Re: the return of outsourcing
Me, ...again!
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 sopr...@italianmafia.com wrote:
> One comment. Interesting.
>
> Why is that all american univ needs students from third world countries
> for MS or PhD.
American universities have been on a vast expansion program for decades. I
know this fact. You can confirm it on your own. The fraction of HS grads
going to college has always gone up in these decades, the fraction of
college grads going to graduate school has also gone up. The expansion of
the schools has gone to beyond saturation. Thus, they have to recruit from
overseas to keep the seats warm. Universities (the largest ones) now see
themselves as corporations which must expand. Many of them have branch
campuses in many other countries. They have to keep their seats warm. They
are in competition with each other (the large universities).
99% of the people who think about this question (your comment) do not ask
the less obvious question: what fraction of the graduates of all these
programs actually gets jobs in the specialization that they studied for.
The answer is in most cases, very few. There is a high attrition rate.
I have several books on this problem, and a list of references for further
study if you are interested. Most kids come to the USA in a dream state.
Most foreigners are not more successful than natives and you can prove
that to yourself if you get college cataloges which list the faculty names
and see that even in sciences/engineering/IT that not everyone has a
foreign name, and in fact, most are native names unless the school is such
a low reputation that it can only get foreigners to take faculty jobs.
In the area of medicine, the neighborhood that I live in has many doctors
and since my area is not a big sexy city (like NYC, etc), it is considered
less desireable to doctors. I have seen catalogs and magazines with lists
of doctors in the area, and I have knowledge of many of them, and I can
tell you there are very few Asian doctors among all. We have a few Arabs,
a couple from east Europe, and some 2/3 have American names and all of my
friends my age or older with medical problems tell me these 2/3 all have
American accents.
So, if you are telling me that the USA _needs_ all those foreign graduates
of S/E programs, I think you are inflating the importance of foreigners.
Yes, there are IT companies in sillyvalley, and heavily employing Asians.
I've seen lists of where people are from. S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan,
Singapore, etc., are not 3rd world countries.
You're going to have to do a lot better on your research on this and look
past the propaganda which says the US needs more guys. All that propaganda
has the real purpose of helping 3rd worlders get to first world and make
money for themselves, not help the USA.
See below.
>
>
> H1B
> Jan 1, 2010 12:01 PM GMT
> I'm an H1B worker from India and let me share my side of the story, which is
> typical of most H1B workers. I got into a federally funded university, with full
> aid. I finished my Masters in 2 years, with 3.85 GPA when I was 26 yo. The avg
> MS
> graduation age in my univ is 38! I only prefer to work in the US because I can
> save a few hundred dollars more than I can in India.
This is the reason, as I said above, and I think with sacrifice, it will
be a lot more than a "few hundred dollars" expecially if the guy takes
roomates. There have been many articles in WSJ about remitances sent back
to home countries and these add up to some $50 billion per year going OUT
of the US economy, instead of being spent IN the US economy. So, it is
damage to the USA.
I plan to return to India
> in
> another few years (most other H1Bs I know do want to return).
This is what they all say and what they actually want after some years is
for a majority to stay. Against the plan of H1B (which is for a limit in
time).
Even if the H1B
> program is completely dismantled, India will be the net benefactor
So will the Indian be. He gets a gold-platted reputation from a US tech
education still respected in the world as highest or with highest quality.
- I will be
> taking the ~$25K the US govt invested on me to India;
If he returns to India, and I have no problem if he helps India improve,
but not to compete with US people.
H1Bs will be replaced by
> even more outsourcing.
This is debatable and has an unclear relationship with "his side" of the
story.
If globalization has to be stopped completely, US
> lifestyle
> will go back 50 years.
50 years ago will be 1960s, and that is before 1970s when our economy
changed and we developed many serious problems. 1960s we still had highest
standard of living, and few problems. It would not be so bad.
The price of most products will drastically rise (e.g
> Iphone will cost $1000).
Surely an exageration. All of my memory of when I was a kid/young is that
we could afford most things we wanted. Prices were in accordance with
wages. Everyone had a car.
> We are in fact doing a favor to US.
You are doing yourself a favor, not the US.
One of the core
> strengths of US is the ability to attract the best talent in the world.
Yes.
(May be,
> is it because we're from "third world" that we dont look like top talent !?)
I don't care where you are from. There are not enough jobs to go around
today. 50 years ago most college graduates got jobs easily. Now, its work
and only a fraction are successful.
US
> is
> in fact losing its attractiveness & in another 5 yrs or so, there may be a
> massive
> reverse brain drain.
Big hot air empty threat.
> Be careful what you wish for - it may actually come true !
The other problem is the exchange rate.
I just wonder why you, sopranos, don't quote any of the letters where they
are warning about the damage being done by the US CEOs, and cheap currency
countries.
>
Day Brown
Engineer's Times in which I said that if we do not import the H-1b, they
will stay in their home economies and create startups there, which will
then compete with American firms.
Which has indeed happened. Whatever an H-1b does with his own income,
every professional tends to create five more jobs. Office data entry,
shipping clerks, janitors, lab techs, etc. Who are locals, and boost
their own local, state, and US economy.
The US should become a gated community for global professionals, who
will also need groundskeepers, childcare, teachers for their kids,
healthcare, vehicle sales and repair, etc.
And with robotics and automated process control, the manufacture can
stay here; not even 3rd world wages are as cheap as robots. But would
provide jobs for technicians to maintain the equipment...
That the cost of labor in the US is high does not matter when that cost
is such a small portion now of machine made manufacture. The cost of
management is now more important.
Old Pif
>
> ,,, every professional tends to create five more jobs.
>
I have heard this before but never saw any data that support this. And
they (H1B) don't not earn that much that can create any derivative
jobs. It is all myth.
They generate taxes that is true exactly as would do Americans.
kamal
> On Jan 3, 12:40 am, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ,,, every professional tends to create five more jobs.
>
as regards Day Brown's earlier statement that they may stay back in
their country and compete with US, that is anyways a given. There are
6 billion people on this planet and 300 million of them on your side
of the fence. There is no way you can do away with competition by
picking the best of the 6 billion peopl because the number is so huge.
Better thing to do would be to fix your cost structure.
> I have heard this before but never saw any data that support this. And
because you were looking for 5 jobs for which you will qualify. The
jobs that get created are low-end ones for which a hispanic or
uneducated WASP will qualify. The companies I worked for in the US on
an H1B did have americans (non-H1B) as support staff, typically as
receptionist, HR manager, sales person and also the janitors. It is
way too expensive to ship janitors on a plane to the US. Its a lot
cheaper to get them locally -be they unemployed folks or illegals.
> they (H1B) don't not earn that much that can create any derivative
> jobs. It is all myth.
They earn about 60-80% of what an american of the same skill set
makes. Assuming the american whom he replaced makes 100K, 80K is good
enough to support lots of parasites.
> They generate taxes that is true exactly as would do Americans.
yep no denying that the US will not lose much if they do away with
human imports. Most of the H1Bs and any other 3rd world workers (no
matter how they came) won't be getting close to winning a nobel prize
(I doubt if any has), and if you make a determined effort to make do
with available talent -it just might be possible to meet manpower
requirements without increasing population density beyond the natural
rate of growth of population.
regards
-kamal
Me, ...again!
It depends on the professional. Look in any doctor office and there will
be 1-2 nurses/each, 1-2-3 clerks/each, and then they need lunches,
support, office space, electricity, phone. etc.
The idea that a low paid H1b creates more jobs is doubtful. An illegal
mexican doing hard physical labor just makes more money for his boss, and
might be paid in cash and that does not need accounting support (for
deductions, withholding, etc).
See below for more...
==================
Ronald J. Hansen
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 9, 2008 05:36 PM
Illegal immigrants cost Arizonans at least $1.4 billion in lower wages
in 2005, a prominent Harvard labor economist estimates in a report
released this week.
The report by George Borjas is the latest academic attempt to quantify
the impact of illegal immigrants on the Arizona economy. It offered
not-so-subtle criticism of a University of Arizona report last summer
that found illegal workers overall made a slight positive economic
contribution to the state.
Borjas' analysis did not attempt to examine any possible economic
benefits illegal immigrants may make to the state's economy, such as
lower prices for goods and services.
Judith Gans of the University of Arizona tried to quantify the net
effect of illegal immigrants on the state's 2004 finances in her report,
which immediately touched off a firestorm of complaints that it was not
sufficiently thorough.
The Borjas report was prepared for Maricopa County Attorney Andrew
Thomas as part of a lawsuit challenging the state's employer-sanctions
law, which threatens to pull business licenses from companies that
knowingly employ illegal immigrants.
Borjas charged Thomas his customary $625 per hour for the report, which
he said he prepared over "a couple of weeks." Thomas declined to
disclose the report's cost.
"Dr. Borjas is one of the nation's leading authorities on the effects of
illegal immigration on the American economy," Thomas said on Monday.
"His analysis demonstrates that enforcement of the employer-sanctions
law will help to protect and potentially increase wages in Arizona,
especially among lower-wage workers."
Borjas, a Cuban immigrant described by the New York Times as "the
pre-eminent scholar in his field," declined to comment Wednesday on his
report, saying only that he would let it speak for itself. Gans, who
manages an immigration-focused public-policy center at UA, could not be
reached for comment.
In different ways, both reports try to quantify the economic impact
illegal immigration has on Arizona, a factor often in dispute and at the
heart of the issue.
In her report, Gans wrote that sales-tax revenues from illegal
immigrants slightly outpaced the costs they incurred to local and state
governments. She did not examine the effect of illegal immigrants on wages.
Another report, by Marc Rosenblum, a political-science professor at the
University of New Orleans, predicts Arizona employers will react to the
sanctions law with "defensive" hiring and firing practices and by
increasingly paying low-skill workers in a black-market cash system that
will cut wages for others.
Rosenblum, who was paid $225 an hour by business groups suing to
overturn the sanctions law, did not estimate the financial impact on the
state.
One of the key assumptions Borjas makes is that immigrants - both legal
and illegal - expand the labor pool and inevitably lower wages for
American-born workers in the same job field.
Continued:
http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/0109biz-illlegalscost0110-ON.html
Old Pif
>
> > They generate taxes that is true exactly as would do Americans.
>
> yep no denying that the US will not lose much if they do away with
> human imports. Most of the H1Bs and any other 3rd world workers (no
> matter how they came) won't be getting close to winning a nobel prize
> (I doubt if any has), and if you make a determined effort to make do
> with available talent -it just might be possible to meet manpower
> requirements without increasing population density beyond the natural
> rate of growth of population.
>
> regards
> -kamal
That is exactly what I am talking about. Every nation except the US
has a notion of development its own population. You will never know
how talented or not your own people are if you deny them opportunity
to show their talents by substituting them with the imported cheap
labor.
Old Pif
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010, Old Pif wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 12:40 am, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> ,,, every professional tends to create five more jobs.
>
> > I have heard this before but never saw any data that support this. And
> > they (H1B) don't not earn that much that can create any derivative
> > jobs. It is all myth.
> > They generate taxes that is true exactly as would do Americans.
>
> It depends on the professional. Look in any doctor office and there will
> be 1-2 nurses/each, 1-2-3 clerks/each, and then they need lunches,
> support, office space, electricity, phone. etc.
>
But doctors constitute a minuscule portion in the total immigration
stream due tough control of the medical labor market.
Also, there is a special visas - E, L - for business people without
any quota. One does not need to go through the H-channel to become an
entrepreneur in the US. This goes to Day Brown comment that those
coming on H turns into the businessmen here.
Poetic Justice
>>> ,,, every professional tends to create five more jobs.
every job creates five bloodsucking professionals.
Me, ...again!
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, Old Pif wrote:
> On Jan 3, 1:15 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010, Old Pif wrote:
>>> On Jan 3, 12:40 am, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> ,,, every professional tends to create five more jobs.
>>
>>> I have heard this before but never saw any data that support this. And
>>> they (H1B) don't not earn that much that can create any derivative
>>> jobs. It is all myth.
>>> They generate taxes that is true exactly as would do Americans.
>>
>> It depends on the professional. Look in any doctor office and there will
>> be 1-2 nurses/each, 1-2-3 clerks/each, and then they need lunches,
>> support, office space, electricity, phone. etc.
>>
>
> But doctors constitute a minuscule portion in the total immigration
> stream due tough control of the medical labor market.
Ahhhh....bingo. However, as it was originally portrayed, the question
involved the "professional" and not underlings (i.e. sub professional).
Even there, the underlings must spend some of their money which passes
through other hands, but it is not a big job generator. At one place I was
at where they were expanding and seeking local govt help, they talked
about "induced jobs" and the number was about 0.75 induced job for every
actual job. So, its not a big gift. I have heard that in India, you create
one job and it induces four more, but you figure it is great "trickle
down" and it is almost a part time job for a homeless or almost homeless
person in India.
> Also, there is a special visas - E, L - for business people without
> any quota. One does not need to go through the H-channel to become an
> entrepreneur in the US. This goes to Day Brown comment that those
> coming on H turns into the businessmen here.
It is a big jump to go from H1b to self-employment in one's own business,
or else parents and relatives have a lot of connections and loan money,
etc.
Me, ...again!
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, Poetic Justice wrote:
>
>>>> ,,, every professional tends to create five more jobs.
>
> every job creates five bloodsucking professionals.
>
Doctors, lawyers, consultants, CPAs, etc., ...parasites at parasite fees,
too.
Me, ...again!
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, kamal wrote:
> On Jan 2, 9:48 pm, Old Pif <old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 12:40 am, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> ,,, every professional tends to create five more jobs.
>>
>
> as regards Day Brown's earlier statement that they may stay back in
> their country and compete with US, that is anyways a given. There are
> 6 billion people on this planet and 300 million of them on your side
> of the fence. There is no way you can do away with competition
If the exchange rate did not make India/China so cheap, then India/China
would still be living in the dust.
by
> picking the best of the 6 billion peopl because the number is so huge.
> Better thing to do would be to fix your cost structure.
Better to slap on duties and tarriffs, quotas.
>> I have heard this before but never saw any data that support this. And
>
> because you were looking for 5 jobs for which you will qualify.
Any American could be a low-paid servant in India, but I think most would
prefer to stay in the USA.
The
> jobs that get created are low-end ones for which a hispanic or
> uneducated WASP will qualify. The companies I worked for in the US on
> an H1B did have americans (non-H1B) as support staff, typically as
> receptionist, HR manager, sales person and also the janitors. It is
> way too expensive to ship janitors on a plane to the US.
It is very cheap to find illegal Hispanics, and they are already here.
A lot of them work at night at Walmarts, after they close and lock the
doors, and then they leave before customers start showing up the next day.
And, the walmarts have TV cameras watching everyone so if they shoplift,
then they get fired.
Its a lot
> cheaper to get them locally -be they unemployed folks or illegals.
>
>> they (H1B) don't not earn that much that can create any derivative
>> jobs. It is all myth.
>
> They earn about 60-80% of what an american of the same skill set
> makes. Assuming the american whom he replaced makes 100K, 80K is good
> enough to support lots of parasites.
Here is more....
========
Subject: H1b abuse
On H1-B visa abuse:
From Business Week, October 27, 2008, page 65
title: How Companies Abuse Work Visas"
by Moira Herbst
Some quotes
"For years critics have charged that the U.S. visa program for highly
skilled workers is susceptible to abuse. Now the federal agency that issues
the visas has confirmed some of those concerns."
"...in a recent study, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) found
that 13 % of the requests for H-1B visas were fraudulent and 7 % contained
technical violations."
"In one case, when a company requested a visa for a 'business development
analyst,' USCIS found the person would be working in a laundromat, doing
laundry and maintaining washing machines."
"They charge that companies use the visas so they can hire cheap workers
from abroad instead of hiring Americans, pushing down pay and benefits in
the US."
"Some H1-B workers didn't have the academic credentials or experience
detailed on the applications. Others never worked at the location specified
on their forms. Still other H-1B employees were paid less than the
prevailing wage for their position and geographic location, another
violation of the rules."
=====================
>> They generate taxes that is true exactly as would do Americans.
>
> yep no denying that the US will not lose much if they do away with
> human imports.
CEOs, however, will have less bonus money.
Most of the H1Bs and any other 3rd world workers (no
> matter how they came) won't be getting close to winning a nobel prize
> (I doubt if any has), and if you make a determined effort to make do
> with available talent -it just might be possible to meet manpower
> requirements without increasing population density beyond the natural
> rate of growth of population.
We need tariffs, duties, quotas.
> regards
> -kamal
>
>
>
>
Old Pif
>
> I have heard that in India, you create
> one job and it induces four more, but you figure it is great "trickle
> down" and it is almost a part time job for a homeless or almost homeless
> person in India.
>
I can believe that as the rumors portrait the army of servants can be
hired for nothing. Here is different.
An anecdotal story tells about an American company found a bug in the
code the resulted in hanging of the server and complained to the
Indian outsourcing partner. They replied that this is not an issue as
they dedicate a special guy to restart the server as soon as it
happens.
Me, ...again!
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, Old Pif wrote:
Maybe (?) they outsource the coding to a homeless or near homeless Indian,
making a few (single digets) USD/day? Hire another homeless or near
homeless guy to reboot the server? Manager takes big cut? Kickback/bribes
(bakshish) in there somewhere, too.
I read a WSJ article how some poor Indian woman borrowed money from the
bank to buy cinderblocks for a "house", which was going to be built on
land she didn't even own, but many over there build houses (you should
have seen the picture, the filth, even plastic garbage bags full of
garbage piled up all around), on land they don't own but that is the way
they live, and the bank gives the loan. She worked as janitor at the
airport, around which "squaters" (building houses on land they don't own)
all lived in similar houses. You know...a kind of living hell (as far as
I'm concerned). Its sad and sick.
kamal
> On Jan 3, 10:41 am, kamal <kama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > They generate taxes that is true exactly as would do Americans.
>
> > yep no denying that the US will not lose much if they do away with
> > human imports. Most of the H1Bs and any other 3rd world workers (no
> > matter how they came) won't be getting close to winning a nobel prize
> > (I doubt if any has), and if you make a determined effort to make do
> > with available talent -it just might be possible to meet manpower
> > requirements without increasing population density beyond the natural
> > rate of growth of population.
>
> > regards
> > -kamal
>
> That is exactly what I am talking about. Every nation except the US
> has a notion of development its own population. You will never know
No -at least in India we don't have any such notion.
> how talented or not your own people are if you deny them opportunity
> to show their talents by substituting them with the imported cheap
> labor.
The reason why they substitute local manpower by cheap labour is
because local manpower is unwilling to accept lower salaries in line
with their productivity. Consider that the tech worker is no different
from an agricultural worker. If farmers and agrocorps started paying
the salaries americans aspire for -their cost of production will shoot
up and they will find it impossible to compete with farm produce
generated in 3rd world countries. There is exactly one price for a
product of a given quality/quantity in the commoditities market and so
it is not possible for employers in the US to offer jobs that pay 10x
3rd world wages and still stay in business. Sameholds true for h1Bs.
If you get 10 hard working h1bs from 3rd world countries and hold them
captive and make them slog it out for 3x or 4x 3rd world wages, that
will finance the employment of 40 other americans who would otherwise
be too costly to be hired when compared to what the competition makes
in 3rd world countries. Just as there is 1 price for a product (of
given quality+quantity) in the commodities market, same holds true for
the services market. If there are anomalies, they will be fixed in the
long term.
regards
-kamal
Me, ...again!
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, kamal wrote:
> On Jan 3, 11:26 pm, Old Pif <old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 10:41 am, kamal <kama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> They generate taxes that is true exactly as would do Americans.
>>
>>> yep no denying that the US will not lose much if they do away with
>>> human imports. Most of the H1Bs and any other 3rd world workers (no
>>> matter how they came) won't be getting close to winning a nobel prize
>>> (I doubt if any has), and if you make a determined effort to make do
>>> with available talent -it just might be possible to meet manpower
>>> requirements without increasing population density beyond the natural
>>> rate of growth of population.
>>
>>> regards
>>> -kamal
>>
>> That is exactly what I am talking about. Every nation except the US
>> has a notion of development its own population. You will never know
>
> No -at least in India we don't have any such notion.
Yes- Tata, Wipro, Infosys, Satyam, Mahindra, Suzlon are all expansionist
companies. The govt wants to develop. How do you think India is expanding
its GDP by some 7-8% without _development_? All I hear is new buildings
going up in the main cities. Car sales in India are going up every year
for the last many years, and particularly the last 1-2 years.
>> how talented or not your own people are if you deny them opportunity
>> to show their talents by substituting them with the imported cheap
>> labor.
>
> The reason why they substitute local manpower by cheap labour is
> because local manpower is unwilling to accept lower salaries in line
> with their productivity.
The reason why local manpower can't accept lower salaries is that the cost
of living is higher.
Consider that the tech worker is no different
> from an agricultural worker.
Untrue. Tech worker needs education, ag worker just needs OJT.
If farmers and agrocorps started paying
> the salaries americans aspire for
If Indians aspired for more pay, then more Indians would have cars
and it would boost India's development even more.
-their cost of production will shoot
> up and they will find it impossible to compete with farm produce
> generated in 3rd world countries.
Actually, quite a lot of US agribusiness harvests crops by modern
machinery cheaper than cheap labor. This is why India still has high
tariffs on imports IN ADDITION TO cheap Rupee (which I have proved for
years now) which makes imports too expensive for Indians.
There is exactly one price for a
> product of a given quality/quantity in the commoditities market
Untrue since these prices change from one day to the next, and according
to market and manipulation by speculators.
and so
> it is not possible for employers in the US to offer jobs that pay 10x
> 3rd world wages and still stay in business.
It all depends on the business.
> Sameholds true for h1Bs.
> If you get 10 hard working h1bs from 3rd world countries and hold them
> captive and make them slog it out for 3x or 4x 3rd world wages, that
> will finance the employment of 40 other americans
No, it causes their jobs to disappear. Maybe it gives CEOs a big bonus at
the end of the year, but does not support 40 other americans.
who would otherwise
> be too costly to be hired when compared to what the competition makes
> in 3rd world countries. Just as there is 1 price for a product (of
> given quality+quantity) in the commodities market,
Still untrue.
same holds true for
> the services market. If there are anomalies, they will be fixed in the
> long term.
Only by laws.
> regards
> -kamal
>
>
Old Pif
>
> The reason why they substitute local manpower by cheap labour is
> because local manpower is unwilling to accept lower salaries in line
> with their productivity.
>
I usually try to refrain from remarks on person's traits but sometimes
it is very hard indeed ...
Let us do it together step by step. What does it mean that somebody is
unwilling to accept lower salaries? Quite simply it means that the
person goes and find another job with higher salary. When you have
unemployment above 10% where he or she in God's name can find another
job? Every opening is precious.
In so called "good" times, amount of openings in technical professions
were not that great. Indeed, there had been some choice but not enough
to inflate the salaries. I personally recall only one time when an
average person might regularly allow to decline the offer: dot.com
boom. That as we all know was very short lived.
sopr...@godfather.com
Old Pif says...
>Let us do it together step by step. What does it mean that somebody is
>unwilling to accept lower salaries? Quite simply it means that the
>person goes and find another job with higher salary. When you have
>unemployment above 10% where he or she in God's name can find another
>job? Every opening is precious.
>
>In so called "good" times, amount of openings in technical professions
>were not that great. Indeed, there had been some choice but not enough
>to inflate the salaries. I personally recall only one time when an
>average person might regularly allow to decline the offer: dot.com
>boom. That as we all know was very short lived.
Look at it from the employers point of view. A situation in which
there is a severe shortage of skills means that the employers
will have to put up with whatever talent they get along with their
attitude. Or do you think employees will perform the same when they
know company can not find their replacement so easily.
John Galt
Most employees *tend* (as far as I'm aware) to hold the same level of
effort without a lot of attention to economic conditions. This is due to
two 'facts'; the first is that not everyone pays deep attention to
economic conditions until they affect them, and the second is that
'effort' is largely tied to individual motivational factors.
What changes with the economy is the way the same employees are treated
by their employers. Employers are a lot more worker friendly when jobs
are plentiful and labor is constrained.
JG
Old Pif
>
> Look at it from the employers point of view. A situation in which
> there is a severe shortage of skills means that the employers
> will have to put up with whatever talent they get along with their
> attitude. Or do you think employees will perform the same when they
> know company can not find their replacement so easily.
>
In a big pool of people like the US there is sufficient amount of
talents in any given moment to cover any the most stringent
requirements. Not mentioning the fact that the most jobs does not
require and talents at all. All you need to be is accurate and
organized.
Me, ...again!
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 sopr...@godfather.com wrote:
> In article <2efcca67-4675-45cd...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
> Old Pif says...
>
>> Let us do it together step by step. What does it mean that somebody is
>> unwilling to accept lower salaries? Quite simply it means that the
>> person goes and find another job with higher salary. When you have
>> unemployment above 10% where he or she in God's name can find another
>> job? Every opening is precious.
>>
>> In so called "good" times, amount of openings in technical professions
>> were not that great. Indeed, there had been some choice but not enough
>> to inflate the salaries. I personally recall only one time when an
>> average person might regularly allow to decline the offer: dot.com
>> boom. That as we all know was very short lived.
>
> Look at it from the employers point of view. A situation in which
> there is a severe shortage of skills means that the employers
> will have to put up with whatever talent they get along with their
> attitude.
Before 2000 we had such a shortage and programmer-types were getting
90-120 K, and, yes, they also developed an attitude similar to what
executives/CEOs have had all along: unreasonable expectations for pay and
if they didn't get the pay THEY wanted, then they moved elsewhere. And,
this led to high turnover (which means less work gets done). So, did
employees have to put up with employer attitudes, too?
Or do you think employees will perform the same when they
> know company can not find their replacement so easily.
Employees who get work experience on their resumes will be in demand and
particularly if employers think they can exploit the employees.
But, what you are talking about are experienced manager/executives who
know how to get work out of underlings.
I have not been reading any articles, ever, that SW producers can't get
their products out because of shortages in employment, but they just say
they can't find employees. I have to tell you that that story is 50 years
old and I heard it when I was a kid. Back then, it was immigrants from
Phillipines, Puerto Rico, etc., they liked to find but they worked in the
back room, not face-to-face with customers.
>
kamal
> In article <2efcca67-4675-45cd-a269-42bd928ba...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
> Old Pif says...
>
> >Let us do it together step by step. What does it mean that somebody is
> >unwilling to accept lower salaries? Quite simply it means that the
> >person goes and find another job with higher salary. When you have
> >unemployment above 10% where he or she in God's name can find another
> >job? Every opening is precious.
>
at this pt of time, what you are saying is true -but will not be true
as the job market improves and it was not the case earlier.
> >In so called "good" times, amount of openings in technical professions
> >were not that great. Indeed, there had been some choice but not enough
> >to inflate the salaries. I personally recall only one time when an
> >average person might regularly allow to decline the offer: dot.com
> >boom. That as we all know was very short lived.
>
No -there is more to it than just that. One employer I worked for, had
a policy of hiring programmers on H1B for USD 50K + offer to file for
green card. A US worker would have made about 75K + stock because he
could not be held captive.
> Look at it from the employers point of view. A situation in which
> there is a severe shortage of skills means that the employers
> will have to put up with whatever talent they get along with their
> attitude. Or do you think employees will perform the same when they
> know company can not find their replacement so easily.
employers are concerned about disruption to business and so they will
not risk lowering salaries at random -unless prevailing or martket
wage declines so that employee cannot find a better job for the same
skillset. Otherwise, old pif would have seen his salary plummet to $10/
hr in no time.
regards
-kamal
sopr...@godfather.com
says...
>I have not been reading any articles, ever, that SW producers can't get
>their products out because of shortages in employment, but they just say
>they can't find employees.
Neither you would have read any articles claiming that they hire H1B
only to find the quality poor and not as good as 'real' americans.
Michael Coburn
This is really stupid. You take the general theft of management over-
payments and convert it into a value. And the cost of labor is really
the only cost to anything..... EVER. If Americans need watches, then
Americans should make watches. And if we can trade with others that
which we make for that which they make and end up better off for it then
so be it. The current situation is, however, untenable. And it is
untenable because we don't make enough of what they would want and we go
deeper and deeper into debt. The fact that we pay so much to the
managers and owners is the reason for the debt. We have sufficient
natural resources and we have sufficient educated labor to provide for
ourselves. Yet the game is rigged to deliver too much income into the
hands of the owners of the means of production.
We _MUST_ deploy alternative energy production and stop trading at a loss
or we will become either a banana republic or a true fascist state that
simply robs the rest of the world at the point of a gun. As a matter of
fact, the latter is more descriptive of our nation each and every day.
It is "Give us your oil, or we will 'liberate' you".
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Me, ...again!
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, kamal wrote:
> On Jan 4, 5:54 am, sopra...@godfather.com wrote:
>> In article <2efcca67-4675-45cd-a269-42bd928ba...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
>> Old Pif says...
