reliabilty laptops did exist at one point. At todays exchage rates they come out at about $2200.

Laptops are only one example. I gave you several examples of products that offer "extended warranties" that didn't use to some 15-20 years ago. When I was growing up, the idea of offering an extended warranty on a Walkman was ridiculous!!! But, the reliability and quality of foreign made products seemingly needs to be backed by the consumer via purchase of these new warranties.

This does not equate to better quality products. This does not equate to cheaper products.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Ryokan
Americans and their navelgazing... You're not alone, you know. How about what's good for the world, and not just your neck of the woods?

Because I don't live in China, Japan, Africa, or Taiwan. I live in the U.S. If my "neck of the woods" is burning, I get no comfort in knowing that the rest of the world isn't.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Toyota IS a domestic car you big silly. Japan outsourced those jobs to the U.S. years ago. Nissian was first though...I think. It caused a real stink in Japan. Workers were complaining about all the lost jobs.

Ironic, huh?

Don't yell at me. Geni is the one who cited Toyota as a foreign product.:)

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Laptops are only one example. I gave you several examples of products that offer "extended warranties" that didn't use to some 15-20 years ago. When I was growing up, the idea of offering an extended warranty on a Walkman was ridiculous!!! But, the reliability and quality of foreign made products seemingly needs to be backed by the consumer via purchase of these new warranties.

This does not equate to better quality products. This does not equate to cheaper products.

It has nothing to do with where the product is made. It has everything to do with the cost of a better-made product in terms of its perceived value. That value must be seen as cost-effective or the product doesn't get sold.

The warranty for a product is part of the cost and value of the product, whether it's mandatory or optional. IOW, you have to pay for it if it's mandatory. You don't if it's optional. The choice in the matter is also of value.

[Ladyhawk]

(posted by Leif Roar)

Umm... A few lines earlier you said this:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact: Foreign companies have spent $900 billion in the past several years buying U.S. companies. U.S. companies, OTOH, have spent $419 billion buying foreign companies. (Source: Thomson Financial Securities Data)

My point being that the U.S. is being bought . There is a difference between buying an entity and investing in it. This isn't "trade".

Also, I'm surprised that, of all the facts I provided, this was the only one you zeroed in on. I'll presume you had no debate or difference of opinion with the others. Apparently, neither do Geni or Rob.

It's one thing to paint globalization as something that's better for the world. It's another entirely to ignore its adverse impact on a country. For all of this talk about how it's good for the world and Americans shouldn't just worry about themselves, it seems convenient for those same proponents of globalization to simply ho-hum the impact on Americans as a result of it.

But, what matter in the end, right? Offshoring will continue to be engaged in by American corporations until the U.S. government steps in and puts a stop to it. And, eventually, I believe they will. Fewer workers in this country = less tax revenue. When the U.S. government finds itself laying out more money in welfare, unemployment and health benefits due to unemployed citizens who can't contribute to the tax base, my guess is that hefty penalties (or we'll call them some form of tax) will be levied against those corporations based in the U.S. that do not employ x% American workers. Because, the only thing greedier than corporations and executive management is a national government. ;)

The only thing that might prevent this, of course, would be if other countries buy American products to the same extent that we buy theirs. However, the indisputable facts show that the U.S has been operating at a trade deficit with other countries for at least the last 10 years and there is no immediate indication that this will change.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
My point being that the U.S. is being bought . There is a difference between buying an entity and investing in it.

Well, if that is your view then we have an unresolvable difference of opinion.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
My point being that the U.S. is being bought . There is a difference between buying an entity and investing in it. This isn't "trade".

No, there is not a difference. Both are investments. Both are intangable. It is "trade".

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Also, I'm surprised that, of all the facts I provided, this was the only one you zeroed in on. I'll presume you had no debate or difference of opinion with the others. Apparently, neither do Geni or Rob.

Personally, I attempted to zero in on the primise of your argument. The foundation. The cornerstone. I think I did that. Unless you can address my counter-arguments, your sucessive points are, IMHO, moot.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Laptops are only one example. I gave you several examples of products that offer "extended warranties" that didn't use to some 15-20 years ago. When I was growing up, the idea of offering an extended warranty on a Walkman was ridiculous!!! But, the reliability and quality of foreign made products seemingly needs to be backed by the consumer via purchase of these new warranties.

This does not equate to better quality products. This does not equate to cheaper products.

Dunno. I buy a lot of computer and electronic stuff and as far as I can see, it don't break. My take on this "extended warentee" thing is that it is a clever way for retailers to capitalize on the reliability of this stuff by making some rather easy, no cost, bucks.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
No, there is not a difference. Both are investments. Both are intangable. It is "trade".



