OT- What's wrong with Outsourcing
Sierraman
list is made public of companies sending (our) jobs oversees then maybe they
will re-think what this means to America. IE-(ours) (just as much ours as
anyone elses, but in my mind even more so)
SM
---------------------
In October, global outsourcing nearly flat-lined the hospital at the
University of California at San Francisco. To save money, the school had
been sending out thousands of patient medical records for transcription.
http://www.rescueamericanjobs.org/newsroom/internet/20031219_rherr.pdf
While outsourcing IT services could save a company money and human
resources, if not managed properly, it also could lead to expensive
mistakes, unmet expectations and even project failure.
"It's a very deep and wide pool of quicksand,"
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/netsys/article.php/2178081
What's Wrong With Downsizing, Privatization, and Outsourcing? I think the
reason is because they are often poorly managed, done for the wrong reason,
and with no thought for the human cost.
http://members.tripod.com/TheoLarch/privatization.htm
Outsourcing will bite in 2004, Sending jobs offshore will generate even more
angst next year...
http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020505,39118820,00.htm
I predict that the relentless focus on lowering costs through offshore
outsourcing will come back to haunt companies in 2004.
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/farber_2004_predictions2.html
Wichita Workers Rally to Save Jobs
On a cold, windy Saturday afternoon in Wichita, KS, over 500 people staged a
rally to save jobs from outsourcing. Workers at the Raytheon plant in
Wichita decided to organize the rally because of announcements of jobs
leaving for Mexico.
http://www.goiam.org/territories.asp?c=4189
The single strongest objection to outsourcing IT is concern for security.
For most businesses, particularly technology companies, lax security can
mean the death of both the company's product and its reputation. "You need
various layers of security," Kristofferson says, adding that "if there is an
attack on your system, you can see it coming in plenty of time before
there's penetration into the core layers." What this means to you: When
outsourcing security, perform thorough background checks of the IT
outsourcing company. Speak to current clients and sign an airtight SLA (see
below).
http://www.itworld.com/Man/2701/ITW0228outsourcing/
Outsourcing's Fatal Flaw
http://www.cio.com/archive/080101/cisco.html
The Perils of Offshore Outsourcing
http://www.talenteconomymag.com/include/article2.php?articleID=89
The case against outsourcing: read this before you consider outsourcing!
http://www.workinfo.com/free/Downloads/117.htm
Sierraman
stop lurking and address this issue instead of just leaving it to just NRF
and Bernie. I guess most of the admins who won't come forward and speak out
against (outsourcing) are afraid of losing their jobs. (Gutless)
Sm
"Sierraman" <rip...@sti.net> wrote in message
news:tOudndw8UYy...@sti.net...
Balin, Son of Fundin
cheaper elsewhere then good luck to them. I thought you Americans were all
for the free market and free enterprise? This Brit certainly is. You
saying that jobs should be protected by American companies for American
folks? Okay, maybe BP, Shell and Vodaphone which are Brit companies in the
US should fire all American employees and bring in Brits instead? That is
the economics of the madhouse. You seem happy enough to buy clothing,
electronics and other high quality goods from the Far East. These goods are
now available to people of modest means like us precisely because they are
not made in the highly unionised, highly paid West. The argument that we
are slave driving these people making those goods does not hold water -
they enjoy salaries that are vastly higher than others local to that area.
Stop whining and get a skill that employers want where you reside. If that,
unfortunately, rules out Cisco work then get another skill and retrain.
This has been happening in the UK now for years. Whether we like it or not
is immaterial - we either whine about it or do something positive about it.
My 2c - no offence.
Steve
"Sierraman" <rip...@sti.net> wrote in message
news:tOudndw8UYy...@sti.net...
Hansang Bae
> Ok all you Cisco and network admins out there, if you got any balls you will
> stop lurking and address this issue instead of just leaving it to just NRF
> and Bernie. I guess most of the admins who won't come forward and speak out
> against (outsourcing) are afraid of losing their jobs. (Gutless)
In an ideal world, every country would love to have a monopoly on
strategic business processes. But that won't ever happen. America is
the epitome of a capitalistic society. Sometimes, it's a borderline
oligarchy.