>>
>>> Let us do it together step by step. What does it mean that somebody is
>>> unwilling to accept lower salaries? Quite simply it means that the
>>> person goes and find another job with higher salary. When you have
> yes
>
>>> unemployment above 10% where he or she in God's name can find another
>>> job? Every opening is precious.
>>
> at this pt of time, what you are saying is true -but will not be true
> as the job market improves
Your comment is irrelevant since nobody knows when the job market will
improve. Layoff rates are still above normal.
> and it was not the case earlier.
>
>>> In so called "good" times, amount of openings in technical professions
>>> were not that great. Indeed, there had been some choice but not enough
>>> to inflate the salaries. I personally recall only one time when an
>>> average person might regularly allow to decline the offer: dot.com
>>> boom. That as we all know was very short lived.
>>
>
> No -there is more to it than just that. One employer I worked for, had
> a policy of hiring programmers on H1B for USD 50K + offer to file for
> green card. A US worker would have made about 75K + stock because he
> could not be held captive.
This is bait and switch. The issue was "who can refuse a job?" and the
answer is: almost nobody. You are comparing H1b with US guy offers.
Captive only has to do with being able to offer "immigrant" less money.
>
>> Look at it from the employers point of view. A situation in which
>> there is a severe shortage of skills means that the employers
>> will have to put up with whatever talent they get along with their
>> attitude. Or do you think employees will perform the same when they
>> know company can not find their replacement so easily.
>
>
> employers are concerned about disruption to business and so they will
> not risk lowering salaries at random -
Not true. I know of many examples where an employee was called into the
office and told he was being fired because the company can't afford him (a
big lie), but if he wanted to stay and accept less money, then they would
keep the guy. I know of cases where they guy left, and cases where they
guy stayed.
unless prevailing or martket
> wage declines so that employee cannot find a better job for the same
> skillset. Otherwise, old pif would have seen his salary plummet to $10/
> hr in no time.
Old Pif, you have the chance to say Kamal's "brillian" prediction here is
wrong, and because the situation Kamal is talking about is more
complicated, otherwise "Tambi Dude" with his high salary job as an Indian
would be replaced by now with a differnt/cheap Indian.
> regards
> -kamal
>
Me, ...again!
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 sopr...@godfather.com wrote:
Actually, it would not be politically correct to make this report in a
public medium because it would be stereotyping Indians, however, I really
have read a few articles where -- and it is legal to do this -- aledge
from reports that the quality is poor. And, of course, I have my own
experience on 800 numbers where I get a person, with time echo on the
phone line, on a technical problem and I would say the quality of the help
was below standard.
However, also, from much prior knowledge of corporate mindsets, a great
deal of emphasis in more recent times has been on bottom line issues
instead of quality issues which get a much lower priority.
For example, in recent years IBM hardware warranties suddenly came with
declarations that replacement parts could be "re-furbished" as new,
instead of all new parts and that passed through our media many years ago
as just one example of how costs count more than quality.
>
>
Me, ...again!
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, Michael Coburn wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 23:40:12 -0600, Day Brown wrote:
>
>> One of the few letters I got published, years ago, was to the Electronic
>> Engineer's Times in which I said that if we do not import the H-1b, they
>> will stay in their home economies and create startups there, which will
>> then compete with American firms.
>>
>> Which has indeed happened. Whatever an H-1b does with his own income,
>> every professional tends to create five more jobs. Office data entry,
>> shipping clerks, janitors, lab techs, etc. Who are locals, and boost
>> their own local, state, and US economy.
>>
>> The US should become a gated community for global professionals, who
>> will also need groundskeepers, childcare, teachers for their kids,
>> healthcare, vehicle sales and repair, etc.
>>
>> And with robotics and automated process control, the manufacture can
>> stay here; not even 3rd world wages are as cheap as robots. But would
>> provide jobs for technicians to maintain the equipment...
>>
>> That the cost of labor in the US is high does not matter when that cost
>> is such a small portion now of machine made manufacture. The cost of
>> management is now more important.
>
> This is really stupid. You take the general theft of management over-
> payments and convert it into a value.
I understand both sides of this issue; management considers it's own
"brilliance" as essential to 99% of everything (thus the bloated
compensation packages), but (from WSJ articles) pay to executives is now a
significant fraction of net income and its getting worse.
And the cost of labor is really
> the only cost to anything..... EVER. If Americans need watches, then
> Americans should make watches. And if we can trade with others that
> which we make for that which they make and end up better off for it then
> so be it. The current situation is, however, untenable. And it is
> untenable because we don't make enough of what they would want and we go
> deeper and deeper into debt. The fact that we pay so much to the
> managers and owners is the reason for the debt.
Might not be debt, but definitely the exec/mgrs/owners are _squeezing_
every drop of blood out of their "machines" (the companies/workers) so
they can feed it into their wallets.
We have sufficient
> natural resources and we have sufficient educated labor to provide for
> ourselves.
Except for a few things (eg. oil), I agree with this.
Yet the game is rigged to deliver too much income into the
> hands of the owners of the means of production.
I forgot how it was worded, but a few days ago WSJ said that something 40%
of the nation's GDP was being derived from "financial services"
activities, meaning that all that income was coming not from actual-real
_work_ but tricks/cheats/sneaks off the big Wall Street _scam_.
> We _MUST_ deploy alternative energy production and stop trading at a loss
> or we will become either a banana republic or a true fascist state that
> simply robs the rest of the world at the point of a gun.
Well, it looks to me like it is the cheap currency countries (China,
India, etc) that have figured out that cheap currency is a WMD that gives
THEM the jobs, money, trade surplus, and intellectual property (legally
or illegally) and WE get the _junk_.
As a matter of
> fact, the latter is more descriptive of our nation each and every day.
> It is "Give us your oil, or we will 'liberate' you".
If you are talking about Iraq, I'd hardly say that we "liberated" them,
but we sure tried. Afghanistan? Going to be another Viet Nam as far as I'm
concerned.
sopr...@godfather.com
says...
>Actually, it would not be politically correct to make this report in a
>public medium because it would be stereotyping Indians, however, I really
>have read a few articles where -- and it is legal to do this -- aledge
>from reports that the quality is poor. And, of course, I have my own
>experience on 800 numbers where I get a person, with time echo on the
>phone line, on a technical problem and I would say the quality of the help
>was below standard.
Can you put some URL and reference here. You are otherwise so quick
to put links :-)
We all know you are a person of impeccable integrity and honesty.
But in arguments like this, we need references from a study, not
farts passed off as facts.
Once again, we are talking about H1B , not outsourced to India.
Can we focus on that.
>However, also, from much prior knowledge of corporate mindsets, a great
>deal of emphasis in more recent times has been on bottom line issues
>instead of quality issues which get a much lower priority.
Translation: Art Sowers can not show any proof of corporations 'regretting'
H1B over 'talented' americans.
Honestly does anyone doubt that if there was ever a study published that
shows H1B are of inferior quality to 'real' americans, it would not have been
posted here. I bet it would have been posted almost daily by Art Sowers :-)
sopr...@godfather.com
says...
>Actually, it would not be politically correct to make this report in a
>public medium because it would be stereotyping Indians, however, I really
>have read a few articles where -- and it is legal to do this -- aledge
>from reports that the quality is poor.
There have been reports about a company not happy with quality of
outsourced work to India (either in BPO 800 number jobs or even
IT work). How is that allowed to publish? Does it not stereotype
Indians.
I have read interview of CEOs of Intel, Oracle telling that Indians
have contributed great to their company. Isnt' that sterotyping
of Indians. In fact it is also stereo typing of 'real' americans
that they are inferior to Indians.
Me, ...again!
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 sopr...@godfather.com wrote:
Exactly my point. However, the story behind the story is that lobbying and
PR/lawyer firms, hired by the big corporations to help them acheive their
goals, teach the corporations how to do PR. So, you can't be PC if you say
Indians are better because that discriminates against Americans, but you
_can_ say "We can't find Americans who want to do this work" (which is a
lie because before they laid off all the Americans to hire Indians, they
already had Americans doing the work). And, that phrase is incomplete: it
always leaves off the reality ending.... "...at the price we want to pay."
But, the stories are easier to find that the imported Indians (please, don't
think no other non-Indians are not hired, either) are generally working at
lower rates. I think even Kamal realizes this. Quality of work _may_ be a
non-issue, but for investors and MBA-wonks, it sounds much better on paper
that a company is always cutting costs because investors (with their weak
immoral and unethical brains) just don't recognize quality work anymore.
They would even promote bad work because that work leads to more work to
fix the bad work. Otherwise they are only interested in just ROI. I can
cite many books, with good references, on this.
More rumors and scuttlebutt over the decades is that American coders of
longer ago (i.e. more than 2-3 decades ago) were much better than coders
in the 0-2 decades ago, but the geniuses are still in demand (and so the
US citizens who can be hired by DoD for security clearance reasons [one of
my friends has no trouble getting security work, AND a high per hour pay
rate]). But, real "genius" is not genius, but clever ideas for making
money. And, it is the _idea_ that makes the money, not the _work_ that
comes out of it. I've seen a lot of gadget junk come out of China, too.
And, Microsoft has moved the whole OS into RAM (for nanosecond i-o)
instead of doing I/O off the HD (access time: 10s msec), so it doesn't
matter that the OS needs up to 1 gig of RAM. So, the coding can be sloppy.
Years ago, DOS only needed a few tens of kB to run everything, and I had a
DOS (still have it) office suite with graphics, multiple windows,
drag-and-drop windows, re-sizable windows, copy/cut and paste between
windows, etc., most of the things MS-Windows does, but all in DOS and
with 600 kB of RAM. So, once MS got its monopoly, it didn't care anymore
except that the hackers loved to hack Windows. Now, that Apple is gaining
market share, guess what.... viruses and hacks for Apple are going up.
Now, cell phone viruses are out there (and for the jail-broken iPhone,
too). How long before un-jail-broken iPhones?).
sopr...@italianmafia.com
says...
>Exactly my point. However, the story behind the story is that lobbying and
>PR/lawyer firms, hired by the big corporations to help them acheive their
>goals, teach the corporations how to do PR. So, you can't be PC if you say
>Indians are better because that discriminates against Americans, but you
>_can_ say "We can't find Americans who want to do this work" (which is a
>lie because before they laid off all the Americans to hire Indians, they
>already had Americans doing the work). And, that phrase is incomplete: it
>always leaves off the reality ending.... "...at the price we want to pay."
So if no one says pubicly that H1B is of poor quality, then from where posters
here come up with their analysis that H1B are of poor quality. If it
is their personal opinion, then why should it be granted any more respect
that arrogant claims by indians that indians are superior to americans.
Old Pif
>
> However, the story behind the story is that lobbying and
> goals, teach the corporations how to do PR.
>
That is exactly what is happening. Those firms have developed
politically correct cliche and spread them out through the system of
corporate training. The managers have been programmed to respond with
the learned stereotypes to every situation on subconscious level. That
is how this bullshit about lazy Americans and top talents from India
has been spread around.
sopr...@italianmafia.com
Old
Pif says...
>That is exactly what is happening. Those firms have developed
>politically correct cliche and spread them out through the system of
>corporate training. The managers have been programmed to respond with
>the learned stereotypes to every situation on subconscious level. That
>is how this bullshit about lazy Americans and top talents from India
>has been spread around.
and we see the reverse PR bullshit in this forum when super smart
Americans claim that H1B write crappy code and they fix the bug.
Old Pif
>
> So if no one says publicly that H1B is of poor quality, then from where posters
> here come up with their analysis that H1B are of poor quality. If it
> is their personal opinion, then why should it be granted any more respect
> that arrogant claims by Indians that Indians are superior to Americans.
>
H1B are of different quality. The point here is that - and it has been
recognized officially couple of times recently - the whole idea of H1B
program has been abused. As it has been formulated originally, H1B
program is a program that helps to meet shortages of professionals in
the areas where the US education system has been slow to produce
sufficient numbers of those. It has not been intended at least
officially to help the corporations to cut their costs with the cheap
labor. The mere fact that professionals in the areas with long
stagnated salaries and steady stream of graduates are hired on H1B
tells that the law has been seriously violated and used
inappropriately. Inability of the political structures to protect the
citizens of the country against blatant abuse tells for itself.
And observe also that there is a special visa O for persons with
extraordinary ability. That is where all geniuses from India should
apply according to the law.
Old Pif
>
> and we see the reverse PR bullshit in this forum when super smart
> Americans claim that H1B write crappy code and they fix the bug.
>
I tell what I see. The corporate brainwashing does not help. If the
code is bad it is bad. Hours of corporate bullshitting don't make it
good.
Me, ...again!
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 sopr...@italianmafia.com wrote:
> In article <Pine.BSF.4.61.10...@osmium.mv.net>, Me, ...again!
> says...
>
>> Exactly my point. However, the story behind the story is that lobbying and
>> PR/lawyer firms, hired by the big corporations to help them acheive their
>> goals, teach the corporations how to do PR. So, you can't be PC if you say
>> Indians are better because that discriminates against Americans, but you
>> _can_ say "We can't find Americans who want to do this work" (which is a
>> lie because before they laid off all the Americans to hire Indians, they
>> already had Americans doing the work). And, that phrase is incomplete: it
>> always leaves off the reality ending.... "...at the price we want to pay."
>
> So if no one says pubicly that H1B is of poor quality,
You did not dig into the file that I embedded in my previous response
where offshored work was judged to be so unsatisfactory that contracts
were, for example, terminated before the contract period was over.
then from where posters
> here come up with their analysis that H1B are of poor quality.
Also, unpublished rumors and stories.
If it
> is their personal opinion, then why should it be granted any more respect
> that arrogant claims by indians that indians are superior to americans.
OK, you can have your opinion (such as you like Kamal's views) and I'll
have my opinion (that Kamal is wrong at least half the time).
>
Me, ...again!
And, any and all of this can also be found using google and search terms.
I put the following file together from a casual copying from my personal
subscriptions to print versions of the media.....
=======
Reference List: India No Longer Offshore IT King
(34 references to recent articles)
Offshore outsourcing (including BPO to India) is
declining as a fraction of total world-wide IT service
to developed countries and has a high failure rate,
not necessarily high quality service, is leading to
a new phenomenon: backsourcing/backshoring.
Somethings called the "H-1B swindle" is discussed
below. And there are some reports that outsourcing
is declining or reversing.
----
34. WSJ, Oct 5, 2009, page B1:
title:"Indian Tech Outsourcers Aim to Widen Contracts"
contains the following sentences:
"But the days of 30% annual revenue growth from such work are over, a
casualty of the global economic downturn and increasing competition in the
services industry world-wide."
"Annual revenue growth in Indian technology services slowed to 16 % in
fiscal year ended in March. The industry's trade group, Nasscom, estimates
growth will be only 4% to 7% this fiscal year."
page B7 (continuation):
"Adding to the pressure on Indian firms is increased competition from
outsourcers based in the U.S. that have expanded their presences in
India, and the rise of competitors in even cheaper offshoring locales
such as the Philippines and Vietnam."
"But Indian companies are still having a hard time shaking their
reputation as the vendors of choice for low-cost, commodity services. And
on bigger, infrastructure heavy deals, they can no longer beat rivals on
price."
- - - - - - - - - - -
33. From Business Week, October 5, 2009, title "The Peril and Promise of
Investing in Russia," starting on page 49, about 1/3 way into article is
this paragraph on page 50:
"Consider IT giant Intel, which moved into Russia in 1999 and since then
has invested $800 million. It now employs more than 1,000 engineers at
four research centers, including its largest software [R&D] group outside
of the U.S. Because of Russia's top-notch math skills, Intel assigns local
engineers more complex work than it gives specialits in other outsourcing
venues such as India, says Dimitry Konash, the company's Moscow-based
regional director."
And the picture caption on page 52 says "Russian worker's math skills give
them an edge over Indian engineers, says Intel's Konash"
- - - - - - -
32. Business Week, May 4, 2009 issue, page 59: title: "The Sudden Chill
at an Indian Hot Spot." Picture caption says:"A commercial real estate
boom has turned into a glut, with vacancy rates of 28%" "In the second half
of 2008, as American and European clients hit the skids, India's outsourcing
industry saw contracts shrivel by 22%, its worst performance in a decade,
according to research firm Technology Partners International." "Nobody in
India collects layoff data, but every day papers carry dire news...." as
many named Indian companies announce layoffs.
Sidebar at the bottom of page 60:
"Outsourcing to India may soon be old news. KPMG has identified 31 new hot
spots, from Buenos Aires to Zagreb, and from Indianapolis [in the USA] to
Iloilo City (a Philippines town known for its animation services).
It gives the URL for that KPMG report as:
http://bx.businessweek.com/global-outsourcing/reference
- - - - - - -
31. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aB5yoCVxbXe4
Delta Air Returns Customer Call-Center Work to U.S. From India
April 18 (Bloomberg) -- Delta Air Lines Inc., the world~Rs largest
carrier, said it stopped routing customer service calls to India and
brought them back in house in the U.S. because customers were unhappy.
Delta started shifting the calls to employees in the U.S. over the
past year, and completely removed Indian contractors last quarter,
Chief Executive Officer Richard Anderson said in his weekly recorded
message to employees.
The move makes Delta the second big carrier to repatriate customer-
service work from India in 2009, after UAL Corp. United Airlines
did so in February. Companies including AT&T Inc. have taken similar
steps, said Karl Keirstead, an outsourcing analyst at Kaufman Bros.
LP in New York.
- - - - - -
30. Subject: More Jobs coming back to the USA from India
WSJ, April 7, 2009, Tuesday, page B5:
title: "Sallie Mae To Shift Jobs to the U.S."
Quote: "AP. New York--Sallie Mae gave some hope to the unemployed Monday,
announcing it will bring 2,000 jobs to the U.S. within the next 18 months as
it shifts call-center and other operations from overseas."
And, same story in Washington Post, April 7, 2009, page A18:
title: "SLM to Transfer Overseas Jobs to U.S."
subtitle: "Reston Student Lender to Move 2,000 Workers Out of Asia"
- - - - - -
29.(BusinessWeek/SmallBiz, Feb/Mar 2008) title:
"Outsourcing HEADING SOUTH" by Amy Barrett, "Jon
Morris...shifted his outsourced design and Web
development staff from India to Costa Rica in 2005"
and he made reference to not having to deal with
the time zone difference with India. "Forget
'Chindia,' A growing number of entrepreneurs are
finding Latin America a great place to sell,
source, and outsource.." Article says US companies
exported 30% more goods to Latin America, up 30%
from five years earlier. Direct investment to LA up
12% in 2006 over 2005. LA has less daunting
language and cultural problems. Countries featured:
Mexico, Brazil, Columbia, Chile, and
Argentina.(businessweek.com/smallbiz).
CFO magazine (www.cfo.com/backissues?), February,
2008, p. 24: "view from asia" in an interview with
Deepak Natraj, Infosys's head of strategic
initiatives: "Everyone assumes that we're going to
slash and burn and send two-thirds of the people
home," (and the bring over Indians on L visas) "But
when you send home the workforce, what are you
paying for?" Natraj "...prefers leaving the local
CEO--as well as the human-resources director --in
place."
- - - - - - -
28. Subject: "India's Competition in the Caribbean"
from Business Week,
Dec 24, 2007 issue, page 072, edited by Jena
McGregor:
"The region [the Carribean], along with Latin
America, is fast becoming a customer-service
hot spot. GE Money is...using call centers in Barbados
and Puerto Rico. Delta Air Lines is sending calls
to Jamaica." "...Philip Peters, CEO of Zagada Markets,
....[says]..the ranks of Caribbean call-center agents have
swelled from 11,000 in 2002 to 55,000 in 2007.
Hispanics are boosting demand for bilingual agents,
driving companies to Central and South America, too.
Dell and [HP]...have set up in countries
such as Panama and Argentina.'Latin America is the
fastest-growing region that we have,' says Mark
Notaraninni, HP's call-center director."
- - - - - -
27. Subject: Dell shuts down hardware R&D unit in
India and moves back to USA
"BENGALURU, India -- Dell Inc. is about to shut
down its hardware R&D unit based in this city, and
will move the work being done here to its centers in
Texas and Taiwan. Anywhere between two dozen to 170
staff will lose their jobs as a result; they have been given
45 days to find new employment."
"A Dell executive blamed rising costs in the city
for shifting the R&D unit out of the country, but
current and previous staffers have pointed
out that employing similar engineers in Austin,
Texas, or Taiwan would likely be more expensive,
not less."
"This is the second time the company has shifted
work out of India. Citing customer complaints about
quality about four years ago, Dell moved part of
its high-end technical support out of India."
http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtm
l?articleID=204701812
(originally posted on a.c.c Dec 6, 2007)
- - - - - - - - -
26. From WSJ, Aug 21, 2007, page A6 (see title
above): Quote of first paragraph: "CAIRO, Egypt--
As rising wages and attrition rates in India
spur some international companies to seek new
locales for outsourcing operations, Southeast Asian,
Eastern Europe, and Latin America have all
been competing to become new offshoring hubs." The
article says Satyam CS hired 300 in Cairo; Wipro
set up in Saudi Arabia and plans to enter Egypt,
Tata says it will go into Morocco. Says in recent
years Egypt, Jordan and the UAE have all broken
into the top 20 for offshoring destinations.
Quotes A.T. Kerney as saying the Middle East is the
next big destination. Paris-based Teleperformance
hired 3,500 in Tunisia, and going into Cairo.
EDS is putting $100 million into Abu Dhabi (UAE
emirate), and already hired 450 in Egypt and planning
to hire more. The sidebar clearly implies that India is no
longer the offshore destination any more. On the list in
the sidebar for offshoring destinations are China,
Malaysia, Thailand, Brazil, Indonesia, Chile, Phillipines,
Bulgaria, Mexico, Singapore, Slovakia, Egypt, Jordan,
and Estonia.
--------
25, From Business Week, August 6, 2007, page 66m
("Rise of the Rupee") and The Economist, July 28, 2007,
pages 65-66 ("Outsourcing-External Affairs").
From BW: Quotes: '"We are losing our competitiveness to
China, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore...and the Reserve
Bank [of India] is allowing the rupee to appreciate?" growls
New Delhi economist Surjit Bhalla." And, "Profitability across
the sector [Indian IT] fell by 8% in the most recent quarter."
And, "A further rise in the rupee, says Suresh Ramrakhiani,
economist at the Cotton Textile Export Promotion Council
in Mumbai, could lead to job losses for up to 200,000 people."
From The Economist: "...jobs no longer flow only from richer
countries to poorer ones." And, "The latest outsourcing from
TPI, a consultancy, was published earlier this month. It
showed that both the number and value of contracts awarded
during the first half of this year had declined in comparison with
the same period in 2006 [lowest since 2001]." Article also
says Wipro is going to set up its first software-development
center in America (either Atlanta, Austin, Raleigh, or
Richmond) and "Azim Premji, Wipro's chairman, says that the
proportion of local employees (as opposed to visiting Indians)
in the company's overseas locations will rise from
10% to one-third over the next three years." Jobs
coming back to the USA.
- - - -
24. title: "Infosys Shaves Forecast After Strong
Quarter" by Jackie Range (WSJ, July 12, 2007, page C8)
"...citing the stronger currency, Bangalore-based
Infosys cut its full-year, rupee-based earnings outlook..."
and "In the past three months, the rupee has appreciated
some 7% against the dollar. That has particularly hurt
companies like Infosys, which earn most of their revenue
in dollars." The graphic, made from data provided
by the company, shows projected 1Q, '08 net profits
as being below 4Q, '07 net profits by about 7 %. Looks
like India's "rising" and "shining" may be coming to an end as
more foreign companies don't consider India as an
outsourcing destination any more (see below).
------------
23. from: The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, July 3,
2007, front page
title: "Some in Silicon Valley Begin to Sour on
India" subtitle: "A Few Bring Jobs Back As Pay of Top
Engineers In Bangalore Skyrockets" by Pui-Wing Tam
and Jackie Range
Interviews and research with quotes as follows:
Munjal Shah [with image of him, and born in India]
led a California start-up [Riya] opened an office in
Bangalore in 2005, hired about 20 skilled software
developers at 1/4 what they cost in Silcon Valley. Then
salaries soared. He said this year it cost 75% of
SV salaries, plus extra expenses of running an office
in India, and in April this year he closed the Bangalore
office.
"Across SV, some technology companies, particularly
start up and midsize ones, are beginning to turn away
from India for low-cost labor to do sophisitcated tech
work. Kana ... eliminated 100 software-developemnt jobs
in India in late 2005 and expanded its U.S. hiring
instead. Teneros, Inc., shut down a 30 member
India office and brought 12 of the people to its
headquarters in ...California."
The article mentioned that Apple cancelled plans to
open a facility in India.
"'The wage inflation rate for engineers in India is
four times what it is here' in America, says Intel's
chief executive, Paul Otellini."
Article says Indian wage inflation is 10-15% per
year, other sources say it is closer to 50%.
"India is no longer the premier outsourcing
destination."
Article says even the simple call-center work may
be done more cheaply in the Philippines and Vietnam,
and mentions that Indian companies are even
looking outside India to create jobs. TCS recently
opened a center in Mexico and is considering a move
to Morocco. Wipro has two centers in China and
planning one for the Philippines.
Pervasive Software (from Texas) opened a Bangalore
unit in 2004 with 45 people, but turnover reached more
than 25% per year. Last year it closed the
Bangalore office.
The article mentioned that it takes more supervisors to
manage Indians. So, they are asking why pay a junior
guy in India just a little less when they can get a senior
guy right in California.
---------------
22. Quotes from A Wall Street Journal article, Feb
26, 2007, page B3: title: "Behind Outsourcing: Promise
and Pitfalls" by Scott Thurm
"Companies such as Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
and Dell Inc. reversed decisions to move customer call
centers to India after a customer rebellion." and "[Jagdish]
Dalal advised a big insurance company with
little outsourcing experience to locate a call
center in Canada, to minimize problems with non-North
American English accents." This article also gave many
other details on problems with outsourcing that had nothing
to do with India or offshoring.
----
21. I have seen many reports (sorry I have no
specifics) of Indian (and other foreign corporations) opening
up branches in the USA and establishing jobs within the
USA. An important caveat regarding this action is that while
these are new jobs in the USA, foreign companies are
allowed to transfer existing employees from their
home country into these jobs on L-1 visas and there is no
cap on the number. I hardly think that many of these jobs
will be offered to US guys (green card or citizens)
when home country guys can probably be transferred
at lower pay. Furthermore, the reports may be overly
glossy if a foreign company just buys an existing company
and then claims that it is "bringing" jobs to the
USA. When, however, a US MNC lays off 20,000 US
guys and moves those jobs to India, that MNC is going
to hire local Indians into those jobs and NOT
invite the US guys to "transfer" to India with
something like a 2/3 pay cut.
-------
20. Wall Street Journal, Feb 21, 2007, page B6:
Under "Plots and Ploys" section entitled "Call it
insourcing": Quotes: "One real-estate company has
decreased its outsourcing of some services to india
and turned to a North Carolina town that has lost jobs
to overseas competitors. Situs Cos., a Houston-based
company that provides services to the commercial-
mortgage industry, says it will send some work
to Robbins, N.C. the company previously had tried
to outsource certain services to india, but looked
elsewhere as well in part because of soaring
rents in India, says Situs Chief Executive Ralph
Howard. 'We think we are getting a better quality
for the same price, and at the same time, we're
creating U.S. jobs,' says Mr. Bean [who works for
Mr. Howard]."
---------
19. WSJ, front page, November 13, 2006. title
"Clothes Made Abroad Create Factory Jobs in
L.A. for Mr. Fix-It" subtitle: "Barry Foreman Left Rag
Trade, But is Back, Salvaging Flawed Chinese
Garments" by Stephanie Kang. This whole article
is about a fairly large fraction of imported clothing
that comes with a variety of defects and the
featured guy, Barry Forman, got back into business
to "correct" the defects in the imported lots so as to
make them saleable again. His business is booming,
expanding, and the article is worth reading for those
who want the details. Not all of that cheap labor is
worth what people pay for it. You get cheap quality,
too.
------------
18. Financial Times, Nov 2, page 18, 2006
title: "Volkswagen chooses to swim against the
current-The German carmaker is to shift some of
its production back home" by Richard Milne
"To move production away from lower-cost countries
to a high-cost nation may appear to be a peculiar
decision, but not at Volkswagen. The carmaker
intends to cut thousands of jobs at Spanish,
Portugese and Belgian factories and to shift some
of the models back to Germany..."In the course of this
change, workers in Germany will work longer hours
for the same pay (and keep their high-paying jobs
which will end up at about E40.65/hour [or around
US$50/hour]).
------------
17. From Financial Times, Oct 12, 2006, page 15,
entitled "Boom in outsourcing abates as groups seek
shorter deals" by Francesco Guerrera.