Personally, I attempted to zero in on the primise of your argument. The foundation. The cornerstone. I think I did that. Unless you can address my counter-arguments, your sucessive points are, IMHO, moot.

Really? You've not conclusively shown that globalization produces cheaper or better goods. You've not shown that Americans will benefit from globalization. Many have used terms like "short term" or "long term" without any real definition. I've provided sources to back my assumptions. I've provided proof that there is a trade deficit between the U.S and other countries. (A fact that everyone seems to simply ignore). I've provided stats showing that it is no mere number of American jobs to be outsourced over the next few years, as some have alledged. 3.3 million is not a small number. I think I've proven my point that America will suffer more from globalization than it will prosper. While you've provided no more than your opinion and assumptions in backing up your theories. Given that, I would submit that your statements are equally 'moot'.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Really? You've not conclusively shown that globalization produces cheaper or better goods.

The evidence is in the goods. If cheaper is a strictly monotary unit, you still have to define "better" differently than does economics. To them, on the demand side, better is in the eye of the consumer. If a trade deficit exists, that is the conclusive proof you require.

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
You've not shown that Americans will benefit from globalization.

What proof would you accept?

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Many have used terms like "short term" or "long term" without any real definition.

Then ask them for definitions.

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
I've provided sources to back my assumptions. I've provided proof that there is a trade deficit between the U.S and other countries. (A fact that everyone seems to simply ignore).

I'm not ignoring it, I just think it supports my case more than yours.

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
I've provided stats showing that it is no mere number of American jobs to be outsourced over the next few years, as some have alledged. 3.3 million is not a small number.

Define small. How many are 'in-sourced'? What is the balance?

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
I think I've proven my point that America will suffer more from globalization than it will prosper.

You've proven absolutly nothing, so far as I can tell. Your argument is based on complaint that domestic products are better than outsourced products. Define better.

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
While you've provided no more than your opinion and assumptions in backing up your theories. Given that, I would submit that your statements are equally 'moot'.

Pick a product or service. Let's examine it. You made some . . . inaccurate comments about Toyota (though I acknowldege you didn't bring them up, you took the bait and ended up contradicting your original argument). Pick another. We'll discuss specific products one at a time. As many as you like.

[tedly]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Yes, it is. If an Indian CEO could do the same job (make as much profit) as an American CEO, and could do so at half the price, you'd be hearing a lot about them.

Actually, if you look around, you might find a few. Maybe not many in the top 500, but I suspect they are there. Indian, Iranian, Italian, Mexicans, Brits, heck, even French and Canadians.

Edit: well, maybe not canadians.

Are you sure about the first part of your argument? I've only seen one back of the envelope (regression analysis) study of CEO salaries. It was done by Jim Stafford(?) a union economist for the CAW. The correlation between CEO salaries and corporate profits was negative. Slightly negative, but negative nonetheless.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
The evidence is in the goods. If cheaper is a strictly monotary unit, you still have to define "better" differently than does economics. To them, on the demand side, better is in the eye of the consumer. If a trade deficit exists, that is the conclusive proof you require.

Then I guess it boils down to consumer perception, doesn't it? My experience with goods made overseas, for the most part, has been that the quality has decreased over time. Apparently, your perception is different; a POV to which you are entitled. The trade deficit is my proof that America does not benefit from globalization since we are purchasing more from others than they from us. Is that not, in itself, proof that America doesn't benefit from globalization? You may argue that we purchase more goods because they're cheaper that way and I wouldn't doubt that you're right. My argument is that unemployed Americans do not have the purchasing power of employed Americans. How can this even be considered debateable?


Then ask them for definitions.
Because I already know they can't define it and wouldn't expect them to. See, it's easy to say that the hardship on Americans will be "short term", especially when some may define short term as 5 years and others as 20. It's easy to say the "long term" effects of globalization will benefit America when some define long term as 5 years and others as 50.


Define small. How many are 'in-sourced'? What is the balance?

With all due respect, that's your point to make, not mine. I've argued that Americans will suffer more unemployment as a result of outsourcing and I've proven that. Since it is your argument that America benefits from globalization, wouldn't the onus be on you to show what is in-sourced to us? (I wouldn't bother researching it, though. I'm sure the number of jobs in-sourced to America is pretty much negligible. Remember, we're outsourcing because labor is cheaper in other countries. Why would any country outsource their work to us?)

You've proven absolutly nothing, so far as I can tell. Your argument is based on complaint that domestic products are better than outsourced products. Define better.