But at the same time, the all mighty $$$ does not have the final say.
Customer service etc. must come into play.
But saying that outsourcing is bad regardless of the situation is plain
stupid. Consider a company that can keep 10 jobs and outsource or go
out of business altogether. If you were part of that 10 people work
force, what would your opinion be?
Of course if no one outsourced, then the above owner wouldn't have to
make that decision. But again, that's naive thinking. The genie has
been out of the bottle for quite some time.
--
hsb
"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
********************************************************************
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
********************************************************************
nrf
"Sierraman" <rip...@sti.net> wrote in message
news:tOudndw8UYy...@sti.net...
> I stand by what I have said, outsourcing is bad for American.
You didn't think I was going to let this one go by, did you?
Eastern philosophy holds that you can turn an opponent's strength against
him. I don't want to be overly harsh, but what you cite as evidence not
only does not support your premise, but actually supports mine. Your
premise is, and always has been that outsourcing is bad for Americans.
This is a comprehensive and categorical statement that is not supported by
the facts you cite. Compare that to what my viewpoint is - which is that
outsourcing is sometimes appropriate (and sometimes not) and can be a valid
business tool when managed correctly. I simply cannot agree with the
blanket statement that outsourcing is always bad for all Americans. To
paraphrase from PT Barnum, it may be bad for some Americans all the time
(and these Americans should be aided with improved job training and
continuing education programs) and it may be bad for all Americans some of
the time, but it's not bad for all Americans all the time. See below.
>Maybe once the
> list is made public of companies sending (our) jobs oversees then maybe
they
> will re-think what this means to America. IE-(ours) (just as much ours as
> anyone elses, but in my mind even more so)
Once again, your gambit that jobs inherently belong to certain people. I
dealt with this issue before. The simple reality is that jobs are not owned
by anybody. Where does it say that a particular job is owned by an
American, or a Canadian, or an Indian, or anybody? Employment is a mutual
transaction between the employer and the employed. Either party can end the
transaction at any time. Just because you're employed today doesn't mean
that your company has to employ you tomorrow. And just because you work for
a company today doesn't obligate you to work for that company tomorrow.
Companies are free to eliminate jobs or give jobs to somebody else whenever
they want, and workers are allowed to quit and/or get a job at another
company whenever they want.
Let me give you a sports analogy. Kurt Warner is a Pro-bowl quarterback, a
2-time MVP and a Superbowl winner for the St. Louis Rams. But this year he
was demoted to second string and Marc Bulger took his place. Kurt Warner
accomplished a lot in the past, but that doesn't mean that he automatically
"owns" the starting QB job. Nobody owns that job. The Rams have the right
to decide who gets to be the starting QB. Just because Warner was great in
the past does not automatically mean he gets to be the starting quarterback
forever. Warner held the starting job only to the extent that the Rams
wanted to give it to him, and once the Rams decided that he was no longer
the right man for the job, they replaced him. Bulger is doing the exact
same job that Warner was doing - quarterbacking the Rams. Are you saying
this is somehow unacceptable and Warner should have been allowed to keep the
job forever?
>
> SM
>
> ---------------------
>
> In October, global outsourcing nearly flat-lined the hospital at the
> University of California at San Francisco. To save money, the school had
> been sending out thousands of patient medical records for transcription.
>
> http://www.rescueamericanjobs.org/newsroom/internet/20031219_rherr.pdf
Allright, let's consider this article. It includes the quote: "
How much does outsourcing really save companies? According to a November
2003 report by People 3, only 21.1 percent of companies surveyed reported a
cost savings of greater than 20 percent due to IT outsourcing, while 18.4
percent did not achieve any cost reductions, and 9.2 percent actually had an
increase in costs from outsourcing contracts.
Therefore this article concedes that more companies save money than lose
money. Does that mean that outsourcing always saves money? No, and I never
said that it did, nor did I say that saving money was the only reason to do
outsourcing. But even this article admits that outsourcing is good for some
companies sometimes Not all, but some. It's odd that this particular
article would attempt to argue things from the point of view of the
companies and then concede that outsourcing is actually good on the
aggregate (more companies saved money then lost money according to their own
figures) for those companies.