"The wave of outsourcing that has engulfed the
global economy over the past five years is showing
signs of abating as multinational companies opt for
shorter and smaller deals, according to a study to
be published today. The outsourcing industry has
just experienced its worst quarter in four years
and is unlikely to match the $81.9bn in contracts
won in 2005 by the end of
this year, data from the consulting firm Technology
Partners International shows. A slowdown in 2006
would mark the second consecutive year fall in the
volume of outsourcing contracts since their $84.7bn
peak reached in 2004. The results suggest that, following
the drive to curb costs and streamline operations by
contracting out non-core functions, multinationals
might be running out of major operations to outsource.
...The average contract is down to four years from
about 10 years in the recent past. 'In some sectors,
especially information technology, companies
perceive that there has been a commoditisation of
services, leading them to opt for shorter-term contracts
of lower overall value,' said Peter Allen, a partner at
TPI. 'We just don't see enough big deals in the pipeline
to cause us to believe the levels of last year will be
reached.' The trend is likely to raise concerns in
countries such as India and China and among groups
like IBM, Accenture and [EDS], which have been
among the biggest beneficiaries of the outsourcing
trend... According to TPI, which tracks worldwide
deals worth more than $50m, outsourcing contracts
signed between July and September totalled
$13.4bn, a fall of more than 20 per cent on both
the previous quarter and the same period last year.
The weakness of the past three months has left
the total for the year at $55.3 bn, more than #26
bn below the figure for the whole of 2005....
--------------------
16. From WSJ, Monday, July 3, 2006, page B1,
entitled "Siting a Call Center: Check Out the
Mall First" by John Lyons.
Quote(p B3): "After Lehman Brothers moved its
internal computer help desk to India in 2003, the
mismatch between the investment bank's hard-charging
employees and their new Indian phone-support agents
created problems, say industry insiders, and the help
desk returned in house."
It is also interesting that most of this article is
about an Indian, Mr. Shankardass, a US citizen
("born to Indian parents in Nairobi, Kenya") who
works for ClientLogic, that sets up call centers as
an outsourcing business
and most of the article is devoted to his work
finding call center sites in Mexico.
--------------------
15. From Business Week/Small Biz, Summer, 2006 (may
be on the website:www.businessweek.com/smallbiz)
entitled: "Here or There" subtitle: Six entrepreneurs
explain why they outsource or not. Here is a quote
from the first page of the article (page 67):
"Some 24% of small manufacturers said they had
purchased goods or services from vendors outside
the U.S. in the past three years, according to a 2004
study by the National Federation of Independent
Business. For the rest, the best place to manufacture
is right at home, at least for now. The easy
rapport with vendors, relatively short plane rides,
and the quality of American-made goods keep these
business owners and their customers perfectly
happy."
---------------------
14. Subject: More India BPO failure
(in Business Week, June 19, 2006 issue, page 48):
title: "India: Why Apple Walked Away"
subtitle: "Plans for an Indian tech support center
have been scrapped. A cautionary tale"
by Manjeet Kripalani and Peter Burrows.
Quotes:
"Just three months back, Apple ...[was talking
about] hiring 3,000 workers by 2007 [in Bangalore]...."
These plans are now cancelled and most of the 30
existing employees in Bangalore have been dismissed.
The factors mentioned as working against the
original plan include "Entry level pay at tech and
outsourcing companies climbed by as much as 13%
annually from 2000 to 2004, while salaries for
midlevel managers jumped 30% a year during the same
period...." Also cited as a problem was high turnover.
Thus the financial advantage of sending work
to India has just about vanished.
--------------
13. Quote from CFO magazine, June 2006, page 17
(may be on their website, cfo.com): "Passing on India?
Rising wages in India are eating into some of the cost
advantages of sending work to the popular
outsourcing destination. Wages have increased
roughly 11 percent in each of the last three years with
little sign of abating, says Michael Spellacy,
vice president at The Boston Consulting Group. In
major cities like Bombay and Bangalore, inflation
has climbed as high as 14 percent, with worker
attrition rates now averaging 25%. A full time
worker in outsourced financial services in India earns
between $22,000 and $27,000, Spellacy says."
Also, in The Economist, June 3rd, 2006ssue is a
special report on India "A Survey of Business in India"
with the title "Now for the hard part" and on
page 6 of the special report (center section of the
issue) is a large article ("If in doubt, farm it out") on the
difficulty India is having finding workers for this great
expansion in BPO service to the outside world.
---------------------
12. The article "The H-1B Swindle" by Ephraim
Schwartz, appearing in Infoworld, October 31, 2005,
page 12, has the subtitle "A new study suggests
that companies hire foreign workers for cheap
labor, not skill." The article goes on to say: "It
appears there is hard evidence to prove that employers
are using the H-1B visa program to hire cheap
labor; that is, to pay substantially lower wages than
the national average for programming jobs
(infoworld.com/3449)" The article goes into
additional detail and cites data sources such as BLS
(infoworld.com/3450) and DOL's H-1B website
(infoworld.com/3451). Across the board, foreigners
were being paid less. As a general fact, companies have
a financial incentive to preferentially recruit foreigners
because they know foreigners will accept a job offer at a
lower wage.
---------------------
11. A study show that outsourcing really does not
save as claimed.
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/article
s/2006/04/13/
outsourcing_saves_less_than_claimed/
(this reference was posted on a newsgroup in early
2006, and was not checked)
--------------
10. Three more recent articles. First: the article
"Don't Offload Big IT Problems On Outsourcers" by
Rob Preston (VP.Ed-in-cheif) as appeared in
Informationweek, April 10, 2006, page 88 (may be
online at informationweek.com). Second: the large article
"How Do You Spell Relief?
O-U-T-S-O-U-R-C-I-N-G" by Bruce Boardman, appearing
in Network Computing, April 1, 2006, pages 30-36, and
a third article in the same issue on pages 39-48.
So what do these three articles say? The first is
a one page qualitative review of several outsourcing failures
and cites "Outsourcing Backlash"
(presumably at informationweek.com/650/50iuout.htm
[I have not checked it]) and explained that any problems
people have at home become magnified when
they offshore/outsource (many references to India).
The second walks people through the "process" of
outsourcing/offshoring work, including a discussion of how
to do this, but also has a sidebar on page 36 which includes
a summary of a Deloitte Consulting survey of 25
organizations (worth $1 trillion in market cap, and
with 1 mil employees, and spent $50 bil on operations
outsourced) and the sidebar says things like: one in four
brought functions back in house after realizing they could
do the work better, cheaper themselves, 33% of
outsourcing relationships failed in one year while 50% didn't
last five years, and 57% paid extra for services they though
were included in the original contract.
The third article also helps the IT specialist by
evaluating four data center packages (from Savvis, EDS,
Globix, and Infosys). There were a number of tables with data.
Bottom line results: Infosys was the cheapest, EDS
about three times more expensive, others midway;
quality of results- Savvis and EDS got A-, Globix got B+,
and Infosys got a C. You get what you pay
for.
----------------
9. Courtesy of "indiabpoking" are the following
reported negatives, failures and shortcomings of BPO,
quoting his quote from the source given:
> From indiab...@yahoo.com Mon Apr 10 18:36:37
2006
Date: 10 Apr 2006 15:36:37 -0700
From: indiaBPOking <indiab...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants,
alt.politics.economics,
alt.politics.bush, sci.research.careers,
soc.culture.british
Subject: Outsourcing seen as source of innovation
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6059512.html
"An IDC and Capgemini survey of almost 300
executives attending IDC's Outsourcing Forum East last
week found that top reasons for deciding to use Business
Process Outsourcing in a corporate strategy include
reducing costs, driving innovation, and the ability
to focus on core competencies."
[but see below]
"Additional [negatives, failures, drawbacks] survey
highlights include:"
"* More than one third (38.2 percent) of participants felt
the biggest downside to outsourcing is not getting the expected
results, followed by public/customer backlash (23.5 percent), and
anxiety over loosing control (20.6 percent)."
[note that 38.2 percent is much lower than other
figures cited from other sources farther down]
"* The three most important legal issues concerning
BPO today according to those surveyed were: governance
procedures (33.8%), business continuity (27.7 percent) and
intellectual property rights (26.2 percent)."
--------------------------------
8. More complaints about India:
from the article "View from Asia-India won't fully
benefit from the amazing productivity of its companies
unless it builds a better infrastructure for business" by
Tom Leander (Editor-in-Chief, CFO Asia). Appearing
in "CFO" magazine for April 2006, page 27 (may be at their
website: www.cfo.com/backissues).
Some quotes:
"... GE's CFO, Keith Sherin, told CFO Asia late
last year that he finds India frustrating. 'You get
excited and nothing happens,' he says. Three
years ago, GE did about the same volume of business
in both India and China. Today, China is a $3 billion
market for GE, triple that of India. So, it's no surprise
when Sherin sums up GE's Asian strategy by saying
that 'China is number one, two, and three for us'."
"His primary complaint is the lack of government
support for infrastructure improvements. Turn off any
highway in India and you'll know what Sherin is
talking about."
"It may be unseemly to criticise a government that
has to take care of so many poor citizens for not
building better roads to facilitate commerce, but
India's CFOs point out that infrastructure is a
social-welfare issue. Sumant Sinha, CFO of leading
conglomerate Aditya Birla Group, says that he spends
more on capital expenditure every year than peer
companies in other nations might. How many of them,
after all, must build their own power stations?"
"But its wishful thinking [despite all the positives of
India] to conclude that India's remarkable productivity
will translate into a thriving internal market any time
soon. In the eyes of most U.S. finance chiefs,
China remains number one, two, and three."
---------------------------------------
7. Backshoring...the new buzzword
Feb 13, 2006 issue of Infoworld, pages 8 (Efraim
Schwartz's column) and page 4, (editor's);
Developer poaching and rapidly rising prices are
causing US based companies to start pulling jobs back
to the USA. Read about it in the periodical.
------------------------------------------------
6. Subject: Deloitte Report: outsource failure
rates
From June, 2005, CFO magazine, page 19.
(it may be on their website, www.cfo.com/BackIssues)
Deloitte Consulting was said (by the CFO article)
to have said "'In the real world, outsourcing frequently
fails to deliver its promise.' wrote researchers who
surveyed 25 companies with average revenues of $50 billion.
The study reveals that 70 percent of its respondents have
had significantly negative experiences and are outsourcing
business processes and IT with increasing caution."
"...there is growning evidence that large comapnies
are rethinking massive outsourcing contracts. Big name
defectors that have unwound at least part of
their arrangements include Conseco, Dell, Capital
One, and Lehman Brothers."
"A sure sign that outsourcing isn't working is the
amount of renegotiation surrounding the vendor
agreements, says Deloitte senior strategy principal
Ken Landis. 'There wasn't a single participant in
the study where contract went to term,' he says.
'All of them had renegotiated prior to the contract
expiration date'"
"Companies are souring on outsourcing, the survey
asserts, for the same reason it has been criticised
for years: failure to live up to cost-reduction
promises, risks to intellectual property, and confidentiality,
and lack of transparency."
The article states that, so far, 25% of the companies
have brought services back (now called backsourcing).
-------------------------------------------------
-----
5. From Information Week, page 8, in the Nov 21,
2005 issue.
Sidebar: "48% of all companies will spend more
money on BPO this year than in 2004"
"55% of current BPO service delivery is conductend
inside the USA"
"41% of companies are satisfied with their BPO
services"
So, that sounds like 100 - 41= 59% are
dissatisified with their BPO services. And, there's
going to be more BPO?
Says the source is IW, Managing Offshore, and Equa
Terra study of 200 BPO customers.
-------------------------------------------------
4. "Offshoring isn't such a sure thing"
by Lora Kolodny, Inc. magazine, September, 2005,
pages 22-24
Quotes:
"Companies are finding that sending IT work
overseas can be more trouble than it's worth,
according to a new survey from DiamondCluster
International, a Chicago-based management
consultancy. The number of executives surveyed
who said they were pleased with their outsourced
IT vendors fell by 17 pecentage points versus the
previous year, marking the first decline since 2002.
Moreover, early termination of relationships
between buyers and offshore service providers
spiked to 51%, which is double the rate of 2004."
In other words, half of all relationships are
terminated before their first contract period is up.
In view of this, a spokesman for the consulting
firm says that "...tech buyers will think twice about
sending critical services abroad--at least
for now."
--------------------------------------------------
3. From "CFO" magazine, FALL 2005, special issue,
pages 40-44. (may be on www.cfo.com/Backissues)
article: "Customer Disservice: Critics say the
promised savings from offshoring come at too steep
a price, while companies say very little at
all"
by Norm Alster
This article starts by saying that on a recent talk
show where people could call in with comments and
questions, it was discovered that virtually everyone in
the USA does not like foreign call center representatives.
"But the practice of outsourcing customer service
to offshore call centers is beginning to look like a
classical idea carried too far. Critics of the
practice point to a growing body of evidence that
suggests faulty economics and customer dissatisfaction
are forcing a rethink of what once seemed a no-brainer."
"'The economic benefits of outsourcing customer
service are grossly overstated' according to Niels
Kjellerup, a senior partner with Australian
consulting firm Resource International and editor
of a Website devoted to call centers
(www.callcenters.com.au). Customer resistance, along
with data-security concerns and the unexpectedly high
costs of managing offshore call centers, offset and dilute their
promised economic benefits, says Kjellerup."
"There is already evidence that these factors have
combined to slow the offshore migration. Several large
firms, including Dell, credit-card giant
Capital One, and insurer Conseco, have shifted at
least some customer-support operations back to the
United States."
Gartner's analyst, Robert Brown, says that the initial
large growth in offshoring is expected to be, in the
future, much smaller.
"Companies with monopolistic or overwhelmingly
dominant market positions are more apt to risk customer
alienation where near-term savings can be realized."
"Alexa Bona, a Gartner analyst based in London,
predicts that during the next three years, up to 60 percent
of companies outsourcing customer-facing service will
encounter customer defections and hidden costs that will
either cancel or outweigh any perceived savings in such
arrangements."
"He [Chris Selland, at Covington Associates in
Boston]says executives at firms that have employed offshore
call centers keep telling him that 'it's harder, it takes more
management attention, and you have to be meticulous
about the way you structure the agreement.' As a
result of all this unexpected overhead, the projected savings
from offshoring can swiftly evaporate."
The article says there is huge turnover at Indian
call centers; it can be up to 70% per year. And, with the big
expansion, there have been recruiting wars in India and
escalating pay scales.
"Martha Rogers, a consultant and author of several
books on customer relationships, contends that the
metrics generally used to measure call-center performance
are flawed."
"Many companies that outsource customer service, in
fact, don't like talking about it, and more than a dozen
turned down requests for interviews. 'Companies are
looking to do everything they can to hide the
fact that they are using off shore call centers'
says Selland. 'From a political standpoint and a
customer-acceptance standpoint, it is something
they are trying to downplay.' At some Asian
centers, agents are actually trained to conceal their
real names and adopt phoney American monikers, a
practice that fools few and can further inflame an
already angry caller."
"One in three respondents in a British survey said
they would stop doing business with a bank that
relocates its call centers offshore. Another
study, conducted in 2004, reported that just 5
pecent of the British are satisfied with offshore
call centers. The Irish arm of Sweden's Tele2AG, a
telecommunications firm, recently switched its call
center operation out of India and back to Ireland,
citing consumer preference."
"In an unpublished data-theft case now under
investigation, a large U.S.-based technology
multinational contracted with a call center in India
without knowing that the company in turn subcontracted
a portion of the work to firms outside India, where
employees of the subcontractor apparently managed
to penetrate the American company's information
database."
"...growing outsourcing industries in Eastern
Europe and Latin America have been targeted by
criminals seeking access to customer data. "
"'For companies that regard customer service as a
key part of future revenue growth, bringing such operations
back to domestic shores is the way to go,' says Kjellerup."
---------------------------------------------------
2. From _Information Week_, page 60, Dec 19/26
issue, 2005
A short article by Paul McDougall reporting that:
"...companies operating in India, including local ones such as
Infosys Technologies, Tata Consultancy Services, and Wipro
Technologies, spend a lot of time and energy time stealing each
other's employees--and that's quickly driving up salaries" and
"'There's a lot of employee turnover [in India], and we weren't
interested in that,' says Martin Mellon, director of development at
applications vendor ASG Software Solutions. The company
chose Northern Ireland over India for its offshore development
work."
--------------------------------------------------
1. Subject: "Satisfaction Wanes for Offshoring"
On page 2 of the print issue of Processor.com for
June 17, 2005, volume 27, number 24:
"According to consulting firm DiamondCluster
International, the number of buyers satisfied with the
providers of their offshore outsourcing has fallen
from 79% to 62%. The firm's annual survey of IT
outsourcing also revealed that 51% of buyers are
terminating their outsourcing relationships earlier
than scheduled."
Me, ...again!
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 sopr...@italianmafia.com wrote:
Our "bullshit" is not backed up by $ million dolllar PR-lobbying efforts
to promote the corporate bullshit to our legislators which will include
all manner of lies that say we will lose our competitiveness if we don't
lift H1b visa limits, and grant all kinds of favors to the corporations,
AND all manner of campaign contributions (as carrots) and the notion that
if favors don't come, then the campaign contribution goes to the opposing
party (as pitchfork, maybe, in the ass of the politician).
sopr...@italianmafia.com
Old Pif says...
And if Indians tell the same about American IT workers being
either too mediocre or the good one being too arrogant, will
that have your stamp of endorsement too.
Since when shouting loudly in usenet is considered as proof.
kamal
> On Jan 4, 7:27 pm, sopra...@italianmafia.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > So if no one says publicly that H1B is of poor quality, then from where posters
> > here come up with their analysis that H1B are of poor quality. If it
> > is their personal opinion, then why should it be granted any more respect
> > that arrogant claims by Indians that Indians are superior to Americans.
>
> H1B are of different quality. The point here is that - and it has been
> recognized officially couple of times recently - the whole idea of H1B
> program has been abused. As it has been formulated originally, H1B
> program is a program that helps to meet shortages of professionals in
> the areas where the US education system has been slow to produce
> sufficient numbers of those. It has not been intended at least
but if you are sure you don't want 3rd world countries to export their
poverty/high population density to your pristine country -then why
don't you find other ways to fix your labour shortages? There is a lot
of inconvenience involved in relocating to different places and no
reason why anybody should bear the inconvenience of your unemployment
situation.
> officially to help the corporations to cut their costs with the cheap
> labor. The mere fact that professionals in the areas with long
fine. pl tell your govt to stop issuing H1Bs and make the best of
available manpower. Corporations can also export jobs to where the
manpower exists the same way they export it for lower costs.
> stagnated salaries and steady stream of graduates are hired on H1B
> tells that the law has been seriously violated and used
> inappropriately. Inability of the political structures to protect the
> citizens of the country against blatant abuse tells for itself.
>
> And observe also that there is a special visa O for persons with
> extraordinary ability. That is where all geniuses from India should
> apply according to the law.
take it from me -there is no genius in India and there is no manpower
a country cannot do without. Recently , Indian PM Manmohan Singh
visited US and mentioned that there is a reverse brain-drain happening
i.e. Indian professionals returning to India. He wasn't over-joyed but
trying to persuade the US to take back some of that manpower so that
remittances will increase. It makes absolutely no difference to india
either for the better or the worse if any of that vaunted manpower
stays here or leaves for better prospects. So, it should not make any
difference to your economy either, if you do not allow any of these
geniuses to enter your country. If your concern is over-crowding or
that you do not like people of a given skin colour, best thing to do
is not to let them get any visas -no matter how compelling the case
may be. That will create demand for talented people available within
the US and you will have the oppurtunity to imrpovise your skills to
meet the requirement.
regards
-kamal
Me, ...again!
You do your fair share, too, you know.
Me, ...again!
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, kamal wrote:
> On Jan 5, 6:06 am, Old Pif <old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 7:27 pm, sopra...@italianmafia.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> So if no one says publicly that H1B is of poor quality, then from where posters
>>> here come up with their analysis that H1B are of poor quality. If it
>>> is their personal opinion, then why should it be granted any more respect
>>> that arrogant claims by Indians that Indians are superior to Americans.
>>
>> H1B are of different quality. The point here is that - and it has been
>> recognized officially couple of times recently - the whole idea of H1B
>> program has been abused. As it has been formulated originally, H1B
>> program is a program that helps to meet shortages of professionals in
>> the areas where the US education system has been slow to produce
>> sufficient numbers of those. It has not been intended at least
>
> but if you are sure you don't want 3rd world countries to export their
> poverty/high population density to your pristine country -then why
> don't you find other ways to fix your labour shortages?
Because the corporations and rich people have more power.
There is a lot
> of inconvenience involved in relocating to different places and no
> reason why anybody should bear the inconvenience of your unemployment
> situation.
How many Indians would jump at the chance to come to the USA? If there
were no visa need, and it was only the question of get transportation, how
many would come? After all, a large fraction of everyone else does this
(60% of Hispanics in the USA are illegal, and a lot of other non-Hispanics
overstay their visas, too). Ask them about the inconvenience, too.
And, so, these illegals make life "inconvenient" for the people born in
the USA.
>> officially to help the corporations to cut their costs with the cheap
>> labor. The mere fact that professionals in the areas with long
>
> fine. pl tell your govt to stop issuing H1Bs
Our corporations keep telling our govt to issue more.
and make the best of
> available manpower.
Corporations don't want to do this.
Corporations can also export jobs to where the
> manpower exists the same way they export it for lower costs.
Yeah, we should stop that, too.
>> stagnated salaries and steady stream of graduates are hired on H1B
>> tells that the law has been seriously violated and used
>> inappropriately. Inability of the political structures to protect the
>> citizens of the country against blatant abuse tells for itself.
>>
>> And observe also that there is a special visa O for persons with
>> extraordinary ability. That is where all geniuses from India should
>> apply according to the law.
>
> take it from me -there is no genius in India and there is no manpower
> a country cannot do without.
Manpower which is diseased, uneducated, cheap, unskilled, and which swamps
the local labor to drive down wages ...is what we do not need.
Recently , Indian PM Manmohan Singh
> visited US and mentioned that there is a reverse brain-drain happening
> i.e. Indian professionals returning to India.
Oh, it makes me happy to hear this. US people get their contry back.
He wasn't over-joyed but
> trying to persuade the US to take back some of that manpower so that
> remittances will increase.
It is the same everywhere. Mexico gets some 10% of its GDP from US
remitances. Same with Phillipines, and other labor-dumping countries.
It makes absolutely no difference to india
> either for the better or the worse if any of that vaunted manpower
> stays here or leaves for better prospects.
Indian govt, according to several articles I read, really wants more
Indians to go to the USA (for the remitances, and job experience). India
also wants more USD.
So, it should not make any
> difference to your economy either, if you do not allow any of these
> geniuses to enter your country. If your concern is over-crowding or
> that you do not like people of a given skin colour,
You are the racist, not us.
best thing to do
> is not to let them get any visas -no matter how compelling the case
> may be. That will create demand for talented people available within
> the US and you will have the oppurtunity to imrpovise your skills to
> meet the requirement.
We already had a better situation before the 1970s.
>
> regards
> -kamal
>
>
>
Old Pif
>
> Since when shouting loudly in usenet is considered as proof.
>
Are you talking about Hind brag?
Old Pif
>
> but if you are sure you don't want 3rd world countries to export their
> poverty/high population density to your pristine country -then why
> don't you find other ways to fix your labour shortages?
>
There is no labor shortage here. There is 10.2%.
kamal
so you can do away with all forms of human import -esp when you really
don't want them to increase population density in your country. Why
bother suggesting O visa if you don't want them in your country
anyways?
thanks
-kamal
Me, ...again!
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, kamal wrote:
> On Jan 5, 7:06 am, Old Pif <old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 4:14 am, kamal <kama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> but if you are sure you don't want 3rd world countries to export their
>>> poverty/high population density to your pristine country -then why
>>> don't you find other ways to fix your labour shortages?
>>
>> There is no labor shortage here. There is 10.2%.
>
> so you can do away with all forms of human import -esp when you really
> don't want them to increase population density in your country.
Why should the USA solve other people's problems?
Why
> bother suggesting O visa
Yeah, shut down O visa, too.
Old Pif
>
> Why bother suggesting O visa if you don't want them in your country anyways?
>
> thanks
> -kamal
Because I am a fair and balanced person.
kamal
> On Jan 5, 11:40 am, kamal <kama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why bother suggesting O visa if you don't want them in your country anyways?
>
> > thanks
> > -kamal
>
> Because I am a fair
I have a better explanation. The dispute about human trafficking is
not about whether it increases population density or exports povery -
but how it benefits you and the under-priveleged lot or that the
priveleged lot are keeping the benefits of slavery to themselves and
not sharing the loot with you.
> and balanced person.
IMO -both you are art are badly in need of medical help. If you don't
believe me -just show the innumerable tirades you have to a
psychiatrist. Only he can convince you that people in other countries
are not answerable to you for how dirty and densely populated their
country is, or how many cows are shitting on the streets or that if
something does not belong to you -it cannot be stolen from you.
regards
-kamal
Old Pif
>
> IMO -both you are art are badly in need of medical help.
>
Stick you opinion to you ass.
Me, ...again!
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, kamal wrote:
> On Jan 6, 5:04 am, Old Pif <old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 11:40 am, kamal <kama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Why bother suggesting O visa if you don't want them in your country anyways?
>>
>>> thanks
>>> -kamal
>>
>> Because I am a fair
>
> I have a better explanation.
Its not better.
The dispute about human trafficking is
> not about whether it increases population density or exports povery -
> but how it benefits you and the under-priveleged lot or that the
> priveleged lot are keeping the benefits of slavery to themselves and
> not sharing the loot with you.
All benefits of "slavery" only go to a few rich/powerful people.
>> and balanced person.
>
> IMO -both you are art are badly in need of medical help.
IMO-you need a new brain, new eyes, new ears.
If you don't
> believe me -just show the innumerable tirades you have to a
> psychiatrist.
You should look in the mirror at yourself.
Only he can convince you that people in other countries
> are not answerable to you for how dirty and densely populated their
> country is,
If they want to live in the dust, that is their business. Just don't
export the dust and the oversupply of people to us.
or how many cows are shitting on the streets or that if
> something does not belong to you -it cannot be stolen from you.
You still need to read and understand the brutal history of India.
Here it is again...
This draft: Dec 1, 2009
New material (below the === line), Nov 26, 2009
First draft, Nov 24, 2009
Many Indians on alt.computer.consultants (and other NGs) have, over the
last few years, been posting a lot of anti-US, anti-white commentary. It
can easily be found in newsgroup archives.
They also imply that India's economic progress is all due to Indian
tallent instead of vast flows of US$ and US jobs due to CEO gifts,
US government free trade goodwill and giveaways (unreciprocated, as yet,
by India as yet), cheating by the Reserve Bank of India in the form of
currency continuously manipulated over the last 30 years to an undervalued
levels, and trade restricted by a non-convertible currency and
restrictions on external business entry into Indian markets.
Thes same anti-US, anti-white Indians concentrate on themes such as
European settlers who "killed all the 'American Indians' and stole their
land, and "whites" are nothing but murderers and land theifs. And, somewhere
in all of this is some hangover from British imperialism in India which ended
a little over 50 years ago.
All as if Indians, in India, had nothing but innocent and peaceful past
histories and only "whites" make trouble for Indians, American Indians
(now called Native Americans) and the rest of the world.
In the past, I've cited Basham's book on Indian history in which
continuous violence (murder, wars, crime, corruption, child slave
labor which exists today, 3,000 years of caste discrimination,
'sati' where the wives of deceased husbands goes up in flames,
infanticide, and Thuggees which carry out ritual murder) in India can be
traced back over 3,000 years, even before there was any significant wars or
even much organization in Europe. So these racist biggoted Indians are
also hypocrits.
However, the arrogant, ignorant, and racist-biggoted Indians (eg. Kamal
Prasad, Tambi Dude, "ind...@india.com", "indiaBPOking", "sopranos" and
others) are still at their game of bad-mouthing only the USA, Americans,
and "whites" in general or in specific. One questoin they like to focus on
is how many American Indians the "whites" from Europe killed when they
stole the lands of the American Indians as if no other peoples in the
world did these things in all of the other wars in history. These Indians
seem to have zero interest in truth about India's record of bloodshed and
violence that is ten times as long as "white" history in America. All of
world history shows warfare and violence in all lands and all peoples,
including in preliterate societies where archeologists can find evidence
of homicide. Considering Indian history, and that India's population
density (from excessive procreation?) was always high, all of India's
3,000 years (minimum) of violence is surely much higher than all of
"white"/European violence.
Ignorant, dishonest, racist and bigoted Indians reveal their own prejudices
by pointing their fingers only at "whites" as the only people who have
done bad things in the past.
Now, I will begin quotes from "The Cambridge Shorter History of India" by
J. Allen, Sir T. Wolseley Haig, H.H. Dodwell, and R.R. Sethi. The last
author is Head of Dept History, Punjab University College, New Delhi. The
book was even published in India (1964) by S. Chand & Co., and sold for Rs
18.00.