First, my argument is that America doesn't benefit from globalization. Proponents of globalization maintain that it's a good thing since it produces better and cheaper products. No one has been able to prove that, hence, I debate the validity of such an argument. I offered that products seem to come with more extended warranties than 20 years ago and I have questioned why that would be if the warranties weren't necessary. Seems everyone has a different opinion.

Pick a product or service. Let's examine it. You made some . . . inaccurate comments about Toyota (though I acknowldege you didn't bring them up, you took the bait and ended up contradicting your original argument).

Took the bait? Ok, if that's how you regard it. Was I wrong in saying that foreign cars are more expensive to maintain? If not, how did I 'contradict' my original argument that foreign made products aren't necessarily cheaper?

Allow me to state again that I would LOVE to believe that globalization would benefit America. But, truthfully, there appears to be nothing to indicate that this is true and no one has been able to provide any source that predicts differently. For the world, it's probably a good thing. But for America: I've cited the trade deficit, the current unemployment figures , and the forecasted loss of 3.3 million jobs by 2015. Assuming you do not dispute these statistics (and can provide sources if you do), how can you construe these as being positive indicators for globalization for America?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by tedly
Are you sure about the first part of your argument? I've only seen one back of the envelope (regression analysis) study of CEO salaries. It was done by Jim Stafford(?) a union economist for the CAW. The correlation between CEO salaries and corporate profits was negative. Slightly negative, but negative nonetheless.

Well, try looking at the front of the envelope. IOW, they are paid what they are paid because the demand* for CEO's far outstrips the supply of CEO's**.







*as seen from the consumer's POV (corporate boards)
**as seen from the supplier's POV (prospective CEO's)

[Rob Lister]

Well, let's cut to the nub . . .
Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Took the bait? Ok, if that's how you regard it. Was I wrong in saying that foreign cars are more expensive to maintain? If not, how did I 'contradict' my original argument that foreign made products aren't necessarily cheaper?

If you are correct, you have yet to demonstrate it. You asserted that a mostly domestic car (toyota, depending on the make and model) is more expensive to maintain than a domestic car (unknown). That is not my direct experience so if you assert it, then I'd like to see some evidence.

So . . . Pick a product. Pick a specific outsourced product that concerns you. Any product.

The thread was about IBM. Do you own an IBM computer? Software?

Or pick another.

How do you feel about price fixing?

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Well, let's cut to the nub . . .


If you are correct, you have yet to demonstrate it. You asserted that a mostly domestic car (toyota, depending on the make and model) is more expensive to maintain than a domestic car (unknown). That is not my direct experience so if you assert it, then I'd like to see some evidence.

Just a few years ago, I owned a Subaru 4 door and a Dodge Charger....both relatively small vehicles....both 4 cylinder. The Subaru cost $75 more to tune up (for starters). Replacement parts (air filter, for example) was also $ 5 - 7 more expensive (depending on where I went). Oil changes? Also more expensive by anywhere from $5 to $10, depending on where I went. That is my direct experience.

So . . . Pick a product. Pick a specific outsourced product that concerns you. Any product.

The thread was about IBM. Do you own an IBM computer? Software?

Or pick another.

How do you feel about price fixing?

You seem fixated on this price and quality thing and yet you will not address my primary argument which is that outsourcing will not be beneficial for America. The trade deficit proves it, our unemployment rate proves it and the number of jobs we are losing proves it. Your experience is that foreign made products are every bit as good and cheaper than American made products. Mine is not (especially in light of a recent $400 purchase that I had to return. It had a designer name but it was made in China).

When you show me the courtesy of proving my primary argument incorrect, I'll be happy to oblige yours. But, I'm not going to partake in a strawman about price fixing. Sorry.

[tedly]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Yes, it is. If an Indian CEO could do the same job (make as much profit) as an American CEO, and could do so at half the price, you'd be hearing a lot about them.

Actually, if you look around, you might find a few. Maybe not many in the top 500, but I suspect they are there. Indian, Iranian, Italian, Mexicans, Brits, heck, even French and Canadians.

Edit: well, maybe not canadians.

Are you sure you can back up the first part of your argument?

This
http://www.caw.ca/news/contextnewsletter/vol-1no3.asp is the only study I've seen on CEO salaries and it indicates a negative correlation between CEO salaries and profits

[bigred]

Originally posted by manny
Well, both are true. Look, people have been decrying global inequity of wealth for decades (or longer). Things like what IBM is doing are narrowing the gap. It's going to require adjustments in the United States, to be sure (though not as large for us as for Europe). But in the long run this is a good thing for the world. uh, yeah......assuming you don't count the U.S. as part of "the world."