The first 100 pages deal with India's early history. This is before Muslim
invaders and, mostly, before Greek invaders, so Indians can't blame the
killing of their own kind by foreigners. They can only blame their own
kind.
Here is how it begins:
1500-1000 BC, quotes
page 5: "Aryas consisted of a number of tribes who were continually
waging war on the aborigines and frequently each other."
page 6: "Five tribes...Purus, Turvasas, Yadus, Anus and Druhyus.... These
appear with five other tribes in the battle of Ten Kings, the great event
in Vedic history...."[more Indian names listed].
"Sudas came of a military family, for his grandfather Divodasa was also a
mighty warrior and a great enemy of the Dasas, on whom he waged relentless
war."
page 9: "The Parikshitas were the first of the many dynasties recorded in
Indian history that attained great power and then suddenly collapsed.
...Jawa was a great conquorer...."
"Janaka....he was a great monarch--a Samraj or emperor. Of his wars and
conquests...." [but in a war with] Kasi, whose King, Ajatasatru, was
exceedingly jealous of Janaka's fame."
page 10: "In Prasenajit's old age he had a war with Ajatasatru of
Magadha."
"At one time Kasi, completely subdued Kosala in a war, in which the king
of the latter was slain and his queen carried off prisoner." [7th century
BC].
page 11: "Anga at one time was a much more important state than Magadha,
but it was conquored by Bimbasara...."
"Another passage in Buddhist literature records how Sunidha and Vassakar,
ministers of Magadha, built a new fortified town at Pataligama to repel
the Vajjis...."
page 25: The Early Mauryan
page 26:
"After disposing of the Greek [Alexander], Chandragupta was able to
conquor all of northern India...."
"Chandragupta had learned something of military matters from the
Macedonians, and his army was no longer a mere unweildy mass."
Additional narative saying that in a treaty with Antigonos, Chandragupta
must have been victorius in battle.
page 27:
"...Chandragupta....[and] his tyrannical rule he forfeited the name of
liberator which his campaigns against the the Macedonians earned him."
"After a reign of twenty-four years he was succeeded .[in 3rd century
BC]...by his son Bindusara..[known as] "the slayer of his foes'...."
page 28:
"The casual statement of Magasthenes, that a woman who kills a king when
he is drunk becomes the wife of his successor, suggests the dangers that
threateded the throne in India, and is probably a memory of the means by
which the Nanda had gained the throne of Magadha. The king was in contant
terror of his life and regularly changed his sleeping apartment lest
plotters should come upon him at night."
"...Chandragupta had considerable military forces: he is said to have had
at his disposal 600,000 infantry, 30,000 calvary and 9,000 elephants,...."
page 29:
"...and Muslim writers fiftenn hundred years later report equally huge and
unwieldy armies in the Hundu kingdoms of the south."
"The other four departments controlled the fighting men, who were divided
into the four traditional arms of India, infantry, cavalry, chariots and
elephants."
page 31:
In connection with the Kautiliya Arthasastra, apparetly a sort
of recognized _manual_ by which Indian kings must conduct themselves...
"According to some Indian writers there are only two [forms of state
policy], war and peace; but Kautilya distinguishes six by the addition of
degrees of neutrality or alliance, and discusses at length the question
whether the stronger or weaker enemy should be attacked first. The eigth
book investigates the vices of a king, and the calamities which may
threaten a kingdom."
page 32:
This page includes a large discription of all manner of subterfuge,
espionage, and trickery used by one Indian king against an enemy Indian
kingdom.
===== new material ======
page 33-34:
"In the ninth year after his [Asoka] corronation, however, he states that
he waged war on the Kalinga country, which adjoined his empire on the
south-east, cutting it off from access to the Indian Ocean." and "...the
victor, who records that 100,000 men were slain, 150,000 taken
prisoners..."
"It is evident then, from the testimony of the epigraphic records, that
Asoka ruled the whole of India except the extreme south, which was in the
hands of the Cholas and Pandyas."
page 42:
"About 185 BC the last Maurya, Brihadratha, ruling over a much diminished
empie, was assasinated by his commander-in-cheif, Pushyamitra, who seized
the throne."
page 43:
"The reference to the war between Pushyamitra and Yajnasena of Vidarbha,
suggests that the apportionment of Maurya territory between the Sungas and
Andhras was not completed without bloodshed,...."
page 45:
"The last Sunga king, Devabhuti, or Devabhumi, was murdered about 80 BC at
the instigation of his minister, Vaudeva, by a slave-girl disguised as his
queen."
"In the eighth year of his reign he [Kharavela] had attacked and put to
flight the king of Rajagriha (Magaha), and sacked the fortress of
Goradha." Followed by a list of many other military attacks.
page 47:
"He [Gautaminputra Sri Satakarni, referred to as the greatest king of and
Andhra kings] is said by his mother to have destroyed the Sakas, Yavanas
and Pallavas, to have uprooted the Kshaharatas, and restored the glories
of the Satavahanas. A list of the lands he conquored is given in
considerable detail...[a large fraction of India]."
=========================
...and most of the first 100 pages mentions an average of about one war
per page in ancient India.
Nice innocent, peaceful Indians?
I think not.
> regards
> -kamal
>
>
Me, ...again!
You know, Kamal understands and knows less than Rod Speed.
Kamal is like a broken record or endless tape loop. Same story, day after
day, year after year.
At least I can list three history books I've read about Indian history
(and I even quoted some from all three).
Where does Kamal get the idea that it is fair to only talk about the bad
history of someone else's country and totally ignore the bad history of
his own country. I have asked Kamal at least 1/2 dozen questions like this
and he still has not answered.
sopr...@godfather.com
Old Pif says...
>
>On Jan 6, 12:39=A0am, kamal <kama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> IMO -both you are art are badly in need of medical help.
>>
>
>Stick you opinion to you ass.
this is exactly corporate america says to you too when
you whine about H1B and outsourcing.
Antonio Huerta
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 sopra...@italianmafia.com wrote:
> I plan to return to India
>
> > in
> > another few years (most other H1Bs I know do want to return).
>
> This is what they all say and what they actually want after some years is
> for a majority to stay. Against the plan of H1B (which is for a limit in
> time).
I often play an on-line first-person shooter game. I usually keep my
mouth shut in the game because the Australian kids would start mocking
my accent. But I write a few lines, and they know I am a foreigner
because I do mistakes in English grammar.
Recently, I was called a "dirty Indian". Well, I am no Indian. And I
do not like to be called one. Then I realised that every foreigner was
"an Indian" to them. Some kid commented in the game today that the
Australian gamers did not like gamers from only one nation: Indians.
I asked them a question "Why ?", but did not get an answer. To be
honest, I never encountered anyone in the game speaking with an Indian
accent. Perhaps, they are like me, keeping their mouth shut and just
playing.
Me, ...again!
Actually, you have it in reverse order. Corporate America first screws
you, then you whine about it.
Old Pif
>
> Some kid commented in the game today that the
> Australian gamers did not like gamers from only one nation: Indians.
>
Is it what you are talking about?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8438868.stm
**************************************************************************************************
There have been a number of attacks on Indian students in Australia in
the past year.
**************************************************************************************************
> I asked them a question "Why ?", but did not get an answer.
>
Hindu have extraordinary ability to piss off everybody around.
Old Pif
> In article <500d8d22-9afd-4253-91b1-29d31dee3...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
Nobody is wining here. It is debunking of Hindu psychological assault
on working Americans.
Antonio Huerta
> On Jan 6, 10:08 am, Antonio Huerta <ahue...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Some kid commented in the game today that the
> > Australian gamers did not like gamers from only one nation: Indians.
>
> Is it what you are talking about?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8438868.stm
>
> There have been a number of attacks on Indian students in Australia in
> the past year.
>
> > I asked them a question "Why ?", but did not get an answer.
>
> Hindu have extraordinary ability to piss off everybody around.
There was a tremendous rise in number of overseas students in
Australia in the past 15 years. Traditionally, they were children of
the rich Chinese parents from Hong Kong and Malaysia. But in the past
5 years, I noticed a trend: the foreign students ceased to be entirely
Asian, and in part they became Indian.
This probably reflects the fact of the rising prosperity of certain
individuums in India. But I heard of the other modus operandi
resposible for the increased number of students from India.
It typically happens that a hopeful young Indian man borrows money
from an Indian bank (with the security being the parents' apartment)
and uses them to get a degree from an Australian university. Then he
gets permanent residency in Australia and finds a job. After a few
years of working, he repays the loan taken from an Indian bank.
But guess what ? The western economy soured in the past year or so.
The jobs for fresh graduates, so plentiful before, are no more. The
Indian graduates cannot get jobs in Australia, and for that matter, in
New Zealand, or in the UK, or in the USA. Thus, they get a debt and a
mediocre degree on their hands, and no means to repay it. Who would've
thought ? The things were developing so swimmingly good for the
Generation Y in the developing world. The world was the oyster before
their feet, and suddenly it was ripped off their hands ! It is
unfair !
So, this is the real reason why the Indian students get so restless
and psyched out in the streets of Australian cities. They are under
pressure of financial ruin (so unknown to them before). They get to
their usual tactic: to stage protests in the streets of Australian
cities, with the expectation that the Australian government would do
something about it. They feel that the Australian government broke the
unspoken contract: the young Indians bring money into Australian
economy, and the Australian government gives them an opportunity to
earn those money afterwards. Well, what do they expect from the
government now -- The Australian government will create the fake jobs
and hire the Indians into them, so that they could repay their
loans ??
Of cause, the Indian mass-media and the Indian government officials
get involved, too. And we get what we get: a case of a killed Indian
student gets blown out of proportions in the Indian mass-media and
then in the Australian media, and mass-histeria is created.
But guess what ? It will wash away. It is just like the ripples on the
surface of a 10 km deep ocean. The Australian laymen do not like to be
bothered with things like that, just like they did not want to be
bothered with other, more real problems in their past.
kamal
> On Jan 7, 2:20 pm, Old Pif <old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 6, 10:08 am, Antonio Huerta <ahue...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
> > > Some kid commented in the game today that the
> > > Australian gamers did not like gamers from only one nation: Indians.
>
> > Is it what you are talking about?
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8438868.stm
>
> > **************************************************************************************************
> > There have been a number of attacks on Indian students in Australia in
> > the past year.
> > **************************************************************************************************
>
> > > I asked them a question "Why ?", but did not get an answer.
>
> > Hindu have extraordinary ability to piss off everybody around.
>
> There was a tremendous rise in number of overseas students in
> Australia in the past 15 years. Traditionally, they were children of
> the rich Chinese parents from Hong Kong and Malaysia. But in the past
> 5 years, I noticed a trend: the foreign students ceased to be entirely
> Asian, and in part they became Indian.
>
> This probably reflects the fact of the rising prosperity of certain
> individuums in India. But I heard of the other modus operandi
> resposible for the increased number of students from India.
>
> It typically happens that a hopeful young Indian man borrows money
> from an Indian bank (with the security being the parents' apartment)
usually household jewelry -and sometimes nothing as security.
> and uses them to get a degree from an Australian university. Then he
> gets permanent residency in Australia and finds a job. After a few
> years of working, he repays the loan taken from an Indian bank.
>
repaying the loan isn't an issue. People take the trouble of going to
universities where they encounter idiots like Art Sowers for the sole
purpose of getting a degree which will land them a job. Without a job,
the degree is of no value.
> But guess what ? The western economy soured in the past year or so.
> The jobs for fresh graduates, so plentiful before, are no more. The
> Indian graduates cannot get jobs in Australia, and for that matter, in
> New Zealand, or in the UK, or in the USA. Thus, they get a debt and a
> mediocre degree on their hands, and no means to repay it. Who would've
> thought ? The things were developing so swimmingly good for the
> Generation Y in the developing world. The world was the oyster before
> their feet, and suddenly it was ripped off their hands ! It is
> unfair !
The local populace is itself starved of jobs and does not want limited
oppurtunities which are their lifeline to be taken away from them. But
they do not realize that person being admitted into the country
expects to be either accomodated or told upfront his investment is
going to take him nowhere (something like a fair disclosure which
corporations need to do).
>
> So, this is the real reason why the Indian students get so restless
> and psyched out in the streets of Australian cities. They are under
> pressure of financial ruin (so unknown to them before). They get to
> their usual tactic: to stage protests in the streets of Australian
> cities, with the expectation that the Australian government would do
they protested on being mugged.
> something about it. They feel that the Australian government broke the
> unspoken contract: the young Indians bring money into Australian
> economy, and the Australian government gives them an opportunity to
> earn those money afterwards. Well, what do they expect from the
> government now -- The Australian government will create the fake jobs
> and hire the Indians into them, so that they could repay their
> loans ??
>
the jobs might be there for the taking -but at the expense of locals.
So, if the locals don't want to be law-breakers -they need to tell the
govt not to issue visas to people who cannot be accomodated as in
without inconveniencing the locals.
> Of cause, the Indian mass-media and the Indian government officials
> get involved, too. And we get what we get: a case of a killed Indian
> student gets blown out of proportions in the Indian mass-media and
> then in the Australian media, and mass-histeria is created.
>
> But guess what ? It will wash away. It is just like the ripples on the
> surface of a 10 km deep ocean. The Australian laymen do not like to be
> bothered with things like that, just like they did not want to be
> bothered with other, more real problems in their past.- Hide quoted text -
>
I saw that student admission has dropped like a rock for australia.
But for taxpayer funded aid in the US, you could expect the same thing
in the US.
regards
-kamal
> - Show quoted text -
Me, ...again!
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, Old Pif wrote:
It is the only ethnic group I have met which is like this.
ind...@india.com
says...
>> Hindu have extraordinary ability to piss off everybody around.
>>
>
>It is the only ethnic group I have met which is like this.
could it be that it is the only ethnic group which can send
Americans in white collar jobs to hot dog stand with devastating
results. With nearly 50% of H1B and majority of L1, J1 viasa
taken up by them, not to mention millions getting (Bang)alored,
one can understand why a white American like you would
hate Indians the most.
Me, ...again!
This (above) sounds like the Indians think they are "entitled" to jobs,
but like other Indians, anyone else is NOT "entitled" to jobs, no?
> So, this is the real reason why the Indian students get so restless
> and psyched out in the streets of Australian cities. They are under
> pressure of financial ruin (so unknown to them before). They get to
> their usual tactic: to stage protests in the streets of Australian
> cities, with the expectation that the Australian government would do
> something about it.
Oh, that is very funny. At the same time idiot Indians on these NGs are
taking pleasure at "sending Americans to the hot dog stand" (as anyone can
find by use of google).
They feel that the Australian government broke the
> unspoken contract: the young Indians bring money into Australian
> economy,
From the Indian "bribe" culture?
and the Australian government gives them an opportunity to
> earn those money afterwards. Well, what do they expect from the
> government now -- The Australian government will create the fake jobs
> and hire the Indians into them, so that they could repay their
> loans ??
That is what the bribe is for.
> Of cause, the Indian mass-media and the Indian government officials
> get involved, too. And we get what we get: a case of a killed Indian
> student gets blown out of proportions in the Indian mass-media and
> then in the Australian media, and mass-histeria is created.
As if there are no killed Australian non-Indians?
> But guess what ? It will wash away. It is just like the ripples on the
> surface of a 10 km deep ocean. The Australian laymen do not like to be
> bothered with things like that, just like they did not want to be
> bothered with other, more real problems in their past.
Good commments, very interesting.
>
Me, ...again!
Maybe, actually, a brother or sister is auctioned off to the rug factories
as child slave labor?
>> and uses them to get a degree from an Australian university. Then he
>> gets permanent residency in Australia and finds a job. After a few
>> years of working, he repays the loan taken from an Indian bank.
>>
>
> repaying the loan isn't an issue. People take the trouble of going to
> universities where they encounter idiots like Art Sowers for the sole
> purpose of getting a degree which will land them a job. Without a job,
> the degree is of no value.
So, I hope everyone sees how idiot Kamal Prasad makes conversation.
Instead of making a comment, he makes noise.
>
>> But guess what ? The western economy soured in the past year or so.
>> The jobs for fresh graduates, so plentiful before, are no more. The
>> Indian graduates cannot get jobs in Australia, and for that matter, in
>> New Zealand, or in the UK, or in the USA. Thus, they get a debt and a
>> mediocre degree on their hands, and no means to repay it. Who would've
>> thought ? The things were developing so swimmingly good for the
>> Generation Y in the developing world. The world was the oyster before
>> their feet, and suddenly it was ripped off their hands ! It is
>> unfair !
>
> The local populace is itself starved of jobs
We all know this already.
and does not want limited
> oppurtunities which are their lifeline to be taken away from them.
...by foreigners
But
> they do not realize that person being admitted into the country
> expects to be either accomodated or told upfront his investment is
> going to take him nowhere (something like a fair disclosure which
> corporations need to do).
Why is it that it is OK for Indians to expect jobs handed to them on a
silver platter, but not OK for non-Indians to expect jobs when they get
their degree? You have not answered that question yet.
>>
>> So, this is the real reason why the Indian students get so restless
>> and psyched out in the streets of Australian cities. They are under
>> pressure of financial ruin (so unknown to them before). They get to
>> their usual tactic: to stage protests in the streets of Australian
>> cities, with the expectation that the Australian government would do
>
>
> they protested on being mugged.
How do you know they did not get mugged because they protested?
>> something about it. They feel that the Australian government broke the
>> unspoken contract: the young Indians bring money into Australian
>> economy, and the Australian government gives them an opportunity to
>> earn those money afterwards. Well, what do they expect from the
>> government now -- The Australian government will create the fake jobs
>> and hire the Indians into them, so that they could repay their
>> loans ??
>>
> the jobs might be there for the taking -but at the expense of locals.
We already know this.
> So, if the locals don't want to be law-breakers -they need to tell the
> govt not to issue visas to people who cannot be accomodated as in
> without inconveniencing the locals.
Why is it OK for corporations to sell things to people, but not OK to ask
corporations to hire employees from the same population of people?
>> Of cause, the Indian mass-media and the Indian government officials
>> get involved, too. And we get what we get: a case of a killed Indian
>> student gets blown out of proportions in the Indian mass-media and
>> then in the Australian media, and mass-histeria is created.
>>
>> But guess what ? It will wash away. It is just like the ripples on the
>> surface of a 10 km deep ocean. The Australian laymen do not like to be
>> bothered with things like that, just like they did not want to be
>> bothered with other, more real problems in their past.- Hide quoted text -
>>
> I saw that student admission has dropped like a rock for australia.
Good.
> But for taxpayer funded aid in the US, you could expect the same thing
> in the US.
I hope.
ind...@india.com
says...
>> But guess what ? The western economy soured in the past year or so.
>> The jobs for fresh graduates, so plentiful before, are no more. The
>> Indian graduates cannot get jobs in Australia, and for that matter, in
>> New Zealand, or in the UK, or in the USA. Thus, they get a debt and a
>> mediocre degree on their hands, and no means to repay it. Who would've
>> thought ? The things were developing so swimmingly good for the
>> Generation Y in the developing world. The world was the oyster before
>> their feet, and suddenly it was ripped off their hands ! It is
>> unfair !
>
>This (above) sounds like the Indians think they are "entitled" to jobs,=20
>but like other Indians, anyone else is NOT "entitled" to jobs, no?
what is the meaning of entitlement. Is it something similar to what
criminals from England did in Aus few centuries ago, wiping out
Aborginies and taking over their land as if they have a divine
right to eveything they set their eyes on.
Old Pif
>
> repaying the loan isn't an issue. People take the trouble of going to
> universities where they encounter idiots like Art Sowers for the sole
> purpose of getting a degree which will land them a job. Without a job,
> the degree is of no value.
>
See, Art, that is why intercultural interaction is so important. Where
else you encounter another logic: a Hindu got a loan, went to a
university, goat toasted and you are an idiot. Of course they are
smarter than all the others inventing something like that.
ind...@india.com
kamal says...
>if something does not belong to you -it cannot be stolen from you.
C'mon Kamal, not every american is like these two. Many of them
know that no job is exclusive to any people, at least not legally.
Just like no american is forced to buy products made in USA (all
of them opt for made in china), the employers can employ anyone
they want as long as it is legal and of course employers can
move jobs offshore to, showing their big fat middle finger
to those who think they are entitled to the jobs.
This happens even within US from jobs are high cost state
move to low cost state screwing lot of local people.
Old Pif
> In article <Pine.BSF.4.61.1001070826530.19...@osmium.mv.net>, Me, ...again!
Na ... the ethnic group that send Americans of all colors to the dog
stand is the corporate management. It has to be put under control.
Indians are not important. They just happened to be the cheapest.
kamal
> > expects to be either accomodated or told upfront his investment is
> > going to take him nowhere (something like a fair disclosure which
> > corporations need to do).
>
> Why is it that it is OK for Indians to expect jobs handed to them on a
> silver platter, but not OK for non-Indians to expect jobs when they get
> their degree? You have not answered that question yet.
>
expects to be given permission to work and recover the expenses. This
is about getting legal permission to search for a job -but not about
being handed a job on a silver platter. Govt only hands out legal
documents/visas and not admissions to universities or jobs to workers.
[snip]
> > So, if the locals don't want to be law-breakers -they need to tell the
> > govt not to issue visas to people who cannot be accomodated as in
> > without inconveniencing the locals.
>
> Why is it OK for corporations to sell things to people, but not OK to ask
> corporations to hire employees from the same population of people?
>
because it costs more to hire people from the same population than
elsewhere and the buyers of their produce want more value for their
money. If every american makes it a pt to buy stuff from Saks fifth
avenue and not walmart -the parasites sweating it out in 3rd world
countries will be replaced by better paid american workers.
regards
-kamal
kamal
> On Jan 7, 6:33 am, kamal <kama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > repaying the loan isn't an issue. People take the trouble of going to
> > universities where they encounter idiots like Art Sowers for the sole
> > purpose of getting a degree which will land them a job. Without a job,
> > the degree is of no value.
>
> See, Art, that is why intercultural interaction is so important. Where
> else you encounter another logic: a Hindu got a loan, went to a
> university, goat toasted and you are an idiot. Of course they are
he is an idiot if you ask anyone else reading his posts or yours -but
since he was a faculty member, I extrapolated that one of those out-of-
luck/cash students must have encountered him. Where do you guys get
the idea that people in other countries are answerable to you or that
electing the right persident can help legislate the functioning of
other countries?
> smarter than all the others inventing something like that.
You know what an idiot-savant is right? Washington Post referred to
techies in the US as "demagogues" -and the author was referring to
people who are members of Programmers' Guild or IEEE USA -all of whom
probably have good academic background/ Do you soppose the author was
also a hindu?[ Note that we are a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural country
without an official religion, though the majority are indeed hindus].
thanks
-kamal
Me, ...again!
Yeah, it is just like India Indians for the last 3,000 years, killing
other India Indians, setting up caste discrimination for 3,000 years,
setting up Sati, child slave labor,
...and if the dowry does not come through, set up pre-Sati, or burn the
wife before the husband dies so to get next chance at dowry and new wife.
Maybe it is Sati-reincarnation?
see below....
==============================
Quote:
"Moreover, ancient Indian custom and religious violence has resurfaced of
late, even in the heart of modern India's capital. Hundreds of 'accidental
deaths' of young Indian brides from burns by 'kitchen fires' are now
reported annually in the Delhi region alone. In fact, these dowry deaths
are known to be maliciously inflicted murders, often planned or
perpetuated by the dissatisfied husband and his parents, who feel that the
former bride's family failed to pay the prearranged 'price' promised
during dowry negotiations. Recently in Rajasthan, open revival and
glorification of _Sati_ widow-burning ceremonies has led to a number of
arrests and vigorous official action in charging the cultprits with
'murder.' Thus, even though Sati-immolations were outlawed by the British
in 1829, and the offer or acceptance of a dowry of any size is against
modern current Indian law, ancient practice continues. The past clings to
Indian's silken saried civilization and its flames continue to consume the
sacrificial bodies of young brides and widows, as they did for thousands
of years, while the sacred mantras of Brahmans filled the air as Agni's
flames 'liberated' the immortal souls from fast-burning fles."
from pages 434-435 of "A New History of India" (3rd edition) by Stanley
Wolpert (c 1989)
Me, ...again!
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Old Pif wrote:
> On Jan 7, 6:33 am, kamal <kama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> repaying the loan isn't an issue. People take the trouble of going to
>> universities where they encounter idiots like Art Sowers for the sole
>> purpose of getting a degree which will land them a job. Without a job,
>> the degree is of no value.
>>
>
> See, Art, that is why intercultural interaction is so important. Where
> else you encounter another logic: a Hindu got a loan, went to a
> university, goat toasted and you are an idiot.
Yeah, it is an old game: "heads I win, tails you lose."
But, you also have to look for the opportunity for a bribe or kickback.
However, Kamal Prasad's problem is he is close to being "radicalized"
(since he is so anti-US, anti-white, anti-American). Maybe we need to find
a de-programmer to bring him back to normal?
Of course they are
> smarter than all the others inventing something like that.
Oh, I think "smart" means entitlement only for Indians, no one else, and
infinitely not for Americans.
Me, ...again!
Yes, I agree with this.
But, I also read recently where China is selling stuff in India cheaper
than India can make the stuff.
So, now, as the Indians who are blind and can't think, will be sent from
the Indian hot dog stand to the Indian dust deserts to eat dust.
Me, ...again!
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 ind...@india.com wrote:
> In article <9700a43c-0158-48c5...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> kamal says...
>
>> if something does not belong to you -it cannot be stolen from you.
>
> C'mon Kamal, not every american is like these two.
Good that you disagree with Kamal.
Many of them
> know that no job is exclusive to any people,
You forgot military jobs that need a person to be born in USA.
> at least not legally.
And it is legal.
> Just like no american is forced to buy products made in USA (all
> of them opt for made in china),
China and US CEOs have destroyed US industrial base.
the employers can employ anyone
> they want as long as it is legal
Whether it is ethical or not is a separate question.
and of course employers can
> move jobs offshore to,
Helps the employer executives, hurts the former employees.
showing their big fat middle finger
> to those who think they are entitled to the jobs.
It is too much fat, covering too much CEO pay.
> This happens even within US from jobs are high cost state
> move to low cost state screwing lot of local people.
Someday maybe it will happen to you and I'd love to ask you how you like
it.
Me, ...again!
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, kamal wrote:
>>> they do not realize that person being admitted into the country
>>> expects to be either accomodated or told upfront his investment is
>>> going to take him nowhere (something like a fair disclosure which
>>> corporations need to do).
>>
>> Why is it that it is OK for Indians to expect jobs handed to them on a
>> silver platter, but not OK for non-Indians to expect jobs when they get
>> their degree? You have not answered that question yet.
>>
> let me correct my statement. The person investing into studying abroad
> expects
You mean "entitled" don't you?
> to be given permission to work and recover the expenses.
Why do so many foreigners come to study and say they will go back home,
and then when they finish studying, then they stay?
This
> is about getting legal permission to search for a job -but not about
> being handed a job on a silver platter.
When IT companies take all resumes from US guys and put into circular
file, then it is handing the job to an H1b on a silver platter.
Govt only hands out legal
> documents/visas and not admissions to universities or jobs to workers.
We've already got too many foreigners getting the best education in the
world, and for China, they go back and use that against their teachers'
country.
> [snip]
>>> So, if the locals don't want to be law-breakers -they need to tell the
>>> govt not to issue visas to people who cannot be accomodated as in
>>> without inconveniencing the locals.
>>
>> Why is it OK for corporations to sell things to people, but not OK to ask
>> corporations to hire employees from the same population of people?
>>
> because it costs more to hire people from the same population than
> elsewhere and the buyers of their produce want more value for their
> money.
In other words, the corporation is a parasite. It wants nothing but bottom
line, even if it is unethical (like you).
If every american makes it a pt to buy stuff from Saks fifth
> avenue and not walmart -the parasites sweating it out in 3rd world
> countries will be replaced by better paid american workers.
No, the point is any business located in the USA and wanting to sell in
the USA should also hire, proportionally, _from_ US people.
It is unethical for corporations to play parasite on underpaid 3rd world
and play parasite in rich consumer countries.
> regards
> -kamal
>
Me, ...again!
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, kamal wrote:
> On Jan 7, 5:45 am, Old Pif <old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 7, 6:33 am, kamal <kama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> repaying the loan isn't an issue. People take the trouble of going to
>>> universities where they encounter idiots like Art Sowers for the sole
>>> purpose of getting a degree which will land them a job. Without a job,
>>> the degree is of no value.
>>
>> See, Art, that is why intercultural interaction is so important. Where
>> else you encounter another logic: a Hindu got a loan, went to a
>> university, goat toasted and you are an idiot. Of course they are
>
> he is an idiot if you ask anyone else reading his posts
Oh, there is discussion in the media, and even one of China's leaders,
that the world economy is out of balance. So, there is a lot of discussion
going on and this discussion is increasing in intensity.
or yours -but
> since he was a faculty member, I extrapolated that one of those out-of-
> luck/cash students must have encountered him.