To hell with boosting the economy of India or China or whatever at our expense. How completely asinine.

You wanna help other countries, go ahead. But don't take my job to do it.

Hey if that happens I'm sure India will out-source ME right?

Yeah right....

The kicker is I know Indians working in IT who have moved to the U.S. and they are as PO'd as anyone about this.

[bigred]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
No matter what they say to a reporter or in a press release, it's about maximizing profits. That's all. Nothing else.

And that's a good thing. Lose your job to out-sourcing, then come back and explain to us again how it's a "good thing." :rolleyes:


If you want a feel-good social program, visit a church or a YMCA. Funny, that's exactly along the lines of what I was thinking about for a response to these "let's help the world" babblings.

But this isn't about a "feel-good social program," it's about losing jobs and hurting our economy (due to increased unemployment).


If you want a hand out, go play guitar on a street corner or something. . ? No one is asking for a hand-out. They're asking for their jobs that they WORKED HARD FOR not to be whacked because Company X can make a quick buck by letting Suzy Ghandi do it instead.

[bigred]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Umm... A few lines earlier you said this:

-------
Fact: Foreign companies have spent $900 billion in the past several years buying U.S. companies. U.S. companies, OTOH, have spent $419 billion buying foreign companies. (Source: Thomson Financial Securities Data)

I see, so you think 900 = 419. New math? ;)

[tedly]

Rob
The model of the corporation as a market is very econ 101, but I think that the social corporatist model is more predictive. The next CEOs are courtiers in a social political system, and they set their own wages within the social system. None of the 'management' functions are available to market forces, because the outside managers haven't been grooming the appropriate monkeys.

Sorrry about the double post, somehow my first didn't show up - I guessed I hadn't sent it. I'm runing around here with my kids High school Grad, so I'm perhaps not paying attention as I should.

[bigred]

Originally posted by Ryokan
Americans and their navelgazing... You're not alone, you know. How about what's good for the world, and not just your neck of the woods? :rolleyes:

How much "good for the world" has Norway done? Hey I hear you and the Swedes are bestest buddies, I bet you help them a lot right? If you're so fired up about helping the world, surely you help your big brother out whenever possible......

How much does Norway give to charitible causes helping people all over the world (as the US does through countless organizations and donations)?

How many BILLIONS have you poured into other countries to build them up...even after just being at war with them?

Not bad for "navel gazers" IMO.

PS just because we enjoy a higher standard of living than most does not mean we have to or want to give it away. And if most people in most countries switched positions with us, I guarantee they'd feel the same.

[Daylight]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I'll try to answer your post and Ladyhawks at the same time. Forgive me (both of you) if I miss a point.

If you see product quality go down due to outsourcing then why do you buy the product? Maybe a specific example (product/service) would help. You'll have to provide the example.

At any rate, if the quality goes down, and they are not the only market in town (monopoly) then choose a product that is 100% Made In USA. Go ahead. That's a 'marketing' term, btw. It has also become, undeservingly in many cases, a euphemism for twice as expensive and poorly constructed. But in many cases the 'expensive' part is very true. Sure, you want a better quality product, you just don't want one at X2 the cost of the lesser quality product because it isn't seen as cost effective by you when you are at the store making the purchase, which is the ONLY time it counts.

If you think I'm wrong about any given product or service then ask yourself why you aren't making a mint selling that product or service yourself. Yea, that's right, put your money where your mouth is and take advantage of the market niche you seem to think exists. You'll probably see your niche evaporate into bankruptcy. But . . . maybe not. Give it a go. If you're right, you'll make a killing.

Sorry about the delay

I think we can all agree that the people (who are consumers) that lose their jobs to outsourcing would say outsourcing is bad for America. Can we agree on this? This also implies outsourcing starts with a negative. Can it be shown that these effected consumers (the ones that lost their job) benefit and turn the effect of outsourcing a positive?

One other point is, here in the US we choose to maintain a certain quality level for employees and citizens because of past abuses. OSHA and EPA are two government agencies that come to mind. So we could say outsourcing is a loophole around these regulations since the outsourcing country usually doesn’t have similar regulations (hence why it’s cheaper). If you really want to stretch it, you could say an outsourcing company is in favor of slavery, murder and not being responsible for any toxic waste created.

Is it possible to show an example where outsourcing worked to benefit America?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by tedly
Are you sure you can back up the first part of your argument?

This
http://www.caw.ca/news/contextnewsletter/vol-1no3.asp is the only study I've seen on CEO salaries and it indicates a negative correlation between CEO salaries and profits
I have no doubt that a trade union could do study after study showing that! :p

Failing companies have to pay top dollar to a CEO, otherwise why would he/she jump on a sinking ship? It's a risky move for their career.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Daylight
Sorry about the delay

I think we can all agree that the people (who are consumers) that lose their jobs to outsourcing would say outsourcing is bad for America. Can we agree on this?
"Bad" is a relative term. Relative to what, in any case? If the answer is not to outsource and thus be unable to compete, the "what" could be that the company disappears entirely. Which makes the "outsourcing" option "good", IMHO.

Of course, this is also why the anti-outsourcing folks are also big on protectionism. Which, we can all agree on ;) , is bad.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Laptops are only one example. I gave you several examples of products that offer "extended warranties" that didn't use to some 15-20 years ago. When I was growing up, the idea of offering an extended warranty on a Walkman was ridiculous!!! But, the reliability and quality of foreign made products seemingly needs to be backed by the consumer via purchase of these new warranties.

This does not equate to better quality products. This does not equate to cheaper products.
Just so you lose sleep tonight... (http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=6319)
Lenovo Group Ltd., unknown to most people outside China, has grown from a small distributor of International Business Machines equipment in the mid-1980s to become the largest computer company in China....
...Lenovo's $1.75-billion (U.S.) acquisition of IBM's desktop and laptop division in December 2004 ...
...Your next ThinkPad, while still sporting the IBM logo, will be a Lenovo...
:p

[Daylight]

Originally posted by WildCat
"Bad" is a relative term. Relative to what, in any case? If the answer is not to outsource and thus be unable to compete, the "what" could be that the company disappears entirely. Which makes the "outsourcing" option "good", IMHO.

Of course, this is also why the anti-outsourcing folks are also big on protectionism. Which, we can all agree on ;) , is bad.

Correct, depends on your point of view. But sacrificing so many for a few, is this good for America? Are you sure you’re not using outsourcing as an excuse for incompetent management to survive a little longer?

I’m still don’t see any basis for the “it’s good for the consumer� touted by the pro-outsourcing side. Outsourcing starts on the deficit side, is there any data that shows outsourcing overcomes the initial deficit?

If protectionism means you’re against slavery, murder or creating environmental disasters, that’s a good thing, right?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Daylight
Correct, depends on your point of view. But sacrificing so many for a few, is this good for America? Are you sure you’re not using outsourcing as an excuse for incompetent management to survive a little longer?
Do you have any evidence that "many" have to sacrafice for "few"?

I’m still don’t see any basis for the “it’s good for the consumer� touted by the pro-outsourcing side. Outsourcing starts on the deficit side, is there any data that shows outsourcing overcomes the initial deficit?
Once again, unsupported statements as far as "starts on the deficit side". Cheaper goods, same quality = good for the consumer, IMHO.

If protectionism means you’re against slavery, murder or creating environmental disasters, that’s a good thing, right?
If it means you're for poverty, starvation, high infant mortality, environmental disaster, and economic failure in the 3rd world (as protectionism will do all of these things), that's a bad thing, right?

[tedly]

Originally posted by WildCat
I have no doubt that a trade union could do study after study showing that! :p

Failing companies have to pay top dollar to a CEO, otherwise why would he/she jump on a sinking ship? It's a risky move for their career.

Your first statement is simply fallacious, I could similarly say that it's much better to get my financial advice from an economist whose living comes from commissioned sales of a tertiary market. I.e any stockbroker or bank economist. Neither statement says anything about the debate.

The analysis was done across the top companies in Canada, so failing companies would be a small factor. More likely is CEOs cashing in their stock options before profits collapse, but that's illegal and crooks are easily available offshore.

edited for spelling

[Daylight]

Originally posted by WildCat
Do you have any evidence that "many" have to sacrafice for "few"?


Yawn, 14,000 losing their job so 20 can make a profit sounds like a sacrifice to me. Of course your milage may differ.


Originally posted by WildCat
Once again, unsupported statements as far as "starts on the deficit side". Cheaper goods, same quality = good for the consumer, IMHO.


Funny how you always sweep under the rug the consumers that lose their jobs. How is this good for them? Somehow will they magically disappear?

Can you prove outsourced goods are cheaper and same quality? Call centers are sure not the same quality they were before outsourcing.



Originally posted by WildCat
If it means you're for poverty, starvation, high infant mortality, environmental disaster, and economic failure in the 3rd world (as protectionism will do all of these things), that's a bad thing, right?

So you're saying slavery, murder and toxic waste is ok to solve this? Interesting philosophy.