This makes no sense to me. But, 3rd world/out of cash 3rd worlders think
the USA should give free visas, free education, free jobs to 3rd
worlders...who then complain and moan and whine about "killing American
Indians and stealing land" which is something that happened 200+ years ago
and beyond the control of anyone living today.
Where do you guys get
> the idea that people in other countries are answerable to you
I thought India Indians, many decades ago, threw out the British because
India Indians thought India belongs to Indians, not the British.
So, do you now say the idea that: it is OK for other country not be
answerable to some country for anything?
or that
> electing the right persident can help legislate the functioning of
> other countries?
Oh, especially if those countries organize cheap currency for the purpose
of reverse-imperialism.
>> smarter than all the others inventing something like that.
>
> You know what an idiot-savant is right? Washington Post referred to
> techies in the US as "demagogues"
Oh, it is probably a right-wing, conservative, robber-barron corporate
PR-propaganda author who said that.
-and the author was referring to
> people who are members of Programmers' Guild or IEEE USA -all of whom
> probably have good academic background/ Do you soppose the author was
> also a hindu?[ Note that we are a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural country
> without an official religion, though the majority are indeed hindus].
I have read zero articles out of many years and many subscriptions that
say Hindus are resigning from Hinduism. In fact there are Hindu
nationalists and Hindu fascists (because you can do a google search and
get lots of hits).
Multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, etc.? I read many articles, even on Indian
websites, reporting riots, demonstrations, intollerance, attacks, and
other mob violence. You left out how much of all this is NOT-peaceful
co-existence. Still 1/4 of India is Dalits who are much worse off than
blacks in USA.
Indian laws? Nice on paper, but almost no enforcement. Still child slave
labor in India (just do a google search).
And, I have yet to see any "thanks" from Indians for all that the US/CEOs
ever did for them such as make easy jobs for them that their own 3rd world
society could not make for them, and so if it were not for the USA/CEOs,
those Indians would be living and eating dust.
> thanks
> -kamal
>
Michael Coburn
The solution to this problem lies in import duties and immigration
control. That is, in fact, a "rent seeking" methodology characterized as
"mercantilism". Yet it is the only viable way to protect the life style
and affluence of the American middle class. And even so, the American
middle class will have to settle for a lower standard of living before
things can be turned around by technological innovation and further
_real_ capital development.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
ind...@india.com
>The solution to this problem lies in import duties and immigration
>control.
and if other countries return the favor to USA, then ???
By putting duties on american products or other similar
mechanism. So all those billion dollar sales would vaporise
for companies like Cisco, Oracle, HP, Microsoft.
>That is, in fact, a "rent seeking" methodology characterized as
>"mercantilism". Yet it is the only viable way to protect the life style
>and affluence of the American middle class. And even so, the American
>middle class will have to settle for a lower standard of living before
>things can be turned around by technological innovation and further
>_real_ capital development.
American std of living has to go down because it is not matched
by productivity. An IT person making $100K has to justify really
hard why his job in USA is indispensable, as compared to a person in
Bangalore making $40K (which translates to very good amount
in indian rupee). Now if this person agrees to work for $55K, then
may be the management will not take the trouble of off-shoring
his job. But 100K vs 40K is too big a difference whichever way
you look at it. Just like Americans while shopping for a
bike for their 6 yr old son would find $100 dollar bicyle made
in Ohio vs $40K bicyle made in China too big a difference. I
would not buy one made in Ohio. Would you?
And yes, american companies have realized that there is no difference
in quality of work between 100K guzzling American vs $40K Indian.
Me, ...again!
Well, dutties and tarrifs are going on more stuff coming out of China.
Anti-dumping just went on Chinese steel recently.
Visa ceilings haven't been increased much in recent years.
That is, in fact, a "rent seeking" methodology characterized as
> "mercantilism". Yet it is the only viable way to protect the life style
> and affluence of the American middle class. And even so, the American
> middle class will have to settle for a lower standard of living
Its already been happening, especially as wages at the low end have not
kept up with inflation and companies have been cutting back on health plan
subsidies, and offering weaker pension plans.
before
> things can be turned around by technological innovation and further
> _real_ capital development.
We also need more laws to control labor-dumping, too.
Me, ...again!
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 ind...@india.com wrote:
> In article <hi5hj...@news6.newsguy.com>, Michael Coburn says...
>
>> The solution to this problem lies in import duties and immigration
>> control.
>
> and if other countries return the favor to USA, then ???
India already has among highest tarriffs....
Also, see below...
=============
How India Cheats.....
Quotes of a letter to the editor, Wall Street Journal, July 17, 2007, page
A15:
title: "Brazil, India Walked Away From Superb Opportunity"
from part of second paragraph:
"In agriculture, the disparities in the current level of protection are
even more striking, but India has not been willing to reduce that
protection even modestly. The US average agricultural tariff is 12%, while
the global average is 62% and India's is a remarkable 114%."
Other parts of the letter dealt with Brazil, another holdout on the Doha
round of WTO talks.
Letter signed by
Peter F. Allgeier, US Ambassador to the WTO, Geneva
==============
> By putting duties on american products or other similar
> mechanism. So all those billion dollar sales would vaporise
> for companies like Cisco, Oracle, HP, Microsoft.
Not if they sell to Indians from Indian locations.
Just shows how poorly your brain works.
>
>> That is, in fact, a "rent seeking" methodology characterized as
>> "mercantilism". Yet it is the only viable way to protect the life style
>> and affluence of the American middle class. And even so, the American
>> middle class will have to settle for a lower standard of living before
>> things can be turned around by technological innovation and further
>> _real_ capital development.
>
> American std of living has to go down because it is not matched
> by productivity.
It is a fact, you can google on "productivity by country" and see that USA
is still the most productive in the world.
Just shows how dumb you are.
P.S. its "cheap labor" not productivity that counts.
An IT person making $100K has to justify really
> hard why his job in USA is indispensable,
Not hard at all in Department of Defense.
as compared to a person in
> Bangalore making $40K (which translates to very good amount
> in indian rupee).
This is a fake reason: there are other costs to be added onto the $40K.
Now if this person agrees to work for $55K, then
> may be the management will not take the trouble of off-shoring
> his job. But 100K vs 40K is too big a difference whichever way
> you look at it. Just like Americans while shopping for a
> bike for their 6 yr old son would find $100 dollar bicyle made
> in Ohio vs $40K bicyle made in China too big a difference. I
> would not buy one made in Ohio. Would you?
Might be a better warranty.
> And yes, american companies have realized that there is no difference
> in quality of work between 100K guzzling American vs $40K Indian.
You need to read the following FAQ again....
Reference List: India No Longer Offshore IT King
(34 references to recent articles)
Offshore outsourcing (including BPO to India) is
declining as a fraction of total world-wide IT service
to developed countries and has a high failure rate,
not necessarily high quality service, is leading to
a new phenomenon: backsourcing/backshoring.
Somethings called the "H-1B swindle" is discussed
below. And there are some reports that outsourcing
is declining or reversing.
----
34. WSJ, Oct 5, 2009, page B1:
title:"Indian Tech Outsourcers Aim to Widen Contracts"
contains the following sentences:
"But the days of 30% annual revenue growth from such work are over, a
casualty of the global economic downturn and increasing competition in the
services industry world-wide."
"Annual revenue growth in Indian technology services slowed to 16 % in
fiscal year ended in March. The industry's trade group, Nasscom, estimates
growth will be only 4% to 7% this fiscal year."
page B7 (continuation):
"Adding to the pressure on Indian firms is increased competition from
outsourcers based in the U.S. that have expanded their presences in
India, and the rise of competitors in even cheaper offshoring locales
such as the Philippines and Vietnam."
"But Indian companies are still having a hard time shaking their
reputation as the vendors of choice for low-cost, commodity services. And
on bigger, infrastructure heavy deals, they can no longer beat rivals on
price."
- - - - - - - - - - -
33. From Business Week, October 5, 2009, title "The Peril and Promise of
Investing in Russia," starting on page 49, about 1/3 way into article is
this paragraph on page 50:
"Consider IT giant Intel, which moved into Russia in 1999 and since then
has invested $800 million. It now employs more than 1,000 engineers at
four research centers, including its largest software [R&D] group outside
of the U.S. Because of Russia's top-notch math skills, Intel assigns local
engineers more complex work than it gives specialits in other outsourcing
venues such as India, says Dimitry Konash, the company's Moscow-based
regional director."
And the picture caption on page 52 says "Russian worker's math skills give
them an edge over Indian engineers, says Intel's Konash"
- - - - - - -
32. Business Week, May 4, 2009 issue, page 59: title: "The Sudden Chill
at an Indian Hot Spot." Picture caption says:"A commercial real estate
boom has turned into a glut, with vacancy rates of 28%" "In the second half
of 2008, as American and European clients hit the skids, India's outsourcing
industry saw contracts shrivel by 22%, its worst performance in a decade,
according to research firm Technology Partners International." "Nobody in
India collects layoff data, but every day papers carry dire news...." as
many named Indian companies announce layoffs.
Sidebar at the bottom of page 60:
"Outsourcing to India may soon be old news. KPMG has identified 31 new hot
spots, from Buenos Aires to Zagreb, and from Indianapolis [in the USA] to
Iloilo City (a Philippines town known for its animation services).
It gives the URL for that KPMG report as:
http://bx.businessweek.com/global-outsourcing/reference
- - - - - - -
31. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aB5yoCVxbXe4
Delta Air Returns Customer Call-Center Work to U.S. From India
April 18 (Bloomberg) -- Delta Air Lines Inc., the world~Rs largest
carrier, said it stopped routing customer service calls to India and
brought them back in house in the U.S. because customers were unhappy.
Delta started shifting the calls to employees in the U.S. over the
past year, and completely removed Indian contractors last quarter,
Chief Executive Officer Richard Anderson said in his weekly recorded
message to employees.
The move makes Delta the second big carrier to repatriate customer-
service work from India in 2009, after UAL Corp. United Airlines
did so in February. Companies including AT&T Inc. have taken similar
steps, said Karl Keirstead, an outsourcing analyst at Kaufman Bros.
LP in New York.
- - - - - -
30. Subject: More Jobs coming back to the USA from India
WSJ, April 7, 2009, Tuesday, page B5:
title: "Sallie Mae To Shift Jobs to the U.S."
Quote: "AP. New York--Sallie Mae gave some hope to the unemployed Monday,
announcing it will bring 2,000 jobs to the U.S. within the next 18 months as
it shifts call-center and other operations from overseas."
And, same story in Washington Post, April 7, 2009, page A18:
title: "SLM to Transfer Overseas Jobs to U.S."
subtitle: "Reston Student Lender to Move 2,000 Workers Out of Asia"
- - - - - -
29.(BusinessWeek/SmallBiz, Feb/Mar 2008) title:
"Outsourcing HEADING SOUTH" by Amy Barrett, "Jon
Morris...shifted his outsourced design and Web
development staff from India to Costa Rica in 2005"
and he made reference to not having to deal with
the time zone difference with India. "Forget
'Chindia,' A growing number of entrepreneurs are
finding Latin America a great place to sell,
source, and outsource.." Article says US companies
exported 30% more goods to Latin America, up 30%
from five years earlier. Direct investment to LA up
12% in 2006 over 2005. LA has less daunting
language and cultural problems. Countries featured:
Mexico, Brazil, Columbia, Chile, and
Argentina.(businessweek.com/smallbiz).
CFO magazine (www.cfo.com/backissues?), February,
2008, p. 24: "view from asia" in an interview with
Deepak Natraj, Infosys's head of strategic
initiatives: "Everyone assumes that we're going to
slash and burn and send two-thirds of the people
home," (and the bring over Indians on L visas) "But
when you send home the workforce, what are you
paying for?" Natraj "...prefers leaving the local
CEO--as well as the human-resources director --in
place."
- - - - - - -
28. Subject: "India's Competition in the Caribbean"
from Business Week,
Dec 24, 2007 issue, page 072, edited by Jena
McGregor:
"The region [the Carribean], along with Latin
America, is fast becoming a customer-service
hot spot. GE Money is...using call centers in Barbados
and Puerto Rico. Delta Air Lines is sending calls
to Jamaica." "...Philip Peters, CEO of Zagada Markets,
....[says]..the ranks of Caribbean call-center agents have
swelled from 11,000 in 2002 to 55,000 in 2007.
Hispanics are boosting demand for bilingual agents,
driving companies to Central and South America, too.
Dell and [HP]...have set up in countries
such as Panama and Argentina.'Latin America is the
fastest-growing region that we have,' says Mark
Notaraninni, HP's call-center director."
- - - - - -
27. Subject: Dell shuts down hardware R&D unit in
India and moves back to USA
"BENGALURU, India -- Dell Inc. is about to shut
down its hardware R&D unit based in this city, and
will move the work being done here to its centers in
Texas and Taiwan. Anywhere between two dozen to 170
staff will lose their jobs as a result; they have been given
45 days to find new employment."
"A Dell executive blamed rising costs in the city
for shifting the R&D unit out of the country, but
current and previous staffers have pointed
out that employing similar engineers in Austin,
Texas, or Taiwan would likely be more expensive,
not less."
"This is the second time the company has shifted
work out of India. Citing customer complaints about
quality about four years ago, Dell moved part of
its high-end technical support out of India."
http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtm
l?articleID=204701812
(originally posted on a.c.c Dec 6, 2007)
- - - - - - - - -
26. From WSJ, Aug 21, 2007, page A6 (see title
above): Quote of first paragraph: "CAIRO, Egypt--
As rising wages and attrition rates in India
spur some international companies to seek new
locales for outsourcing operations, Southeast Asian,
Eastern Europe, and Latin America have all
been competing to become new offshoring hubs." The
article says Satyam CS hired 300 in Cairo; Wipro
set up in Saudi Arabia and plans to enter Egypt,
Tata says it will go into Morocco. Says in recent
years Egypt, Jordan and the UAE have all broken
into the top 20 for offshoring destinations.
Quotes A.T. Kerney as saying the Middle East is the
next big destination. Paris-based Teleperformance
hired 3,500 in Tunisia, and going into Cairo.
EDS is putting $100 million into Abu Dhabi (UAE
emirate), and already hired 450 in Egypt and planning
to hire more. The sidebar clearly implies that India is no
longer the offshore destination any more. On the list in
the sidebar for offshoring destinations are China,
Malaysia, Thailand, Brazil, Indonesia, Chile, Phillipines,
Bulgaria, Mexico, Singapore, Slovakia, Egypt, Jordan,
and Estonia.
--------
25, From Business Week, August 6, 2007, page 66m
("Rise of the Rupee") and The Economist, July 28, 2007,
pages 65-66 ("Outsourcing-External Affairs").
From BW: Quotes: '"We are losing our competitiveness to
China, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore...and the Reserve
Bank [of India] is allowing the rupee to appreciate?" growls
New Delhi economist Surjit Bhalla." And, "Profitability across
the sector [Indian IT] fell by 8% in the most recent quarter."
And, "A further rise in the rupee, says Suresh Ramrakhiani,
economist at the Cotton Textile Export Promotion Council
in Mumbai, could lead to job losses for up to 200,000 people."
From The Economist: "...jobs no longer flow only from richer
countries to poorer ones." And, "The latest outsourcing from
TPI, a consultancy, was published earlier this month. It
showed that both the number and value of contracts awarded
during the first half of this year had declined in comparison with
the same period in 2006 [lowest since 2001]." Article also
says Wipro is going to set up its first software-development
center in America (either Atlanta, Austin, Raleigh, or
Richmond) and "Azim Premji, Wipro's chairman, says that the
proportion of local employees (as opposed to visiting Indians)
in the company's overseas locations will rise from
10% to one-third over the next three years." Jobs
coming back to the USA.
- - - -
24. title: "Infosys Shaves Forecast After Strong
Quarter" by Jackie Range (WSJ, July 12, 2007, page C8)
"...citing the stronger currency, Bangalore-based
Infosys cut its full-year, rupee-based earnings outlook..."
and "In the past three months, the rupee has appreciated
some 7% against the dollar. That has particularly hurt
companies like Infosys, which earn most of their revenue
in dollars." The graphic, made from data provided
by the company, shows projected 1Q, '08 net profits
as being below 4Q, '07 net profits by about 7 %. Looks
like India's "rising" and "shining" may be coming to an end as
more foreign companies don't consider India as an
outsourcing destination any more (see below).
------------
23. from: The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, July 3,
2007, front page
title: "Some in Silicon Valley Begin to Sour on
India" subtitle: "A Few Bring Jobs Back As Pay of Top
Engineers In Bangalore Skyrockets" by Pui-Wing Tam
and Jackie Range
Interviews and research with quotes as follows:
Munjal Shah [with image of him, and born in India]
led a California start-up [Riya] opened an office in
Bangalore in 2005, hired about 20 skilled software
developers at 1/4 what they cost in Silcon Valley. Then
salaries soared. He said this year it cost 75% of
SV salaries, plus extra expenses of running an office
in India, and in April this year he closed the Bangalore
office.
"Across SV, some technology companies, particularly
start up and midsize ones, are beginning to turn away
from India for low-cost labor to do sophisitcated tech
work. Kana ... eliminated 100 software-developemnt jobs
in India in late 2005 and expanded its U.S. hiring
instead. Teneros, Inc., shut down a 30 member
India office and brought 12 of the people to its
headquarters in ...California."
The article mentioned that Apple cancelled plans to
open a facility in India.
"'The wage inflation rate for engineers in India is
four times what it is here' in America, says Intel's
chief executive, Paul Otellini."
Article says Indian wage inflation is 10-15% per
year, other sources say it is closer to 50%.
"India is no longer the premier outsourcing
destination."
Article says even the simple call-center work may
be done more cheaply in the Philippines and Vietnam,
and mentions that Indian companies are even
looking outside India to create jobs. TCS recently
opened a center in Mexico and is considering a move
to Morocco. Wipro has two centers in China and
planning one for the Philippines.
Pervasive Software (from Texas) opened a Bangalore
unit in 2004 with 45 people, but turnover reached more
than 25% per year. Last year it closed the
Bangalore office.
The article mentioned that it takes more supervisors to
manage Indians. So, they are asking why pay a junior
guy in India just a little less when they can get a senior
guy right in California.
---------------
22. Quotes from A Wall Street Journal article, Feb
26, 2007, page B3: title: "Behind Outsourcing: Promise
and Pitfalls" by Scott Thurm
"Companies such as Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
and Dell Inc. reversed decisions to move customer call
centers to India after a customer rebellion." and "[Jagdish]
Dalal advised a big insurance company with
little outsourcing experience to locate a call
center in Canada, to minimize problems with non-North
American English accents." This article also gave many
other details on problems with outsourcing that had nothing
to do with India or offshoring.
----
21. I have seen many reports (sorry I have no
specifics) of Indian (and other foreign corporations) opening
up branches in the USA and establishing jobs within the
USA. An important caveat regarding this action is that while
these are new jobs in the USA, foreign companies are
allowed to transfer existing employees from their
home country into these jobs on L-1 visas and there is no
cap on the number. I hardly think that many of these jobs
will be offered to US guys (green card or citizens)
when home country guys can probably be transferred
at lower pay. Furthermore, the reports may be overly
glossy if a foreign company just buys an existing company
and then claims that it is "bringing" jobs to the
USA. When, however, a US MNC lays off 20,000 US
guys and moves those jobs to India, that MNC is going
to hire local Indians into those jobs and NOT
invite the US guys to "transfer" to India with
something like a 2/3 pay cut.
-------
20. Wall Street Journal, Feb 21, 2007, page B6:
Under "Plots and Ploys" section entitled "Call it
insourcing": Quotes: "One real-estate company has
decreased its outsourcing of some services to india
and turned to a North Carolina town that has lost jobs
to overseas competitors. Situs Cos., a Houston-based
company that provides services to the commercial-
mortgage industry, says it will send some work
to Robbins, N.C. the company previously had tried
to outsource certain services to india, but looked
elsewhere as well in part because of soaring
rents in India, says Situs Chief Executive Ralph
Howard. 'We think we are getting a better quality
for the same price, and at the same time, we're
creating U.S. jobs,' says Mr. Bean [who works for
Mr. Howard]."
---------
19. WSJ, front page, November 13, 2006. title
"Clothes Made Abroad Create Factory Jobs in
L.A. for Mr. Fix-It" subtitle: "Barry Foreman Left Rag
Trade, But is Back, Salvaging Flawed Chinese
Garments" by Stephanie Kang. This whole article
is about a fairly large fraction of imported clothing
that comes with a variety of defects and the
featured guy, Barry Forman, got back into business
to "correct" the defects in the imported lots so as to
make them saleable again. His business is booming,
expanding, and the article is worth reading for those
who want the details. Not all of that cheap labor is
worth what people pay for it. You get cheap quality,
too.
------------
18. Financial Times, Nov 2, page 18, 2006
title: "Volkswagen chooses to swim against the
current-The German carmaker is to shift some of
its production back home" by Richard Milne
"To move production away from lower-cost countries
to a high-cost nation may appear to be a peculiar
decision, but not at Volkswagen. The carmaker
intends to cut thousands of jobs at Spanish,
Portugese and Belgian factories and to shift some
of the models back to Germany..."In the course of this
change, workers in Germany will work longer hours
for the same pay (and keep their high-paying jobs
which will end up at about E40.65/hour [or around
US$50/hour]).
------------
17. From Financial Times, Oct 12, 2006, page 15,
entitled "Boom in outsourcing abates as groups seek
shorter deals" by Francesco Guerrera.
"The wave of outsourcing that has engulfed the
global economy over the past five years is showing
signs of abating as multinational companies opt for
shorter and smaller deals, according to a study to
be published today. The outsourcing industry has
just experienced its worst quarter in four years
and is unlikely to match the $81.9bn in contracts
won in 2005 by the end of
this year, data from the consulting firm Technology
Partners International shows. A slowdown in 2006
would mark the second consecutive year fall in the
volume of outsourcing contracts since their $84.7bn
peak reached in 2004. The results suggest that, following
the drive to curb costs and streamline operations by
contracting out non-core functions, multinationals
might be running out of major operations to outsource.
...The average contract is down to four years from
about 10 years in the recent past. 'In some sectors,
especially information technology, companies
perceive that there has been a commoditisation of
services, leading them to opt for shorter-term contracts
of lower overall value,' said Peter Allen, a partner at
TPI. 'We just don't see enough big deals in the pipeline
to cause us to believe the levels of last year will be
reached.' The trend is likely to raise concerns in
countries such as India and China and among groups
like IBM, Accenture and [EDS], which have been
among the biggest beneficiaries of the outsourcing
trend... According to TPI, which tracks worldwide
deals worth more than $50m, outsourcing contracts
signed between July and September totalled
$13.4bn, a fall of more than 20 per cent on both
the previous quarter and the same period last year.
The weakness of the past three months has left
the total for the year at $55.3 bn, more than #26
bn below the figure for the whole of 2005....
--------------------
16. From WSJ, Monday, July 3, 2006, page B1,
entitled "Siting a Call Center: Check Out the
Mall First" by John Lyons.
Quote(p B3): "After Lehman Brothers moved its
internal computer help desk to India in 2003, the
mismatch between the investment bank's hard-charging
employees and their new Indian phone-support agents
created problems, say industry insiders, and the help
desk returned in house."
It is also interesting that most of this article is
about an Indian, Mr. Shankardass, a US citizen
("born to Indian parents in Nairobi, Kenya") who
works for ClientLogic, that sets up call centers as
an outsourcing business
and most of the article is devoted to his work
finding call center sites in Mexico.
--------------------
15. From Business Week/Small Biz, Summer, 2006 (may
be on the website:www.businessweek.com/smallbiz)
entitled: "Here or There" subtitle: Six entrepreneurs
explain why they outsource or not. Here is a quote
from the first page of the article (page 67):
"Some 24% of small manufacturers said they had
purchased goods or services from vendors outside
the U.S. in the past three years, according to a 2004
study by the National Federation of Independent
Business. For the rest, the best place to manufacture
is right at home, at least for now. The easy
rapport with vendors, relatively short plane rides,
and the quality of American-made goods keep these
business owners and their customers perfectly
happy."
---------------------
14. Subject: More India BPO failure
(in Business Week, June 19, 2006 issue, page 48):
title: "India: Why Apple Walked Away"
subtitle: "Plans for an Indian tech support center
have been scrapped. A cautionary tale"
by Manjeet Kripalani and Peter Burrows.
Quotes:
"Just three months back, Apple ...[was talking
about] hiring 3,000 workers by 2007 [in Bangalore]...."
These plans are now cancelled and most of the 30
existing employees in Bangalore have been dismissed.
The factors mentioned as working against the
original plan include "Entry level pay at tech and
outsourcing companies climbed by as much as 13%
annually from 2000 to 2004, while salaries for
midlevel managers jumped 30% a year during the same
period...." Also cited as a problem was high turnover.
Thus the financial advantage of sending work
to India has just about vanished.
--------------
13. Quote from CFO magazine, June 2006, page 17
(may be on their website, cfo.com): "Passing on India?
Rising wages in India are eating into some of the cost
advantages of sending work to the popular
outsourcing destination. Wages have increased
roughly 11 percent in each of the last three years with
little sign of abating, says Michael Spellacy,
vice president at The Boston Consulting Group. In
major cities like Bombay and Bangalore, inflation
has climbed as high as 14 percent, with worker
attrition rates now averaging 25%. A full time
worker in outsourced financial services in India earns
between $22,000 and $27,000, Spellacy says."
Also, in The Economist, June 3rd, 2006ssue is a
special report on India "A Survey of Business in India"
with the title "Now for the hard part" and on
page 6 of the special report (center section of the
issue) is a large article ("If in doubt, farm it out") on the
difficulty India is having finding workers for this great
expansion in BPO service to the outside world.
---------------------
12. The article "The H-1B Swindle" by Ephraim
Schwartz, appearing in Infoworld, October 31, 2005,
page 12, has the subtitle "A new study suggests
that companies hire foreign workers for cheap
labor, not skill." The article goes on to say: "It
appears there is hard evidence to prove that employers
are using the H-1B visa program to hire cheap
labor; that is, to pay substantially lower wages than
the national average for programming jobs
(infoworld.com/3449)" The article goes into
additional detail and cites data sources such as BLS
(infoworld.com/3450) and DOL's H-1B website
(infoworld.com/3451). Across the board, foreigners
were being paid less. As a general fact, companies have
a financial incentive to preferentially recruit foreigners
because they know foreigners will accept a job offer at a
lower wage.
---------------------
11. A study show that outsourcing really does not
save as claimed.
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/article
s/2006/04/13/
outsourcing_saves_less_than_claimed/
(this reference was posted on a newsgroup in early
2006, and was not checked)
--------------
10. Three more recent articles. First: the article
"Don't Offload Big IT Problems On Outsourcers" by
Rob Preston (VP.Ed-in-cheif) as appeared in
Informationweek, April 10, 2006, page 88 (may be
online at informationweek.com). Second: the large article
"How Do You Spell Relief?
O-U-T-S-O-U-R-C-I-N-G" by Bruce Boardman, appearing
in Network Computing, April 1, 2006, pages 30-36, and
a third article in the same issue on pages 39-48.
So what do these three articles say? The first is
a one page qualitative review of several outsourcing failures
and cites "Outsourcing Backlash"
(presumably at informationweek.com/650/50iuout.htm
[I have not checked it]) and explained that any problems
people have at home become magnified when
they offshore/outsource (many references to India).
The second walks people through the "process" of
outsourcing/offshoring work, including a discussion of how
to do this, but also has a sidebar on page 36 which includes
a summary of a Deloitte Consulting survey of 25
organizations (worth $1 trillion in market cap, and
with 1 mil employees, and spent $50 bil on operations
outsourced) and the sidebar says things like: one in four
brought functions back in house after realizing they could
do the work better, cheaper themselves, 33% of
outsourcing relationships failed in one year while 50% didn't
last five years, and 57% paid extra for services they though
were included in the original contract.
The third article also helps the IT specialist by
evaluating four data center packages (from Savvis, EDS,
Globix, and Infosys). There were a number of tables with data.
Bottom line results: Infosys was the cheapest, EDS
about three times more expensive, others midway;
quality of results- Savvis and EDS got A-, Globix got B+,
and Infosys got a C. You get what you pay
for.
----------------
9. Courtesy of "indiabpoking" are the following
reported negatives, failures and shortcomings of BPO,
quoting his quote from the source given:
> From indiab...@yahoo.com Mon Apr 10 18:36:37
2006
Date: 10 Apr 2006 15:36:37 -0700
From: indiaBPOking <indiab...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants,
alt.politics.economics,
alt.politics.bush, sci.research.careers,
soc.culture.british
Subject: Outsourcing seen as source of innovation
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6059512.html
"An IDC and Capgemini survey of almost 300
executives attending IDC's Outsourcing Forum East last
week found that top reasons for deciding to use Business
Process Outsourcing in a corporate strategy include
reducing costs, driving innovation, and the ability
to focus on core competencies."
[but see below]
"Additional [negatives, failures, drawbacks] survey
highlights include:"
"* More than one third (38.2 percent) of participants felt
the biggest downside to outsourcing is not getting the expected
results, followed by public/customer backlash (23.5 percent), and
anxiety over loosing control (20.6 percent)."
[note that 38.2 percent is much lower than other
figures cited from other sources farther down]
"* The three most important legal issues concerning
BPO today according to those surveyed were: governance
procedures (33.8%), business continuity (27.7 percent) and
intellectual property rights (26.2 percent)."
--------------------------------
8. More complaints about India:
from the article "View from Asia-India won't fully
benefit from the amazing productivity of its companies
unless it builds a better infrastructure for business" by
Tom Leander (Editor-in-Chief, CFO Asia). Appearing
in "CFO" magazine for April 2006, page 27 (may be at their
website: www.cfo.com/backissues).
Some quotes:
"... GE's CFO, Keith Sherin, told CFO Asia late
last year that he finds India frustrating. 'You get
excited and nothing happens,' he says. Three
years ago, GE did about the same volume of business
in both India and China. Today, China is a $3 billion
market for GE, triple that of India. So, it's no surprise
when Sherin sums up GE's Asian strategy by saying
that 'China is number one, two, and three for us'."
"His primary complaint is the lack of government
support for infrastructure improvements. Turn off any
highway in India and you'll know what Sherin is
talking about."
"It may be unseemly to criticise a government that
has to take care of so many poor citizens for not
building better roads to facilitate commerce, but
India's CFOs point out that infrastructure is a
social-welfare issue. Sumant Sinha, CFO of leading
conglomerate Aditya Birla Group, says that he spends
more on capital expenditure every year than peer
companies in other nations might. How many of them,
after all, must build their own power stations?"
"But its wishful thinking [despite all the positives of
India] to conclude that India's remarkable productivity
will translate into a thriving internal market any time
soon. In the eyes of most U.S. finance chiefs,
China remains number one, two, and three."
---------------------------------------
7. Backshoring...the new buzzword
Feb 13, 2006 issue of Infoworld, pages 8 (Efraim
Schwartz's column) and page 4, (editor's);
Developer poaching and rapidly rising prices are
causing US based companies to start pulling jobs back
to the USA. Read about it in the periodical.
------------------------------------------------
6. Subject: Deloitte Report: outsource failure
rates
From June, 2005, CFO magazine, page 19.
(it may be on their website, www.cfo.com/BackIssues)
Deloitte Consulting was said (by the CFO article)
to have said "'In the real world, outsourcing frequently
fails to deliver its promise.' wrote researchers who
surveyed 25 companies with average revenues of $50 billion.
The study reveals that 70 percent of its respondents have
had significantly negative experiences and are outsourcing
business processes and IT with increasing caution."
"...there is growning evidence that large comapnies
are rethinking massive outsourcing contracts. Big name
defectors that have unwound at least part of
their arrangements include Conseco, Dell, Capital
One, and Lehman Brothers."
"A sure sign that outsourcing isn't working is the
amount of renegotiation surrounding the vendor
agreements, says Deloitte senior strategy principal
Ken Landis. 'There wasn't a single participant in
the study where contract went to term,' he says.
'All of them had renegotiated prior to the contract
expiration date'"
"Companies are souring on outsourcing, the survey
asserts, for the same reason it has been criticised
for years: failure to live up to cost-reduction
promises, risks to intellectual property, and confidentiality,
and lack of transparency."
The article states that, so far, 25% of the companies
have brought services back (now called backsourcing).
-------------------------------------------------
-----
5. From Information Week, page 8, in the Nov 21,
2005 issue.
Sidebar: "48% of all companies will spend more
money on BPO this year than in 2004"
"55% of current BPO service delivery is conductend
inside the USA"
"41% of companies are satisfied with their BPO
services"
So, that sounds like 100 - 41= 59% are
dissatisified with their BPO services. And, there's
going to be more BPO?
Says the source is IW, Managing Offshore, and Equa
Terra study of 200 BPO customers.
-------------------------------------------------
4. "Offshoring isn't such a sure thing"
by Lora Kolodny, Inc. magazine, September, 2005,
pages 22-24
Quotes:
"Companies are finding that sending IT work
overseas can be more trouble than it's worth,
according to a new survey from DiamondCluster
International, a Chicago-based management
consultancy. The number of executives surveyed
who said they were pleased with their outsourced
IT vendors fell by 17 pecentage points versus the
previous year, marking the first decline since 2002.
Moreover, early termination of relationships
between buyers and offshore service providers
spiked to 51%, which is double the rate of 2004."
In other words, half of all relationships are
terminated before their first contract period is up.
In view of this, a spokesman for the consulting
firm says that "...tech buyers will think twice about
sending critical services abroad--at least
for now."
--------------------------------------------------
3. From "CFO" magazine, FALL 2005, special issue,
pages 40-44. (may be on www.cfo.com/Backissues)
article: "Customer Disservice: Critics say the
promised savings from offshoring come at too steep
a price, while companies say very little at
all"
by Norm Alster
This article starts by saying that on a recent talk
show where people could call in with comments and
questions, it was discovered that virtually everyone in
the USA does not like foreign call center representatives.
"But the practice of outsourcing customer service
to offshore call centers is beginning to look like a
classical idea carried too far. Critics of the
practice point to a growing body of evidence that
suggests faulty economics and customer dissatisfaction
are forcing a rethink of what once seemed a no-brainer."
"'The economic benefits of outsourcing customer
service are grossly overstated' according to Niels
Kjellerup, a senior partner with Australian
consulting firm Resource International and editor
of a Website devoted to call centers
(www.callcenters.com.au). Customer resistance, along
with data-security concerns and the unexpectedly high
costs of managing offshore call centers, offset and dilute their
promised economic benefits, says Kjellerup."
"There is already evidence that these factors have
combined to slow the offshore migration. Several large
firms, including Dell, credit-card giant
Capital One, and insurer Conseco, have shifted at
least some customer-support operations back to the
United States."
Gartner's analyst, Robert Brown, says that the initial
large growth in offshoring is expected to be, in the
future, much smaller.
"Companies with monopolistic or overwhelmingly
dominant market positions are more apt to risk customer
alienation where near-term savings can be realized."
"Alexa Bona, a Gartner analyst based in London,
predicts that during the next three years, up to 60 percent
of companies outsourcing customer-facing service will
encounter customer defections and hidden costs that will
either cancel or outweigh any perceived savings in such
arrangements."
"He [Chris Selland, at Covington Associates in
Boston]says executives at firms that have employed offshore
call centers keep telling him that 'it's harder, it takes more
management attention, and you have to be meticulous
about the way you structure the agreement.' As a
result of all this unexpected overhead, the projected savings
from offshoring can swiftly evaporate."
The article says there is huge turnover at Indian
call centers; it can be up to 70% per year. And, with the big
expansion, there have been recruiting wars in India and
escalating pay scales.
"Martha Rogers, a consultant and author of several
books on customer relationships, contends that the
metrics generally used to measure call-center performance
are flawed."
"Many companies that outsource customer service, in
fact, don't like talking about it, and more than a dozen
turned down requests for interviews. 'Companies are
looking to do everything they can to hide the
fact that they are using off shore call centers'
says Selland. 'From a political standpoint and a
customer-acceptance standpoint, it is something
they are trying to downplay.' At some Asian
centers, agents are actually trained to conceal their
real names and adopt phoney American monikers, a
practice that fools few and can further inflame an
already angry caller."
"One in three respondents in a British survey said
they would stop doing business with a bank that
relocates its call centers offshore. Another
study, conducted in 2004, reported that just 5
pecent of the British are satisfied with offshore
call centers. The Irish arm of Sweden's Tele2AG, a
telecommunications firm, recently switched its call
center operation out of India and back to Ireland,
citing consumer preference."
"In an unpublished data-theft case now under
investigation, a large U.S.-based technology
multinational contracted with a call center in India
without knowing that the company in turn subcontracted
a portion of the work to firms outside India, where
employees of the subcontractor apparently managed
to penetrate the American company's information
database."
"...growing outsourcing industries in Eastern
Europe and Latin America have been targeted by
criminals seeking access to customer data. "
"'For companies that regard customer service as a
key part of future revenue growth, bringing such operations
back to domestic shores is the way to go,' says Kjellerup."
---------------------------------------------------
2. From _Information Week_, page 60, Dec 19/26
issue, 2005
A short article by Paul McDougall reporting that:
"...companies operating in India, including local ones such as
Infosys Technologies, Tata Consultancy Services, and Wipro
Technologies, spend a lot of time and energy time stealing each
other's employees--and that's quickly driving up salaries" and
"'There's a lot of employee turnover [in India], and we weren't
interested in that,' says Martin Mellon, director of development at
applications vendor ASG Software Solutions. The company
chose Northern Ireland over India for its offshore development
work."
--------------------------------------------------
1. Subject: "Satisfaction Wanes for Offshoring"
On page 2 of the print issue of Processor.com for
June 17, 2005, volume 27, number 24:
"According to consulting firm DiamondCluster
International, the number of buyers satisfied with the
providers of their offshore outsourcing has fallen
from 79% to 62%. The firm's annual survey of IT
outsourcing also revealed that 51% of buyers are
terminating their outsourcing relationships earlier
than scheduled."
>
Old Pif
>
> So, this is the real reason why the Indian students get so restless
> and psyched out in the streets of Australian cities. They are under
> pressure of financial ruin (so unknown to them before). They get to
> their usual tactic: to stage protests in the streets of Australian
> cities, with the expectation that the Australian government would do
> something about it. They feel that the Australian government broke the
> unspoken contract: the young Indians bring money into Australian
> economy, and the Australian government gives them an opportunity to
> earn those money afterward. Well, what do they expect from the
> government now -- The Australian government will create the fake jobs
> and hire the Indians into them, so that they could repay their
> loans ??
>
Interesting story you are telling us here. It reminds me the situation
with Arabs in Europe and with illegals in the US. It is hard to
believe but each time immigration reform is on agenda there are street
protests organized by illegal immigrants to introduce the favorable
changes. The Arabs are especially funny, nobody even understand what
they are up to. That is they throw the bombs but why? They enjoy
complete freedom to spend the whole day in mosque and still it is not
enough.
Michael Coburn
> In article <hi5hj...@news6.newsguy.com>, Michael Coburn says...
>
>>The solution to this problem lies in import duties and immigration
>>control.
>
> and if other countries return the favor to USA, then ??? By putting
> duties on american products or other similar mechanism. So all those
> billion dollar sales would vaporise for companies like Cisco, Oracle,
> HP, Microsoft.
OK, Monkey: There is no such thing as "vaporize". Based on the trade
deficits, the US middle class would be a winner in a moderate trade war.
If each nation were to tax all cross border trade at 6% the USA would
benefit and the counties with which we have a trade deficit would be the
benefactors.
>>That is, in fact, a "rent seeking" methodology characterized as
>>"mercantilism". Yet it is the only viable way to protect the life style
>>and affluence of the American middle class. And even so, the American
>>middle class will have to settle for a lower standard of living before
>>things can be turned around by technological innovation and further
>>_real_ capital development.
>
> American std of living has to go down because it is not matched by
> productivity.
<<<<< remaining false economics and stupidity deleted >>>>
If the United states has more usable natural resources than the other
nations and less people subsisting on those resources then the slices of
the American pie are simply bigger than the Indian/Chinese/UK slices.
This is an absolute advantage for the American people as a whole and it
will be an advantage so long as we keep our technological advance ahead
of increasing population while maintaining a rational distribution of
benefits.
But we have allowed this absolute advantage to be sacrificed by the
financiers of the USA using dollar hegemony. It is fair to say that the
political power of the financiers has been employed to cheat the American
people as well as the people outside the nation. What they have managed
to do is to increase the EFFECTIVE US population while skewing the
distribution and thwarting technological advance. The result of these
actions has been a growing gap in wealth between the American producers
and the American financiers/owners.
It is the position of the American financier that their employment of the
people of overpopulated sovereignties at low wages has been to the
benefit of those employed in that these individuals would have otherwise
been even more poor without the exploitation. That is financially true
in most cases. However, there is another position taken by the American
financier that is incorrect. And this is the position that the average
American has benefited from this low wage production. And although this
is true in the first order it is incorrect in the second. It is
incorrect because the consumer must first have something to trade or some
means to produce on his/her own or (s)he cannot consume. The berries on
the bush do not jump into the mouth of the consumer. There must first be
a bush that is accessible and the consumer must harvest the berries in
order to consume them. In the case of the American people there are a
lot less bushes per person due to the EFFECTIVE increase in the
population.
The solution to this problem is to reduce the EFFECTIVE US population by
closing the borders. Limited immigration and the assessment of import
duties will accomplish that task.
I do not feel compelled to rescue the over active libido of the Hindus,
the Catholics, or the Mormons. I am a great believer in the basic truths
of Malthus. If you want a better life then stop having so many babies.
Old Pif
>
> However, there is another position taken by the American
> financier that is incorrect. And this is the position that the average
> American has benefited from this low wage production. And although this
> is true in the first order it is incorrect in the second.
>
I don't think they - the financiers - have ever thought about the
benefits for an average person. All they care is their profits. The
society must develop some contra balance. I would not expect the
financiers voluntarily start thinking about people.
Me, ...again!
On Thu, 8 Jan 2010, Michael Coburn wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:45:44 -0800, indian wrote:
>
>> In article <hi5hj...@news6.newsguy.com>, Michael Coburn says...
>>
>>> The solution to this problem lies in import duties and immigration
>>> control.
>>
>> and if other countries return the favor to USA, then ??? By putting
>> duties on american products or other similar mechanism. So all those
>> billion dollar sales would vaporise for companies like Cisco, Oracle,
>> HP, Microsoft.
>
> OK, Monkey: There is no such thing as "vaporize". Based on the trade
> deficits, the US middle class would be a winner in a moderate trade war.
> If each nation were to tax all cross border trade at 6% the USA would
> benefit and the counties with which we have a trade deficit would be the
> benefactors.
>
>>> That is, in fact, a "rent seeking" methodology characterized as
>>> "mercantilism". Yet it is the only viable way to protect the life style
>>> and affluence of the American middle class. And even so, the American
>>> middle class will have to settle for a lower standard of living before
>>> things can be turned around by technological innovation and further
>>> _real_ capital development.
>>
>> American std of living has to go down because it is not matched by
>> productivity.
>
> <<<<< remaining false economics and stupidity deleted >>>>
Yeah, Kamal Prasad is another one with goofy-defective economics.
/////////////////////////////////////////
Me, ...again!
I agree.
kamal
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:45:44 -0800, indian wrote:
>
> >>The solution to this problem lies in import duties and immigration
> >>control.
>
> > and if other countries return the favor to USA, then ??? By putting
> > duties on american products or other similar mechanism. So all those
> > billion dollar sales would vaporise for companies like Cisco, Oracle,
> > HP, Microsoft.
>
> OK, Monkey: There is no such thing as "vaporize". Based on the trade
> deficits, the US middle class would be a winner in a moderate trade war.
> If each nation were to tax all cross border trade at 6% the USA would
> benefit and the counties with which we have a trade deficit would be the
> benefactors.
>
Do you realize that the reason why the US has a trade deficit with
numerous countries is because it borrows but cannot provide anything
in value? US dollars provided to exporters to the US is an instrument
of debt and not real wealth. Assuming the US govt implements your
suggestion tomorrow - do you believe it can propel you to prosperity?
If yes, every debtor would be rich and all lenders would be poor.
> >>That is, in fact, a "rent seeking" methodology characterized as
> >>"mercantilism". Yet it is the only viable way to protect the life style
> >>and affluence of the American middle class. And even so, the American
> >>middle class will have to settle for a lower standard of living before
> >>things can be turned around by technological innovation and further
> >>_real_ capital development.
>
> > American std of living has to go down because it is not matched by
> > productivity.
>
> <<<<< remaining false economics and stupidity deleted >>>>
>
> If the United states has more usable natural resources than the other
> nations and less people subsisting on those resources then the slices of
> the American pie are simply bigger than the Indian/Chinese/UK slices.
but if you are anyways living off your natural resources, then why
does the US have a trade deficit with so many countries and why is it
the world's biggest debtor? never mind the fact that US corporations
have earned a name for preying on other countries' natural resources
with the help of US armed forces.
> This is an absolute advantage for the American people as a whole and it
> will be an advantage so long as we keep our technological advance ahead
> of increasing population while maintaining a rational distribution of
> benefits.
>
if you do have a technological advantage, then why do american workers
piss at the sight of competition or why do you need skilled manpower
from other countries?
> But we have allowed this absolute advantage to be sacrificed by the
> financiers of the USA using dollar hegemony. It is fair to say that the
> political power of the financiers has been employed to cheat the American
> people as well as the people outside the nation. What they have managed
so to fix it, you need to opt for rationalizing your currency.
> to do is to increase the EFFECTIVE US population while skewing the
> distribution and thwarting technological advance. The result of these
> actions has been a growing gap in wealth between the American producers
> and the American financiers/owners.
>
yes -I would agree to the above.
> It is the position of the American financier that their employment of the
> people of overpopulated sovereignties at low wages has been to the
glad you realize that there are soverign countries outside the US -
which don't owe you an explanation on why they are so poor.
> benefit of those employed in that these individuals would have otherwise
> been even more poor without the exploitation. That is financially true
not necessarily. Mexico had a huge population of subsistence
agricultural workers before NAFTA was signed. After NAFTA was signed,
US agri-corps dumped agri-produce in mexico below sustainable wages
destroying the livelihood of mexican subsistence farmers. That left
them poorer and not richer.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0425-30.htm
> in most cases. However, there is another position taken by the American
> financier that is incorrect. And this is the position that the average
> American has benefited from this low wage production. And although this
agreed to this pt.
> is true in the first order it is incorrect in the second. It is
> incorrect because the consumer must first have something to trade or some
> means to produce on his/her own or (s)he cannot consume. The berries on
> the bush do not jump into the mouth of the consumer. There must first be
> a bush that is accessible and the consumer must harvest the berries in
or another way to look at it is that your productivity is not good
enough to finance your consumption. You need to reduce the gap between
productivity and consumption to fix the problem, and also to make it
financially viable to employers to hire you.
> order to consume them. In the case of the American people there are a
> lot less bushes per person due to the EFFECTIVE increase in the
> population.
>
but would you like to blame yourself or people in other countries for
that increase in population? If it isn't others, then maybe you need
to reconcile yourself to a lower std of living.
> The solution to this problem is to reduce the EFFECTIVE US population by
> closing the borders. Limited immigration and the assessment of import
> duties will accomplish that task.
>
You won't be able to close the borders coz your economy is heavily
dependent on captive labour. People pay taxes because the govt in
question renders some services to them. Since I do not take any
services from your govt, I am not required to pay taxes. Nobody will
want to pay taxes or run a business wherein they pay taxes to finance
your lifestyle. Shutting down a business is more rewarding than
running it at a loss.
> I do not feel compelled to rescue the over active libido of the Hindus,
> the Catholics, or the Mormons. I am a great believer in the basic truths
> of Malthus. If you want a better life then stop having so many babies.
>
you don't have to rescue anybody and don't owe anybody work permits/
jobs/student visas. What you need to do is to close down all forms of
immigration regardless of whether it benefits you or not -and instead
make the best of what you have. If corporations who finance job
creation with their own money want manpower not available in the US,
let them go to where the manpower is.
regards
-kamal
Michael Coburn
> On Jan 8, 6:39 am, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:45:44 -0800, indian wrote:
>> > In article <hi5hjv0...@news6.newsguy.com>, Michael Coburn says...
>>
>> >>The solution to this problem lies in import duties and immigration
>> >>control.
>>
>> > and if other countries return the favor to USA, then ??? By putting
>> > duties on american products or other similar mechanism. So all those
>> > billion dollar sales would vaporise for companies like Cisco, Oracle,
>> > HP, Microsoft.
>>
>> OK, Monkey: There is no such thing as "vaporize". Based on the trade
>> deficits, the US middle class would be a winner in a moderate trade
>> war. If each nation were to tax all cross border trade at 6% the USA
>> would benefit and the counties with which we have a trade deficit would
>> be the benefactors.
>>
>>
> Do you realize that the reason why the US has a trade deficit with
> numerous countries is because it borrows but cannot provide anything in
> value?
Why, yes... I am acutely aware of this. I wonder why people such as
yourself believe that they see things that the rest of us do not.
> US dollars provided to exporters to the US is an instrument of
> debt and not real wealth. Assuming the US govt implements your
> suggestion tomorrow - do you believe it can propel you to prosperity?
This is just as bad as the "vaporize" horse shit. What a simplistic ass
you are. My position is only that the average middle class American will
be better off with more tariffs than at present and less immigration than
at present. And in order to refute that statement it is necessary for the
opposition to create and extremist proposition. Penicillin is good for
an infection. But too much will kill you.
> If
> yes, every debtor would be rich and all lenders would be poor.
Moron.
>> >>That is, in fact, a "rent seeking" methodology characterized as
>> >>"mercantilism". Yet it is the only viable way to protect the life
>> >>style and affluence of the American middle class. And even so, the
>> >>American middle class will have to settle for a lower standard of
>> >>living before things can be turned around by technological innovation
>> >>and further _real_ capital development.
>>
>> > American std of living has to go down because it is not matched by
>> > productivity.
>>
>> <<<<< remaining false economics and stupidity deleted >>>>
>>
>> If the United states has more usable natural resources than the other
>> nations and less people subsisting on those resources then the slices
>> of the American pie are simply bigger than the Indian/Chinese/UK
>> slices.
>
> but if you are anyways living off your natural resources, then why does
> the US have a trade deficit with so many countries
You seem to want to change the subject, kamal. I am not claiming that
the USA currently lives off of its own resources. Never made any such
claim and don't now.
> and why is it the
> world's biggest debtor?
It is the world's greatest debtor because the financiers _OWN_ a very
large part of the notes witnessing that debt. Wealthy Americans own the
bulk of the T-Bills and the shares of stock. Not Chinese, and certainly
not Indians. And it really does not matter. All that matters is that the
common people of the United States (the producers) seem to be on the hook
for all that debt.
> never mind the fact that US corporations have
> earned a name for preying on other countries' natural resources with the
> help of US armed forces.
And you seem to be one of the many morons that believe that this thievery
somehow transmutes itself to the American middle class. You really need
to use your alleged mind. The middle class of America and India and
China are all being screwed. It seems, however, that only the American
middle class is aware of this because the other peoples are actually
better off than they would have been without the American hucksters.
>> This is an absolute advantage for the American people as a whole and it
>> will be an advantage so long as we keep our technological advance ahead
>> of increasing population while maintaining a rational distribution of
>> benefits.
>>
> if you do have a technological advantage, then why do american workers
> piss at the sight of competition or why do you need skilled manpower
> from other countries?
If you have not yet been able to grasp the reason for the resentment of
the American producer class then you are obviously way to stupid to be
having this conversation.
>> But we have allowed this absolute advantage to be sacrificed by the
>> financiers of the USA using dollar hegemony. It is fair to say that
>> the political power of the financiers has been employed to cheat the
>> American people as well as the people outside the nation. What they
>> have managed
>
> so to fix it, you need to opt for rationalizing your currency.
No, moron. The Chinese will not allow that to happen nor will the owners
of the T-Bills here in this country. They have us all by the balls and
they intend to keep it that way. Monetary economics is not the answer
because the American people do not comprehend monetary economics (and in
all probability you don't either). But they and you _can_ understand
limiting immigration and raising import tariffs. That is very direct and
to the point. Even a Republican can understand something that simple.
>> to do is to increase the EFFECTIVE US population while skewing the
>> distribution and thwarting technological advance. The result of these
>> actions has been a growing gap in wealth between the American producers
>> and the American financiers/owners.
>>
> yes -I would agree to the above.
>
>> It is the position of the American financier that their employment of
>> the people of overpopulated sovereignties at low wages has been to the
>
> glad you realize that there are soverign countries outside the US -
> which don't owe you an explanation on why they are so poor.
I don't want an explanation, kamal. I don't really care.
>> benefit of those employed in that these individuals would have
>> otherwise been even more poor without the exploitation. That is
>> financially true
>
> not necessarily. Mexico had a huge population of subsistence
> agricultural workers before NAFTA was signed. After NAFTA was signed,
> US agri-corps dumped agri-produce in mexico below sustainable wages
> destroying the livelihood of mexican subsistence farmers. That left them
> poorer and not richer.
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0425-30.htm
I am surprised that you could catch that. But I absolutely agree with
the fact that NAFTA harmed the subsistence farmers. Unfortunately, your
analysis as to why is incorrect. What happened is that consolidation and
mechanization reduced the amount of labor required and the peasant
farmers were left with no means to support themselves. The big boys got
more wealthy and the poor were left to starve. It is the way of
capitalism that when governments do not impose adequate safety nets. The
result is not very pretty. The God All Mighty Market will survive very
well and productivity will increase. But the common people just get
trickled on.
>> in most cases. However, there is another position taken by the
>> American financier that is incorrect. And this is the position that
>> the average American has benefited from this low wage production. And
>> although this
>
> agreed to this pt.
>
>> is true in the first order it is incorrect in the second. It is
>> incorrect because the consumer must first have something to trade or
>> some means to produce on his/her own or (s)he cannot consume. The
>> berries on the bush do not jump into the mouth of the consumer. There
>> must first be a bush that is accessible and the consumer must harvest
>> the berries in
>
> or another way to look at it is that your productivity is not good
> enough to finance your consumption.
No, liar. That is incorrect. My productivity is not enough to finance
_YOUR_ consumption and the consumption of the glutinous financiers while
providing me the life style that I had before.
> You need to reduce the gap between
> productivity and consumption to fix the problem, and also to make it
> financially viable to employers to hire you.
No, idiot. What I need to do is shoot the sons a bitches that import
cheap labor to work the natural resources that are mine by birthright.
Go back to the Mexican subsistence farmers. The land was theirs by
birthright because there can be no rightful ownership of the natural
resources such as land. Each family was productive enough to provide
for the needs of the family. Then came the financier that consolidated
the means of production and the previously sustainable situation was
rendered unsustainable due to the greed of the financier. Had the
productivity gains been shared then the common people would truly have
been better off. But that was not the case.
Here in the USA we have a different problem. Instead of importing or
developing machinery and improving technology, the rich have found they
are better off importing brown skinned robots. The robots are _free_ as
regards the purchase price and the the maintenance is quite low. And
when they wear out the rich just send them back to the factory and they
send out a new one, again free of charge.
In the USA we do not subsistence farm, and the means of production are
not limited to the land. Yet the same scenario plays out here and in
India and everywhere else. The distribution of _produced_ wealth is out
of whack and too much of that wealth is going to the owners/financiers
and not enough to the producers. And this is true on a global scale.
Not just in this country, but in all countries and across all countries.
We, the middle class, cannot fight this war on a global scale. Each
country must tend to its own and we must hold our "leaders" accountable
to _US_ in our own respective countries. We the people of the USA cannot
control the lands and the moralities (it means of manner and custom) of
the people of other sovereignties.
>
>> order to consume them. In the case of the American people there are a
>> lot less bushes per person due to the EFFECTIVE increase in the
>> population.
>>
> but would you like to blame yourself or people in other countries for
> that increase in population? If it isn't others, then maybe you need to
> reconcile yourself to a lower std of living.
We in America _DO_ need to reconcile ourselves to a lower standard of
living in the near term. But we do not need to share our resources with
you, kamal. We did not create your population problems, nor the
population problems of China or Mexico.
>> The solution to this problem is to reduce the EFFECTIVE US population
>> by closing the borders. Limited immigration and the assessment of
>> import duties will accomplish that task.
>>
> You won't be able to close the borders coz your economy is heavily
> dependent on captive labour.
YOU WILL NOT TELL ME WHAT I CAN DO, kamal. An engineer you may be. But I
am a free US citizen and this is MY country and not yours.
> People pay taxes because the govt in
> question renders some services to them. Since I do not take any services
> from your govt, I am not required to pay taxes. Nobody will want to pay
> taxes or run a business wherein they pay taxes to finance your
> lifestyle. Shutting down a business is more rewarding than running it at
> a loss.
If it is up to me kamal I will collect the taxes as I import stuff from
your country. And if you come here you will also pay taxes; that is if
you can immigrate in the first place. And if you are already here,
kamal, then where can I go to throw flowers as you sail away to India?
And when you try to send me some software or a new computer, kamal, you
will see a very large import duty on it. Your overpopulation serves the
US financiers and you, kamal. That overpopulation and poverty DOES NOT
SERVE me. We in America still have plenty of land and water and clean
air and we actually have a pretty well educated populous. We do not need
_you_.
>> I do not feel compelled to rescue the over active libido of the Hindus,
>> the Catholics, or the Mormons. I am a great believer in the basic
>> truths of Malthus. If you want a better life then stop having so many
>> babies.
>>
> you don't have to rescue anybody and don't owe anybody work permits/
> jobs/student visas. What you need to do is to close down all forms of
> immigration regardless of whether it benefits you or not -and instead
> make the best of what you have. If corporations who finance job creation
> with their own money want manpower not available in the US, let them go
> to where the manpower is.
>
> regards
> -kamal
We AGREE on this, kamal. I do not want you in my country and when Mr.
Financier sets up shop in your country I will expect to extract a very
large tax as he tries to import that which he has financed. Now IF you
people develop your own brand names and sell products in my country
without lining the pockets of the American financiers and causing a large
wealth gap between the Wall Street Weasels and the common people of
America then we might again be on speaking terms. Yet you will still
need to pay for the protection of copyrights and trade names and the
protection against pirates and slavers and the like. You will still have
to pay a small import duty to pay for the worldwide policeman. No more
free riding, kamal.
ind...@india.com
>OK, Monkey: There is no such thing as "vaporize". Based on the trade
>deficits, the US middle class would be a winner in a moderate trade war.
>If each nation were to tax all cross border trade at 6% the USA would
>benefit and the counties with which we have a trade deficit would be the
>benefactors.
hey white elephant, what is your credential.
Funny how every asshole trailer trash gives so much profound
wisdom about economy and what the govt should do.
Me, ...again!
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, kamal wrote:
> On Jan 8, 6:39 am, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:45:44 -0800, indian wrote:
>>> In article <hi5hjv0...@news6.newsguy.com>, Michael Coburn says...
>>
>>>> The solution to this problem lies in import duties and immigration
>>>> control.
>>
>>> and if other countries return the favor to USA, then ??? By putting
>>> duties on american products or other similar mechanism. So all those
>>> billion dollar sales would vaporise for companies like Cisco, Oracle,
>>> HP, Microsoft.
>>
>> OK, Monkey: There is no such thing as "vaporize". Based on the trade
>> deficits, the US middle class would be a winner in a moderate trade war.
>> If each nation were to tax all cross border trade at 6% the USA would
>> benefit and the counties with which we have a trade deficit would be the
>> benefactors.
>>
>
> Do you realize that the reason why the US has a trade deficit with
> numerous countries is because it borrows but cannot provide anything
> in value?
Do you realize that the trade deficit is a partly defective meansure?
I can tell that you really do NOT understand this. For example, US
entities/corporations own some 40% of the factories in China. All of that
output is under US corporation control. However, all of that output is
written down as "Made in China" and it counts AGAINST our trade deficit,
and not in FAVOR of our trade deficit.
And, you also fail to look this up on the internet: the USA is still the
largest exporter in the world.
So, your lies just keep piling up.
US dollars provided to exporters to the US is an instrument
> of debt and not real wealth.
You are still mistaken since all countries operate with paper/printed
money which you still refuse to learn is all fungible currency, accepted
by everyone.
Assuming the US govt implements your
> suggestion tomorrow - do you believe it can propel you to prosperity?
> If yes, every debtor would be rich and all lenders would be poor.
On top of that, the USD is still considered the most stable currency in
the most stable country in the world.
These are just some of the reasons that most of what you say is just
untrue anti-US propaganda.
//////////////////////////////
Me, ...again!
You should thank him for his interpretation. You, on the other hand, have
been nothing but unhelpful (not to mention being a racist-bigotted
Indian).
>
Me, ...again!
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Michael Coburn wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 22:30:29 -0800, kamal wrote:
>
>> On Jan 8, 6:39 am, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, Monkey: There is no such thing as "vaporize". Based on the trade
>>> deficits, the US middle class would be a winner in a moderate trade
>>> war. If each nation were to tax all cross border trade at 6% the USA
>>> would benefit and the counties with which we have a trade deficit would
>>> be the benefactors.
>>>
>>>
>> Do you realize that the reason why the US has a trade deficit with
>> numerous countries is because it borrows but cannot provide anything in
>> value?
>
> Why, yes... I am acutely aware of this. I wonder why people such as
> yourself believe that they see things that the rest of us do not.
Michael, you should be aware that a large part of the trade deficit is
also due to Chinese manipulation of their currency. If the Chinese make
their currency cheap, and the USD is expensive (this is true), then
exports from the USA are too expensive for Chinese people to buy, and
Chinese exports (to the USA) are too cheap for balanced trade to take
place. China greatly devalued its currency, twice, in the early 1990s.
And, I've seen data: their exports shot up greatly in the next 1-2 years.
The same is true for India. Back in 1960s, it was 4.5 Rupees to the USD,
then Indira Gandhi devalued to 7 Rupees to the USD and she knew what that
would do. Today, its even more devalued to 46 Rupees to the USD. Makes IT
work export to India very cheap.
THAT is where a large fraction of our trade deficit comes from. Not the
bullshit Kamal has been spouting off for years now.
////////////////////
ind...@india.com
>largest exporter in the world.
not since 2005!!!!
check here
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126272143898416853.html
Until Germany was largest exporter and now China.
Puts a big hole in your cheap currency theory. I bet majority
of US exports is in arms industry. No wonder US wants all others
to fight with each other.
kamal
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 22:30:29 -0800, kamal wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 6:39 am, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:45:44 -0800, indian wrote:
> >> > In article <hi5hjv0...@news6.newsguy.com>, Michael Coburn says...
>
> >> >>The solution to this problem lies in import duties and immigration
> >> >>control.
>
> >> > and if other countries return the favor to USA, then ??? By putting
> >> > duties on american products or other similar mechanism. So all those
> >> > billion dollar sales would vaporise for companies like Cisco, Oracle,
> >> > HP, Microsoft.
>
> >> OK, Monkey: There is no such thing as "vaporize". Based on the trade
> >> deficits, the US middle class would be a winner in a moderate trade
> >> war. If each nation were to tax all cross border trade at 6% the USA
> >> would benefit and the counties with which we have a trade deficit would
> >> be the benefactors.
>
> > Do you realize that the reason why the US has a trade deficit with
> > numerous countries is because it borrows but cannot provide anything in
> > value?
>
> Why, yes... I am acutely aware of this. I wonder why people such as
> yourself believe that they see things that the rest of us do not.
>
things I can see. They are fully convinced that the trade deficit is
because the world sells a lot to the US -getting valuable USA dollars
back and not providing anything in return for that favour.
> > US dollars provided to exporters to the US is an instrument of
> > debt and not real wealth. Assuming the US govt implements your
> > suggestion tomorrow - do you believe it can propel you to prosperity?
>
> This is just as bad as the "vaporize" horse shit. What a simplistic ass
> you are. My position is only that the average middle class American will
> be better off with more tariffs than at present and less immigration than
there is an arrangement in place whereby tariffs invite retaliatory
tariffs. For example W II imposed tariffs on chinese steel to protect
the jobs of workers in US steel companies and it invited retaliatory
tariffs because of which he backed off. What you are essentially
getting at is that you are better off without globalization than with
it. You need to tell that to your elected representatives so that they
can roill it back in -if they have the means to.
> at present. And in order to refute that statement it is necessary for the
> opposition to create and extremist proposition. Penicillin is good for
> an infection. But too much will kill you.
>
Might be possible -or at least will benefit you that natural resources
per capita will not come down. You need to arrive at a consensus and
inform your govt that you do not want more people coming into your
country regardless of whom it benefits and to what extent. You wont be
able to cherry pick because different people benefit different sets of
people with their presence to varying extents.
> > If
> > yes, every debtor would be rich and all lenders would be poor.
>
> Moron.
>
> >> >>That is, in fact, a "rent seeking" methodology characterized as
> >> >>"mercantilism". Yet it is the only viable way to protect the life
> >> >>style and affluence of the American middle class. And even so, the
> >> >>American middle class will have to settle for a lower standard of
> >> >>living before things can be turned around by technological innovation
> >> >>and further _real_ capital development.
>
> >> > American std of living has to go down because it is not matched by
> >> > productivity.
>
> >> <<<<< remaining false economics and stupidity deleted >>>>
>
> >> If the United states has more usable natural resources than the other
> >> nations and less people subsisting on those resources then the slices
> >> of the American pie are simply bigger than the Indian/Chinese/UK
> >> slices.
>
> > but if you are anyways living off your natural resources, then why does
> > the US have a trade deficit with so many countries
>
> You seem to want to change the subject, kamal. I am not claiming that
> the USA currently lives off of its own resources. Never made any such
> claim and don't now.
>
isn't that what this statement means?
> >> of the American pie are simply bigger than the Indian/Chinese/UK
> >> slices.
> > and why is it the
> > world's biggest debtor?
>
> It is the world's greatest debtor because the financiers _OWN_ a very
> large part of the notes witnessing that debt. Wealthy Americans own the
> bulk of the T-Bills and the shares of stock. Not Chinese, and certainly
people are americans only by their citizenship. the debt still needs
to be repaid and attracts interest which the taxpayer needs to
service. debt you might owe to a loan shark on your country is also
debt and attracts interest whether you like it or not.
> not Indians. And it really does not matter. All that matters is that the
> common people of the United States (the producers) seem to be on the hook
> for all that debt.
>
yes -debt does need to be financed by taxpayers.
> > never mind the fact that US corporations have
> > earned a name for preying on other countries' natural resources with the
> > help of US armed forces.
>
> And you seem to be one of the many morons that believe that this thievery
> somehow transmutes itself to the American middle class. You really need
I just said that if your country was truly rich and guaranteed to stay
that way, you wouldn't need to prey on other countries natural
resources. As regards theivery, it does benefit the american middle
class regardless of whether it happens with your consent or not. It is
cheaper to buy gas in your own country than in oil producing countries
and it benefits this country's working class. That explains why W II
made a statement "we need to kick our addiction for mid-east oil so as
not to venture into unstable parts of the world". he meant that if it
wasn't for your appetite -the US army wouldn't have been in Iraq in
the first place. They went just to get what the voting population
asked for.
> to use your alleged mind. The middle class of America and India and
> China are all being screwed. It seems, however, that only the American
> middle class is aware of this because the other peoples are actually
> better off than they would have been without the American hucksters.
>
In some ways -yes.
> >> This is an absolute advantage for the American people as a whole and it
> >> will be an advantage so long as we keep our technological advance ahead
> >> of increasing population while maintaining a rational distribution of
> >> benefits.
>
> > if you do have a technological advantage, then why do american workers
> > piss at the sight of competition or why do you need skilled manpower
> > from other countries?
>
> If you have not yet been able to grasp the reason for the resentment of
> the American producer class then you are obviously way to stupid to be
> having this conversation.
>
I know the reason why you resent -but what i am getting at is
disputing that your std of living can be financed by anything the
country does produce or any natural advantage that it possesses.
> >> But we have allowed this absolute advantage to be sacrificed by the
> >> financiers of the USA using dollar hegemony. It is fair to say that
> >> the political power of the financiers has been employed to cheat the
> >> American people as well as the people outside the nation. What they
> >> have managed
>
> > so to fix it, you need to opt for rationalizing your currency.
>
> No, moron. The Chinese will not allow that to happen nor will the owners
> of the T-Bills here in this country. They have us all by the balls and
yes -they do in a way. You need to be asking "do the rich owe their
prosperity to the producer class of the USA? if yes -why are they
ditching us and going elsewhere with their capital?"
> they intend to keep it that way. Monetary economics is not the answer
the chinese will be forced to let it happen and are diversifying their
funny money for gold (which incidentally they themselves are
producing). The rich in your country cxrtainly don't want to let that
happen -nor do foreign investors who have deposited money into this
safe haven.
> because the American people do not comprehend monetary economics (and in
> all probability you don't either). But they and you _can_ understand
I know it better than you would like me to.
> limiting immigration and raising import tariffs. That is very direct and
> to the point. Even a Republican can understand something that simple.
>
folksy wisdom doesn't work when implemented as a national policy. I
don;t dispute that your suggestion will improve things for you, but
it will make less sense to an economist than what i have written.
> >> to do is to increase the EFFECTIVE US population while skewing the
> >> distribution and thwarting technological advance. The result of these
> >> actions has been a growing gap in wealth between the American producers
> >> and the American financiers/owners.
>
> > yes -I would agree to the above.
>
> >> It is the position of the American financier that their employment of
> >> the people of overpopulated sovereignties at low wages has been to the
>
> > glad you realize that there are soverign countries outside the US -
> > which don't owe you an explanation on why they are so poor.
>
> I don't want an explanation, kamal. I don't really care.
>
I do care and so I mentioned (partly because old pif and art sowers
don't seem to get it).
> >> benefit of those employed in that these individuals would have
> >> otherwise been even more poor without the exploitation. That is
> >> financially true
>
> > not necessarily. Mexico had a huge population of subsistence
> > agricultural workers before NAFTA was signed. After NAFTA was signed,
> > US agri-corps dumped agri-produce in mexico below sustainable wages
> > destroying the livelihood of mexican subsistence farmers. That left them
> > poorer and not richer.
>
> >http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0425-30.htm
>
> I am surprised that you could catch that. But I absolutely agree with
I am surprised you take me for a fool :-).
> the fact that NAFTA harmed the subsistence farmers. Unfortunately, your
> analysis as to why is incorrect. What happened is that consolidation and
> mechanization reduced the amount of labor required and the peasant
> farmers were left with no means to support themselves. The big boys got
> more wealthy and the poor were left to starve. It is the way of
No -the agri-corps did dumping (sell below cost price). No amount of
mechanisation could yield a produce below that of mexican farmers
because if it were possible, US would not have an H2 visa for
agricultural workers to come to the US and reduce their costs. Note
that produce dumped into mexico was produced in the US which has a
cost of production higher than mexico and most 3rd world countries.
here is another link;-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
> capitalism that when governments do not impose adequate safety nets. The
You are mis-understanding something here. You cannot complain to US
govt because it is itself party to the act of dumping. US politicians
forced mexico to accept NAFTA and helped agri-corps to dump and
consequently destroy the livelihood of subsistence farmers so that
they can be forced to immigrate to a land with no rights and
corporations/business owners can prey them with the help of govt
machinery. Complaining to US govt is like complaining to them about
theft of oil from Iraq.
> result is not very pretty. The God All Mighty Market will survive very
> well and productivity will increase. But the common people just get
> trickled on.
>
yes -trade agreements are written/signed at the behest of
corporations.
> >> in most cases. However, there is another position taken by the
> >> American financier that is incorrect. And this is the position that
> >> the average American has benefited from this low wage production. And
> >> although this
>
> > agreed to this pt.
>
> >> is true in the first order it is incorrect in the second. It is
> >> incorrect because the consumer must first have something to trade or
> >> some means to produce on his/her own or (s)he cannot consume. The
> >> berries on the bush do not jump into the mouth of the consumer. There
> >> must first be a bush that is accessible and the consumer must harvest
> >> the berries in
>
> > or another way to look at it is that your productivity is not good
> > enough to finance your consumption.
>
> No, liar. That is incorrect. My productivity is not enough to finance
> _YOUR_ consumption and the consumption of the glutinous financiers while
> providing me the life style that I had before.
>
but I am NOT depending on your productivity for my consumption. The
financiers who provide the working class in the US with jobs will
provide the same only if it yields the best value for their money. If
you want financiers to invest for the sake of reducing their own
accumulated capital, I don't think they will agree to it. Ask yourself
-what rights do you have over their capital? if you do have some
rights over their capital -resolve your differences with them and not
with people in other countries.
> > You need to reduce the gap between
> > productivity and consumption to fix the problem, and also to make it
> > financially viable to employers to hire you.
>
> No, idiot. What I need to do is shoot the sons a bitches that import
> cheap labor to work the natural resources that are mine by birthright.
so what would you say for outsourcing of jobs? is it done with your
country's resources? if not, why give a damn about it?
> Go back to the Mexican subsistence farmers. The land was theirs by
> birthright because there can be no rightful ownership of the natural
> resources such as land. Each family was productive enough to provide
then how do you claim that you have rightful ownership over the land
in your country? IMO -ownership of land is as good as ownership of the
pacific ocean. You own it because your ancestors killed off the native
americans and stole their land. i cannot say that brown skinned robots
own it either -but only that they don't owe you anything for working
in your country. If you don't like them -just get legislation setup to
send them back or better not to invite them. Its very expensive for
people to sell their stuff when being deported esp if their salaries
are below wages of free working class americans.
> for the needs of the family. Then came the financier that consolidated
> the means of production and the previously sustainable situation was
> rendered unsustainable due to the greed of the financier. Had the
> productivity gains been shared then the common people would truly have
> been better off. But that was not the case.
>
The financier did not come to mexico to do farming. They just
destroyed the livelihood of the people there to increase the supply of
captive manpower in the USA. They cannot use nets the way they used to
in africa -because it happens to be a soverign country.
> Here in the USA we have a different problem. Instead of importing or
> developing machinery and improving technology, the rich have found they
> are better off importing brown skinned robots. The robots are _free_ as
> regards the purchase price and the the maintenance is quite low. And
> when they wear out the rich just send them back to the factory and they
> send out a new one, again free of charge.
>
yes. What you are describing is human trafficking.
> In the USA we do not subsistence farm, and the means of production are
> not limited to the land. Yet the same scenario plays out here and in
> India and everywhere else. The distribution of _produced_ wealth is out
> of whack and too much of that wealth is going to the owners/financiers
> and not enough to the producers. And this is true on a global scale.
> Not just in this country, but in all countries and across all countries.
>
kind of -yes.
> We, the middle class, cannot fight this war on a global scale. Each
> country must tend to its own and we must hold our "leaders" accountable
> to _US_ in our own respective countries. We the people of the USA cannot
> control the lands and the moralities (it means of manner and custom) of
> the people of other sovereignties.
>
>
>
> >> order to consume them. In the case of the American people there are a
> >> lot less bushes per person due to the EFFECTIVE increase in the
> >> population.
>
> > but would you like to blame yourself or people in other countries for
> > that increase in population? If it isn't others, then maybe you need to
> > reconcile yourself to a lower std of living.
>
> We in America _DO_ need to reconcile ourselves to a lower standard of
> living in the near term. But we do not need to share our resources with
> you, kamal. We did not create your population problems, nor the
> population problems of China or Mexico.
>
true that you did not create our population problems and no reason to
burden yourself with it. No disagreement about your right to close
doors to your country for others.
> >> The solution to this problem is to reduce the EFFECTIVE US population
> >> by closing the borders. Limited immigration and the assessment of
> >> import duties will accomplish that task.
>
> > You won't be able to close the borders coz your economy is heavily
> > dependent on captive labour.
>
> YOU WILL NOT TELL ME WHAT I CAN DO, kamal. An engineer you may be. But I
> am a free US citizen and this is MY country and not yours.
>
I am not telling you what you should do. Just telling you that your
country's economic model is designed to live off captive workers. But
for captive workers, the farm produce from your country (despite
whatever mechanised farming tools you use) will not be able to compete
with the produce from other 3rd world countries. It can only survive
if first you dump goods in the competitors country throwing their
system off gear -then raise prices to such an extent that captive
workers below min. wage and/or closer to mexican wages will produce
stuff to be sold internationally.
> > People pay taxes because the govt in
> > question renders some services to them. Since I do not take any services
> > from your govt, I am not required to pay taxes. Nobody will want to pay
> > taxes or run a business wherein they pay taxes to finance your
> > lifestyle. Shutting down a business is more rewarding than running it at
> > a loss.
>
> If it is up to me kamal I will collect the taxes as I import stuff from
> your country. And if you come here you will also pay taxes; that is if
> you can immigrate in the first place. And if you are already here,
I am not in your country nor want to be.
> kamal, then where can I go to throw flowers as you sail away to India?
you won't need to because I won't allow myself to get into a situation
where I can be either deported or held under threat of deportation.
Even the hispanic workers whom americans despise badly wouldn't have
wanted to come to US, get beaten up by law enforcement personnel or
forced into prostitution but for agri-businesses that ruined their
livelihood. Why do you suppose a middle-class person with a proper job
will want to get into trouble with you or your country;s law
enforcement personnel if he can live comfortably here?
> And when you try to send me some software or a new computer, kamal, you
> will see a very large import duty on it. Your overpopulation serves the
you need to get a better understanding of where sales of most hi-tech
companies go to get to that assertion. American hi-tech companies are
major sellers of hi-tech equipment in India and also in china. But for
emerging markets, most hi-tech companies would have been in a soup.
Even today, emerging markers are growing faster and providing more
jobs to US workers in hi-tech/semiconductor sector than vice-versa.
The only difference between the good old days and today is that now
you must compete for those jobs than take it for granted.
> US financiers and you, kamal. That overpopulation and poverty DOES NOT
> SERVE me. We in America still have plenty of land and water and clean
> air and we actually have a pretty well educated populous. We do not need
> _you_.
>
why don't you convince the rest of your country and get the doors to
immigration closed? I am looking forward to see that happen for
reasons different from what you have in mind.
> >> I do not feel compelled to rescue the over active libido of the Hindus,
> >> the Catholics, or the Mormons. I am a great believer in the basic
> >> truths of Malthus. If you want a better life then stop having so many
> >> babies.
>
> > you don't have to rescue anybody and don't owe anybody work permits/
> > jobs/student visas. What you need to do is to close down all forms of
> > immigration regardless of whether it benefits you or not -and instead
> > make the best of what you have. If corporations who finance job creation
> > with their own money want manpower not available in the US, let them go
> > to where the manpower is.
>
> > regards
> > -kamal
>
> We AGREE on this, kamal. I do not want you in my country and when Mr.
fine. No intent to incovenience you.
> Financier sets up shop in your country I will expect to extract a very
> large tax as he tries to import that which he has financed. Now IF you
what about all the items that we import -which finance jobs for people
in your country?
> people develop your own brand names and sell products in my country
> without lining the pockets of the American financiers and causing a large
they are just reaping the rwards of investing. If they don't take a
risk of investing in emerging markets, they cannoyt reap the rewards.
It boils down to whether their money is really theirs to use/spend/
invest or partly theirs and partly that of the american public.
> wealth gap between the Wall Street Weasels and the common people of
> America then we might again be on speaking terms. Yet you will still
> need to pay for the protection of copyrights and trade names and the
you mean patents filed by Indians too? You are actually discussing
things thinking I represent the whole country. i don't represent
anybody but myself here,
> protection against pirates and slavers and the like. You will still have
> to pay a small import duty to pay for the worldwide policeman. No more
> free riding, kamal.
>
Lets leave that for the govt here to decide.
regards
-kamal
Day Brown
charges the New World Order for security services. It has made the
global power elite an offer they cannot refuse- to either support the
dollar, or if not, then the troops will come home, and mobs, as they did
in Somalia, will start dragging the rich bastards out to be shot.
The USA imports skilled professionals because it is becoming the global
gated community, and will shut down the border because it has enuf
gardeners now.
The trade deficit is not nearly what it would be without agribusiness
providing such a large share of the global food supply, a point
apparently lost by the abundance of urban posters, but not on the power
elites who know if there is famine, they, and their investments, will be
no more than fertilizer. As the price of rice, corn, wheat, & soybeans
rises, the trade deficit falls.
Me, ...again!
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 ind...@india.com wrote:
> In article <Pine.BSF.4.61.10...@osmium.mv.net>, Me, ...again!
> says...
>>
>> And, you also fail to look this up on the internet: the USA is still the
>> largest exporter in the world.
>
> not since 2005!!!!
>
> check here
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126272143898416853.html
>
> Until Germany was largest exporter and now China.
That's not what I read in other sources. Sorry bub.
> Puts a big hole in your cheap currency theory.
Cheap currency made China wealthy in the last decade and it started a few
years before. I've been watching the data over all this time.
I bet majority
> of US exports is in arms industry.
No, its below commodities.
But, I'll also tell you that Russia, China, UK, France and/or Germany,
also export large amounts of arms and not that much different in level
than the USA.
No wonder US wants all others
> to fight with each other.
All those countries I listed above want to sell arms, and so they are all
"guilty" of fomenting wars (or at least not doing very much to prevent
them).
So, why don't you do a google search and prove to yourself that its not
just the US that exports arms (instead of--as usual--trying to ALWAYS
blame the USA [like Kamal does all the time] for all the world's
problems)?
>
ind...@india.com
>>
>> Until Germany was largest exporter and now China.
>
>That's not what I read in other sources. Sorry bub.
so why is your source any more credible than Wall St Journal.
Or have you started disliking WSJ now.
>Cheap currency made China wealthy in the last decade and it started a few
>years before. I've been watching the data over all this time.
not disputing it, but I am taking about your theory that in order
to export well, one must have cheap currency. So how does one
explain 2 out of top 3 exporters (USA and Germany) do not
have cheap currency.
Me, ...again!
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, kamal wrote:
> On Jan 8, 1:37 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 22:30:29 -0800, kamal wrote:
>>> On Jan 8, 6:39 am, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:45:44 -0800, indian wrote:
>>>>> In article <hi5hjv0...@news6.newsguy.com>, Michael Coburn says...
>>
>>>> OK, Monkey: There is no such thing as "vaporize". Based on the trade
>>>> deficits, the US middle class would be a winner in a moderate trade
>>>> war. If each nation were to tax all cross border trade at 6% the USA
>>>> would benefit and the counties with which we have a trade deficit would
>>>> be the benefactors.
>>
>>> Do you realize that the reason why the US has a trade deficit with
>>> numerous countries is because it borrows but cannot provide anything in
>>> value?
>>
>> Why, yes... I am acutely aware of this. I wonder why people such as
>> yourself believe that they see things that the rest of us do not.
>>
> looks like the rest of you esp art sowers and old pif -do not see the
> things I can see.
You are looking in your dreams.
They are fully convinced that the trade deficit is
> because the world sells a lot to the US -getting valuable USA dollars
> back and not providing anything in return for that favour.
Those valuable USD actually do get used to buy companies, land, and
resources as well as exported products and services.
>>> US dollars provided to exporters to the US is an instrument of
>>> debt and not real wealth. Assuming the US govt implements your
>>> suggestion tomorrow - do you believe it can propel you to prosperity?
>>
>> This is just as bad as the "vaporize" horse shit. What a simplistic ass
>> you are. My position is only that the average middle class American will
>> be better off with more tariffs than at present and less immigration than
>
> there is an arrangement in place whereby tariffs invite retaliatory
> tariffs. For example W II
OK, what is "W II"? You mean "Bush 2"?
imposed tariffs on chinese steel to protect
> the jobs of workers in US steel companies and it invited retaliatory
> tariffs because of which he backed off.
So far, you are still wrong since tariffs can't be put on without WTO
approval, and if they are, then the target country can appeal to WTO for
releif.
So, it still shows that you don't know what you are talking about (since
US and China are members of WTO).
What you are essentially
> getting at is that you are better off without globalization than with
> it.
Wrong. What I'm getting at is that globalization is a short term good
thing for US and a long term bad thing for the US because it sucks
industries and jobs out of the USA. For 3rd world countries, it is a
short term cheap payment and a long term great economy growth stimulator
all in terms of jobs, industries, and FDI.
You need to tell that to your elected representatives so that they
> can roill it back in -if they have the means to.
There is some effort along these lines, but lobbyists in our plutocracy
will fight it.
>> at present. And in order to refute that statement it is necessary for the
>> opposition to create and extremist proposition. Penicillin is good for
>> an infection. But too much will kill you.
>>
>
> Might be possible -or at least will benefit you that natural resources
> per capita will not come down. You need to arrive at a consensus and
> inform your govt that you do not want more people coming into your
> country regardless of whom it benefits and to what extent.
Public opinion is increasing against immigration.
Why don't you all recognize that Japan needs to import half of its food
and half of its energy.
>>>> of the American pie are simply bigger than the Indian/Chinese/UK
>>>> slices.
>
>>> and why is it the
>>> world's biggest debtor?
>>
>> It is the world's greatest debtor because the financiers _OWN_ a very
>> large part of the notes witnessing that debt. Wealthy Americans own the
>> bulk of the T-Bills and the shares of stock. Not Chinese, and certainly
>
> people are americans only by their citizenship.
You could call yourself an "American" if you came and gained citizenship,
but most people would call you by where you were born.
the debt still needs
> to be repaid and attracts interest which the taxpayer needs to
> service.
You keep forgetting personal debt and corporate debt. They are also large,
and they exist in every modern country.
debt you might owe to a loan shark on your country is also
> debt and attracts interest whether you like it or not.
Loan sharks prey on the poor. You can borrow money from many sources now
at 2-3%. Not too bad.
>> not Indians. And it really does not matter. All that matters is that the
>> common people of the United States (the producers) seem to be on the hook
>> for all that debt.
>>
> yes -debt does need to be financed by taxpayers.
No, debt needs to be "serviced" and individuals who have debt are the
payors, and corporations who have debt need to re-finance or take out of
net profits.
>>> never mind the fact that US corporations have
>>> earned a name for preying on other countries' natural resources with the
>>> help of US armed forces.
>>
>> And you seem to be one of the many morons that believe that this thievery
>> somehow transmutes itself to the American middle class. You really need
>
> I just said that if your country was truly rich and guaranteed to stay
> that way,
You think my country is NOT truly rich? How come we have the most cars per
capita? And, almost everything else?
I tried to explain to you what "net worth" means and you still don't
understand it.
you wouldn't need to prey on other countries natural
> resources.
Oh, this is the "US as imperialist" again. You seem to think that Iraq,
Afghanistan, etc., were not _threats_ to the USA in some way, or that for
you Indians, China/Pakistan/Taliban/alQueda/terrorists are not _threats_
to India (and Singh was over here begging for a sympathetic ear to India's
problems).
As regards theivery, it does benefit the american middle
> class regardless of whether it happens with your consent or not. It is
> cheaper to buy gas in your own country than in oil producing countries
> and it benefits this country's working class.
And, you think Europe, Japan, etc., are not benefitting by getting paid
pretty good USD for that petroleum?
That explains why W II
> made a statement "we need to kick our addiction for mid-east oil so as
> not to venture into unstable parts of the world". he meant that if it
> wasn't for your appetite -the US army wouldn't have been in Iraq in
> the first place.
US/Iraq wasn't even needed. There is so much oil in the world it isn't
funny.
They went just to get what the voting population
> asked for.
Wrong again. Iraq became an unpopular war since it dragged on and most
people did not detect the lie about WMD.
>
>> to use your alleged mind. The middle class of America and India and
>> China are all being screwed. It seems, however, that only the American
>> middle class is aware of this because the other peoples are actually
>> better off than they would have been without the American hucksters.
>>
> In some ways -yes.
Well, what is it, Kamal, is it or isn't it?
>>>> This is an absolute advantage for the American people as a whole and it
>>>> will be an advantage so long as we keep our technological advance ahead
>>>> of increasing population while maintaining a rational distribution of
>>>> benefits.
>>
>>> if you do have a technological advantage, then why do american workers
>>> piss at the sight of competition or why do you need skilled manpower
>>> from other countries?
>>
>> If you have not yet been able to grasp the reason for the resentment of
>> the American producer class then you are obviously way to stupid to be
>> having this conversation.
>>
> I know the reason why you resent -but what i am getting at is
> disputing that your std of living can be financed by anything the
> country does produce or any natural advantage that it possesses.
The exchange rates are controled by the markets, speculators, central
banks.... all of them. If the 3rd world did not have cheap currency, they
would all be sinking back to lower levels of standard of living for
themselves.
>>
>>> so to fix it, you need to opt for rationalizing your currency.
>>
>> No, moron. The Chinese will not allow that to happen nor will the owners
>> of the T-Bills here in this country. They have us all by the balls and
>
> yes -they do in a way. You need to be asking "do the rich owe their
> prosperity to the producer class of the USA?
You need to be asking why do underlings owe anything to the rich.
if yes -why are they
> ditching us and going elsewhere with their capital?"
Because the USD is strong and 3rd world currencies are cheap.
>> they intend to keep it that way. Monetary economics is not the answer
>
> the chinese will be forced to let it happen and are diversifying their
> funny money for gold (which incidentally they themselves are
> producing).
Gold is irrelevant.
The rich in your country cxrtainly don't want to let that
> happen -nor do foreign investors who have deposited money into this
> safe haven.
This I agree with.
>> because the American people do not comprehend monetary economics (and in
>> all probability you don't either). But they and you _can_ understand
>
> I know it better than you would like me to.
No, your knowledge of economics is defective. I've demonstrated for many
years that there are alternative explanations and interpretations for
almost anything you ever talked about.
>> limiting immigration and raising import tariffs. That is very direct and
>> to the point. Even a Republican can understand something that simple.
>>
> folksy wisdom doesn't work when implemented as a national policy. I
> don;t dispute that your suggestion will improve things for you, but
> it will make less sense to an economist than what i have written.
I'm sorry, you are wrong about that too because the answer you get from an
economist will depend on the economist you ask and what his favorite
schools of thought are.
>>>> the people of overpopulated sovereignties at low wages has been to the
>>
>>> glad you realize that there are soverign countries outside the US -
>>> which don't owe you an explanation on why they are so poor.
>>
>> I don't want an explanation, kamal. I don't really care.
>>
> I do care and so I mentioned (partly because old pif and art sowers
> don't seem to get it).
OK, why the bait and switch. You never want to acknowledge other countries
and their history when you badmouth the USA, but now you say there are
otehr sovereign countries. YOu can't have it both ways.
>>> agricultural workers before NAFTA was signed. After NAFTA was signed,
>>> US agri-corps dumped agri-produce in mexico below sustainable wages
>>> destroying the livelihood of mexican subsistence farmers. That left them
>>> poorer and not richer.
>>
>>> http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0425-30.htm
>>
>> I am surprised that you could catch that. But I absolutely agree with
>
> I am surprised you take me for a fool :-).
I'm not.
>> the fact that NAFTA harmed the subsistence farmers. Unfortunately, your
>> analysis as to why is incorrect. What happened is that consolidation and
>> mechanization reduced the amount of labor required and the peasant
>> farmers were left with no means to support themselves. The big boys got
>> more wealthy and the poor were left to starve. It is the way of
>
> No -the agri-corps did dumping (sell below cost price). No amount of
> mechanisation could yield a produce below that of mexican farmers
> because if it were possible, US would not have an H2 visa for
> agricultural workers to come to the US and reduce their costs.
No, the migrant workers were for harvests that can't be mechanized.
Note
> that produce dumped into mexico was produced in the US which has a
> cost of production higher than mexico and most 3rd world countries.
> here is another link;-
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
Another defective definition.
>> capitalism that when governments do not impose adequate safety nets. The
>
> You are mis-understanding something here. You cannot complain to US
> govt because it is itself party to the act of dumping. US politicians
> forced mexico to accept NAFTA and helped agri-corps to dump and
> consequently destroy the livelihood of subsistence farmers so that
> they can be forced to immigrate to a land with no rights and
> corporations/business owners can prey them with the help of govt
> machinery.
Nobody put a gun to their heads, and more than half come illegally.
Complaining to US govt is like complaining to them about
> theft of oil from Iraq.
Ahhh...again...here is the "Only the USA does bad things" mindset.
>> result is not very pretty. The God All Mighty Market will survive very
>> well and productivity will increase. But the common people just get
>> trickled on.
>>
> yes -trade agreements are written/signed at the behest of
> corporations.
Yes. So, it is NOT the US govt at fault, but the corporations.
>>>> berries on the bush do not jump into the mouth of the consumer. There
>>>> must first be a bush that is accessible and the consumer must harvest
>>>> the berries in
>>
>>> or another way to look at it is that your productivity is not good
>>> enough to finance your consumption.
>>
>> No, liar. That is incorrect. My productivity is not enough to finance
>> _YOUR_ consumption and the consumption of the glutinous financiers while
>> providing me the life style that I had before.
>>
>
> but I am NOT depending on your productivity for my consumption.
No, your job may have come from a job taken away from an American.
The
> financiers who provide the working class in the US with jobs will
> provide the same only if it yields the best value for their money.
Agreed.
If
> you want financiers to invest for the sake of reducing their own
> accumulated capital, I don't think they will agree to it.
This is why we have taxes.
Ask yourself
> -what rights do you have over their capital?
What makes you think they have no responsibilities to the sovereign govt
in the land they occupy?
if you do have some
> rights over their capital -resolve your differences with them and not
> with people in other countries.
Wrong if people in other countries are benefiting from detrimental
happenings to people in my country.
>>> You need to reduce the gap between
>>> productivity and consumption to fix the problem, and also to make it
>>> financially viable to employers to hire you.
>>
>> No, idiot. What I need to do is shoot the sons a bitches that import
>> cheap labor to work the natural resources that are mine by birthright.
>
> so what would you say for outsourcing of jobs?
Stop it.
is it done with your
> country's resources?
Yes, all kinds of corporate benefits from US, US govt, and US people.
if not, why give a damn about it?
>
>> Go back to the Mexican subsistence farmers. The land was theirs by
>> birthright because there can be no rightful ownership of the natural
>> resources such as land. Each family was productive enough to provide
>
> then how do you claim that you have rightful ownership over the land
> in your country? IMO -ownership of land is as good as ownership of the
> pacific ocean.
No, because ownership needs international law.
You own it because your ancestors killed off the native
> americans and stole their land.
This is misrepresentation of history since it was commone (according to
history) that all peoples engaged in conquest for the aquisition of power
and wealth. Conquors became the new owners.
i cannot say that brown skinned robots
> own it either
Ratan Tata can buy, and own (or lease), quite a bit of office space in the
US.
-but only that they don't owe you anything for working
> in your country.
Yeah, they should thank the US CEOs for their benefits.
If you don't like them -just get legislation setup to
> send them back or better not to invite them. Its very expensive for
> people to sell their stuff when being deported esp if their salaries
> are below wages of free working class americans.
Not if the Americans were laid off from better paying US jobs.
>
>> for the needs of the family. Then came the financier that consolidated
>> the means of production and the previously sustainable situation was
>> rendered unsustainable due to the greed of the financier. Had the
>> productivity gains been shared then the common people would truly have
>> been better off. But that was not the case.
>>
> The financier did not come to mexico to do farming.
Wipro, Infosys, Tata did not come to America to do Americans any favors.
They just
> destroyed the livelihood of the people there to increase the supply of
> captive manpower in the USA.
Wipro, etc., just destroyed the livelihood of Americans so they would
apply for floor jobs at Walmart and keep Walmart's labor expenses low.
They cannot use nets the way they used to
> in africa -because it happens to be a soverign country.
The nets are the physiological need for food, housing, clothes, etc., and
the only way to get money is with a job.
>> Here in the USA we have a different problem. Instead of importing or
>> developing machinery and improving technology, the rich have found they
>> are better off importing brown skinned robots. The robots are _free_ as
>> regards the purchase price and the the maintenance is quite low. And
>> when they wear out the rich just send them back to the factory and they
>> send out a new one, again free of charge.
>>
> yes. What you are describing is human trafficking.
All voluntary.
>> In the USA we do not subsistence farm, and the means of production are
>> not limited to the land. Yet the same scenario plays out here and in
>> India and everywhere else. The distribution of _produced_ wealth is out
>> of whack and too much of that wealth is going to the owners/financiers
>> and not enough to the producers. And this is true on a global scale.
>> Not just in this country, but in all countries and across all countries.
>>
> kind of -yes.
More or less.
>>
>>> but would you like to blame yourself or people in other countries for
>>> that increase in population? If it isn't others, then maybe you need to
>>> reconcile yourself to a lower std of living.
>>
>> We in America _DO_ need to reconcile ourselves to a lower standard of
>> living in the near term. But we do not need to share our resources with
>> you, kamal. We did not create your population problems, nor the
>> population problems of China or Mexico.
>>
>
> true that you did not create our population problems and no reason to
> burden yourself with it. No disagreement about your right to close
> doors to your country for others.
Good.
>
>>>> The solution to this problem is to reduce the EFFECTIVE US population
>>>> by closing the borders. Limited immigration and the assessment of
>>>> import duties will accomplish that task.
>>
>>> You won't be able to close the borders coz your economy is heavily
>>> dependent on captive labour.
>>
>> YOU WILL NOT TELL ME WHAT I CAN DO, kamal. An engineer you may be. But I
>> am a free US citizen and this is MY country and not yours.
>>
> I am not telling you what you should do. Just telling you that your
> country's economic model is designed to live off captive workers.
No, 3rd world economic models are all the same: make or do anything to
sell to the USA as cash cow since 3rd world can't generate jobs for its
own people. So, they all devalue their currencies.
But
> for captive workers, the farm produce from your country (despite
> whatever mechanised farming tools you use) will not be able to compete
> with the produce from other 3rd world countries.
You just told us above that _we_ destroyed farmers in Mexico.
It can only survive
> if first you dump goods in the competitors country throwing their
> system off gear -then raise prices to such an extent that captive
> workers below min. wage and/or closer to mexican wages will produce
> stuff to be sold internationally.
This is what China may do to us.
>>> People pay taxes because the govt in
>>> question renders some services to them. Since I do not take any services
>>> from your govt, I am not required to pay taxes. Nobody will want to pay
>>> taxes or run a business wherein they pay taxes to finance your
>>> lifestyle. Shutting down a business is more rewarding than running it at
>>> a loss.
>>
>> If it is up to me kamal I will collect the taxes as I import stuff from
>> your country. And if you come here you will also pay taxes; that is if
>> you can immigrate in the first place. And if you are already here,
>
> I am not in your country nor want to be.
I'm glad.
>> kamal, then where can I go to throw flowers as you sail away to India?
>
> you won't need to because I won't allow myself to get into a situation
> where I can be either deported or held under threat of deportation.
I'm glad. But you still badmouth sellectively the USA at every chance you
get.
> Even the hispanic workers whom americans despise badly wouldn't have
> wanted to come to US, get beaten up by law enforcement personnel or
> forced into prostitution but for agri-businesses that ruined their
> livelihood.
How come you don't acknowledge that most of them come by breaking our
laws?
Why do you suppose a middle-class person with a proper job
> will want to get into trouble with you or your country;s law
> enforcement personnel if he can live comfortably here?
Sentence makes no sense.
>> And when you try to send me some software or a new computer, kamal, you
>> will see a very large import duty on it. Your overpopulation serves the
>
> you need to get a better understanding of where sales of most hi-tech
> companies go to get to that assertion.
It might be wrong because of transfer pricing from where the stuff was
made.
American hi-tech companies are
> major sellers of hi-tech equipment in India and also in china.
You need to understand that the label on the equipment may have nothing to
do with where it was made or sold.
But for
> emerging markets, most hi-tech companies would have been in a soup.
It all depends on the specifics.
> Even today, emerging markers are growing faster
Yes.
and providing more
> jobs to US workers in hi-tech/semiconductor sector than vice-versa.
No, because the US jobs are being offshored.
> The only difference between the good old days and today is that now
> you must compete for those jobs than take it for granted.
The only difference...is...that today the offshore sites have cheap
currency.
>> US financiers and you, kamal. That overpopulation and poverty DOES NOT
>> SERVE me. We in America still have plenty of land and water and clean
>> air and we actually have a pretty well educated populous. We do not need
>> _you_.
>>
> why don't you convince the rest of your country and get the doors to
> immigration closed?
The caps are still there.
I am looking forward to see that happen for
> reasons different from what you have in mind.
Yeah, you wish the USA ill will.
>
>> We AGREE on this, kamal. I do not want you in my country and when Mr.
>
> fine. No intent to incovenience you.
Your inconvenience is all the bad propaganda you are spreading on the
internet.
>> Financier sets up shop in your country I will expect to extract a very
>> large tax as he tries to import that which he has financed. Now IF you
>
> what about all the items that we import -which finance jobs for people
> in your country?
You almost import nothing from the USA and its because US imports are too
expensive for Indian weak currency.
>> people develop your own brand names and sell products in my country
>> without lining the pockets of the American financiers and causing a large
>
> they are just reaping the rwards of investing. If they don't take a
> risk of investing in emerging markets, they cannoyt reap the rewards.
> It boils down to whether their money is really theirs to use/spend/
> invest or partly theirs and partly that of the american public.
Fine.
>
>> wealth gap between the Wall Street Weasels and the common people of
>> America then we might again be on speaking terms. Yet you will still
>> need to pay for the protection of copyrights and trade names and the
>
> you mean patents filed by Indians too? You are actually discussing
> things thinking I represent the whole country. i don't represent
> anybody but myself here,
Have you ever stolen any US IP, US software?
>> protection against pirates and slavers and the like. You will still have
>> to pay a small import duty to pay for the worldwide policeman. No more
>> free riding, kamal.
>>
> Lets leave that for the govt here to decide.
I hope my govt opens its eyes to Indian cheating....
===================
How India Cheats.....
Quotes of a letter to the editor, Wall Street Journal, July 17, 2007, page
A15:
title: "Brazil, India Walked Away From Superb Opportunity"
from part of second paragraph:
"In agriculture, the disparities in the current level of protection are
even more striking, but India has not been willing to reduce that
protection even modestly. The US average agricultural tariff is 12%, while
the global average is 62% and India's is a remarkable 114%."
Other parts of the letter dealt with Brazil, another holdout on the Doha
round of WTO talks.
Letter signed by
Peter F. Allgeier, US Ambassador to the WTO, Geneva
...................
Me, ...again!
OK, lets discuss this in more detail.....
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 ind...@india.com wrote:
>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126272143898416853.html
>>>
>>> Until Germany was largest exporter and now China.
>>
>> That's not what I read in other sources. Sorry bub.
First, here is your original post, unmodified by me:
**********************
From ind...@india.com Fri Jan 8 08:27:33 2010
In article <Pine.BSF.4.61.10...@osmium.mv.net>, Me, ...again!
says...
>
>And, you also fail to look this up on the internet: the USA is still the
>largest exporter in the world.
not since 2005!!!!
check here
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126272143898416853.html
Until Germany was largest exporter and now China.
Puts a big hole in your cheap currency theory. I bet majority
of US exports is in arms industry. No wonder US wants all others
to fight with each other.
********************************
First, you deleted lines that you should not have deleted and that forces
me to look up what you deleted.
Now, I also checked what you said, and I was wrong and you were right.
Here is my proof:
*********
JANUARY 6, 2010
China Dethrones Germany as Top Goods Exporter
------------
JOHN W. MILLER AND MARCUS WALKER
QUOTE OF FIRST THREE SENTENCES OF ARTICLE:
BRUSSELS -- China took over the mantle of the world's top merchandise
exporter from Germany in 2009, according to the latest figures, aided
by a global economic crisis that has taken a greater toll on other
trading powers.
China exported $957 billion of goods in the first 10 months of 2009,
compared with $917 billion for Germany, according to customs data
compiled by Global Trade Information Services, a Geneva-based firm.
No changes in November or December are expected to overturn the
Chinese lead, trade experts say. China is likely to publish trade
figures for the full year next week.
*********************************************
And, just for comparison I looked up "exports by country" and here is what
I found from two different sources:
************
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_exp-economy-exports
------------
Economy Statistics > Exports (most recent) by country
Rank Countries Amount Date
# 1 Germany: $1,354,000,000,000.00 2007
# 3 China: $1,220,000,000,000.00 2007
# 4 United States: $1,148,000,000,000.00 2007
# 5 Japan: $678,100,000,000.00 2007
# 6 France: $546,000,000,000.00 2007
==================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports
-------------
Rank Country Exports Date of information
— World (sum of all countries) $ 16,280,000,000,000 2008 est.
— European Union (minus internal trade) $ 1,952,000,000,000 2007
1 Germany $ 1,498,000,000,000 2008 est.
2 China $ 1,435,000,000,000 2008 est.
3 United States $ 1,291,000,000,000 2008 est.
4 Japan $ 746,500,000,000 2008 est.
5 France $ 601,900,000,000 2008 est.
=======================
**********************************
So, let me retract my statement that the USA is the largest exporter.
Certainly that changed a lot in the last 2-3 years. Would you accept that
maybe 3+ years ago that it _was_ true?
> so why is your source any more credible than Wall St Journal.
It was a common and easily found statement just a few years ago. I
certainly did not appreciate how significantly greater China's expansion
has been in the last 2-3 years in _absolute_ terms.
> Or have you started disliking WSJ now.
It all depends on what you read in any journal, or medium. Editorial,
Op-Ed pieces are much more likely to be full of propaganda. But, I looked
at your link, then checked two other URL links and I accept. I knew
Germany was a big goods exporter, and knew China was expanding like crazy
but now they are number one or very close to it (some of the data on the
links are not very recent).
The line reporter articles I feel are more balanced and complete so I
quote from them when I find something relevant.
>> Cheap currency made China wealthy in the last decade and it started a few
>> years before. I've been watching the data over all this time.
>
> not disputing it, but I am taking about your theory that in order
> to export well, one must have cheap currency.
See below....
So how does one
> explain 2 out of top 3 exporters (USA and Germany) do not
> have cheap currency.
There is substantial trade and business between USA and Germany, AND
between USA and Canada (we get a lot of oil and energy and wood from
Canada) and also to some degree with Japan and UK. These are all strong
currency countries. But, why don't you focus on the _GROWTH_ among the
cheap currency countries (eg. India, China, SE Asia)? These are all high
growth economies. I'm pretty sure that even Mexico (and many if not most
Latin American countries) are growing faster, percentage wise, than the
developed countries. Our trade deficit (last time I looked) with
Eur/UK/Canada was much less of a problem than it is with China. And, we
have a worse trade deficit with Japan, but that is because Japan actively
keeps out US products.
Why does it not make sense to you that all kinds of companies in the US
_must_ compete for earnings and if a hammer made in China costs $ 7 (last
time I looked a couple years ago) and a nicer hammer made in USA costs
$25-35 (last time I looked), then a guy needs a hammer, hes going to buy
the Chinese hammer? How do you think the Chinese hammer can sell for $7?
If the Chinese hammer maker has a lousey workplace and they pay him twenty
cents to make one hammer in 1/2 hour, and the US factory, with US wages,
and US benefits/healthplan/pension costs $35/hour, then the hammer made in
1/2 hour costs $17.50 to make, and the store has to have some $7 more for
markup.
So, all these US company executives tell themselves: "OK, if I want to
keep my cushy executive job, then I buy Chinese hammers and put my label on
them and shut my whole factory," or "I just invest $10 million in China to
build my own new factory and close my US factory" and sell "Made in China"
hammers with my company label on them?
And, you multiply this tidal wave of thinking all over the USA for the
last 10-15 years...and why is it hard for you to understand that if you
can buy a hell of a lot of anything in China for less money (i.e. cheap
currency), then people HERE are going to buy like mad from over THERE.
Now, you will not see hammers "Made in Germany (etc)" here for sale
because they will end up being about the same price plus transportation.
That is because Euros are closer to the same value as USD (and Canadian
D).
Now, also, you can find this fact easily in economic history books:
countries that devalue their currency do this to boost their exports and
inhibit imports. There is much European economic history on this. And,
countries fought this strategy with tariffs.
Now, I'll be patient with you if you will be patient with me.
Michael Coburn
My "credential" is the facts. One need not have a "credential" to know
that water is wet. It should be obvious to just about any person that if
all trades (imports to all countries) are taxed at 6% of value then the
nation that IMPORTS more than it EXPORTS will be net positive on the tax
flow. Some of the tax proceeds could simply be paid out as subsidies to
the exporters. Hint: Domestic enterprises win and foreign enterprises
lose.
And now that you have demonstrated how utterly stupid you are, perhaps
you will zip it.
Michael Coburn
> Points missed among the rants. The US debt and deficit is what it
> charges the New World Order for security services. It has made the
> global power elite an offer they cannot refuse- to either support the
> dollar, or if not, then the troops will come home, and mobs, as they did
> in Somalia, will start dragging the rich bastards out to be shot.
You need to stay out of this. I will get to this before it is all over.
But right now were are at econ 55. We will get to 101 on my next post.
And you are into 201. I indend to drag kamal into the real world though
he will kick and scream the whole way.
> The USA imports skilled professionals because it is becoming the global
> gated community, and will shut down the border because it has enuf
> gardeners now.
This you have very wrong. We do not need to import these people. They
can produce in their own countries just as well as they do here.
> The trade deficit is not nearly what it would be without agribusiness
> providing such a large share of the global food supply, a point
> apparently lost by the abundance of urban posters, but not on the power
> elites who know if there is famine, they, and their investments, will be
> no more than fertilizer. As the price of rice, corn, wheat, & soybeans
> rises, the trade deficit falls.
This is _NOT_ lost on me at all. Food production is the PRIMARY absolute
advantage of the USA.
kamal
> >>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126272143898416853.html
>
> >> Until Germany was largest exporter and now China.
>
> >That's not what I read in other sources. Sorry bub.
>
> so why is your source any more credible than Wall St Journal.
> Or have you started disliking WSJ now.
>
country's working class. The intent decides what he wants to write and
what theories/evidence he wants to manufacture.
> >Cheap currency made China wealthy in the last decade and it started a few
> >years before. I've been watching the data over all this time.
>
> not disputing it, but I am taking about your theory that in order
> to export well, one must have cheap currency. So how does one
> explain 2 out of top 3 exporters (USA and Germany) do not
> have cheap currency.
Actually, it just might be that cheap currency does make a difference.
I have a made in USA apple computer and a made in germany harman
kardon amplifier. I like both of them -but if you look at the insides
of either of these, you will realize that both were manufactured/
assembled outside the USA/Germany involving only design/layout of the
product in their countries. If they were to manufacture either of
these in germany/usa -the price will skyrocket and both companies will
have to sell their wares to local populace in their country only
(assuming they can generate those jobs) -about the way Henry Ford
achieved critical mass by selling his cars to hs own employees. So, it
boils down to whether you want free trade across countres or no.
Trying to ensure that goods sold by american companies are made by
ameicans only is not a bad aim -but it will have to be sold to
americans only coz the money to finance those purchases will come if
you also source some goods/services from the markets for these
exporters. It cannot be a 1 way street for sure.
regards
-kamal
Me, ...again!
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010, kamal wrote:
> On Jan 8, 4:33 pm, ind...@india.com wrote:
>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126272143898416853.html
>>
>>>> Until Germany was largest exporter and now China.
>>
>>> That's not what I read in other sources. Sorry bub.
>>
>> so why is your source any more credible than Wall St Journal.
>> Or have you started disliking WSJ now.
>>
> his only source is an intent to work towards the well-being of his
> country's working class. The intent decides what he wants to write and
> what theories/evidence he wants to manufacture.
Kamal's only intent, as it has been for the last 5-7 years, is to do
nothing but badmouth the USA and whites. Please show me where he ever said
anything nice about the USA.
Kamal thinks that the only valid interpretation of the world economy is
his own interpretation and that includes that US economic processes are
defective and he doesn't ever discuss any other countries defects in their
processes. Kamal is totally unaware that there is a lot of controversy
among economists and the "theory" you get from a given economist depends
more on the political preferences of that economist than any science in
economics.
>>> Cheap currency made China wealthy in the last decade and it started a few
>>> years before. I've been watching the data over all this time.
>>
>> not disputing it, but I am taking about your theory that in order
>> to export well, one must have cheap currency. So how does one
>> explain 2 out of top 3 exporters (USA and Germany) do not
>> have cheap currency.
>
> Actually, it just might be that cheap currency does make a difference.
> I have a made in USA apple computer and a made in germany harman
> kardon amplifier. I like both of them -but if you look at the insides
> of either of these, you will realize that both were manufactured/
> assembled outside the USA/Germany involving only design/layout of the
> product in their countries.
So, you made a mistake saying "made in USA apple computer" and "made in
germany harmon kardon amplifier" since you said after you looked inside
you saw that they were made outside USA/germany so either you saw a label
ou the outside that was a lie, or you saw a US or German label and assumed
it was made in USA or made in Germany. So, somewhere you had to see a
label which said "Made in X" where X is neither USA or Germany.
This is yet another example of your low quality thinking, followed by
careless authoring. Why don't you THINK about what you are writing before
you write. And, while you are at it, put capital letters where they belong
according to standard minimum acceptable limits.
If they were to manufacture either of
> these in germany/usa -the price will skyrocket and both companies will
> have to sell their wares to local populace in their country only
> (assuming they can generate those jobs) -about the way Henry Ford
> achieved critical mass by selling his cars to hs own employees. So, it
> boils down to whether you want free trade across countres or no.
There are many books on the "myth of free trade." You should do a google
search just to benefit yourself. I already know this detail.
What it boils down to is whether trade is ballanced to some degree, or
whether one side benefits unfairly.
> Trying to ensure that goods sold by american companies are made by
> ameicans only is not a bad aim -but it will have to be sold to
> americans only coz
^^^
You would do well to try to do a better job at spelling instead of using
gutter contractions like "coz" instead of the full word "because."
the money to finance those purchases will come if
> you also source some goods/services from the markets for these
> exporters.
All that was badly written. It makes no sense to me.
Old Pif
>
> I intend to drag kamal into the real world though he will kick and scream the whole way.
>
It is gonna be tough. The way Kamal conducts discussions is very
effective as far as dealing with reality is concerned.
The end is always the same and at this point already damn boring:
Americans can not afford "fountain of wealth" and, therefore, they
need to send all the jobs to India and those that, by their stupidity,
they decide to leave at home they must staff with Hind geniuses who
are in all aspect superior to anybody else on the face of this planet.
But the beginning is always inventive. To get away from the corner
where put himself he usually changes subject with a punch like: "In
your postings you always say that all cats are black whereas EVERYBODY
(meaning Hindu geniuses as all the others do not exist) knows for sure
that they are blue and because of that you can not afford you fountain
of wealth and ... " see above.
This pattern rises suspicion whether he is a human being. He might be
a product of Hindu software engineering exercise that mimic human-
human interaction. If so, the geniuses must work on further
improvement. They decided to use random number generator to pick up a
topic and connect the dots to the desired conclusion.