> While outsourcing IT services could save a company money and human
> resources, if not managed properly, it also could lead to expensive
> mistakes, unmet expectations and even project failure.
> "It's a very deep and wide pool of quicksand,"
>
> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/netsys/article.php/2178081
This article too, does not support your premise. The article agrees
up-front that outsourcing can save money. The article's main point is that
poor management of outsourcing is deleterious. But of course that is true.
Poor management is never a good thing. Poor management of your operations
processes will result in missed production targets. Poor financial
management will result in inefficient capital allocation and returns on
investment. Poor engineering will result in shoddy products. Poor
marketing will result in damaged branding and reduced market awareness. If
an outsourcing project is poorly managed, that's not an indictment against
outsourcing, but rather an indictment against poor management, and obviously
nobody supports poor management. In fact, the author of the article cites a
number of ways to improve the management of outsourcing projects.
I simply do not see how this article is relevant to your premise that
outsourcing is bad for Americans. It's a non-sequitur.
>
> What's Wrong With Downsizing, Privatization, and Outsourcing? I think the
> reason is because they are often poorly managed, done for the wrong
reason,
> and with no thought for the human cost.
>
> http://members.tripod.com/TheoLarch/privatization.htm
This article raises the same objection as the one above, which is that
outsourcing is often poorly managed. But again, that's not a problem with
outsourcing per se, but rather with poor management. I dealt with this
issue above.
But this article has another tack - it also cites "human costs", in the
sense people who lose jobs undergo pain. Indeed there is pain. But there
is also a confusion of issues here. You are attempting to link the specific
issue of outsourcing with the general topic of layoffs and downsizing. What
exactly is the difference between a guy who got laid off because the company
decided to send his job to India and another guy who just got laid off just
wanted to cut jobs? I don't see how the pain would be any different - if
you're laid off, then you're laid off.
The article quotes: "Studies have also shown that employees who are
retained also suffer: they have more health and emotional problems, and many
of them lose motivation and loyalty. Workers who saw the organization as a
family feel lost without their familiar networks. There was more fraud among
workers who survived downsizing, and increased distrust of
management...Those employees who have been left behind usually end up
working longer hours. For a while they may work harder because they are
scared of being laid off, but sooner or later they may wish they had been.
Some may even try to sabotage the company. "
This is a Cisco newsgroup, so let's use Cisco as an example. When Cisco
laid off 8500 people in 2001 they didn't outsource those jobs to India, they
just eliminated thos positions entirely. Would this not have caused the
very same emotional damage and stunted morale that this article cites? Did
surviving workers at Cisco feel lost after the layoffs? Yes. Did some of
them try to sabotage the company? I'm sure some did. But does that mean
that Cisco should not have laid those people off?
In short, are we talking about the specific issue of outsourcing or the
general issue of layoffs here? Do you have specific problems with
outsourcing or is this really part of a generic arc of being opposed to
layoffs? Are you saying that companies should never be allowed to lay
people off?
>
> Outsourcing will bite in 2004, Sending jobs offshore will generate even
more
> angst next year...
>
> http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020505,39118820,00.htm
>
> I predict that the relentless focus on lowering costs through offshore
> outsourcing will come back to haunt companies in 2004.
The article also states "For solving short-term issues or dealing with a
specific development project or customer service application, the
outsourcing route is a no-brainer, given the outsourcing partner can meet
predefined goals for the relationship. "
The article later cites problems with outsourcing certain things and so on.
But it is obviously true that outsourcing is no panacea. I never said that
outsourcing is good for all companies all the time. I said that outsourcing
is a business tool that can sometimes be valuable when managed properly.
The article concedes this point.
>
>
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/farber_2004_predictions2.html
This is the same article as the one above.
>
> Wichita Workers Rally to Save Jobs
>
> On a cold, windy Saturday afternoon in Wichita, KS, over 500 people staged
a
> rally to save jobs from outsourcing. Workers at the Raytheon plant in
> Wichita decided to organize the rally because of announcements of jobs
> leaving for Mexico.
>
>
>
> http://www.goiam.org/territories.asp?c=4189
This is protectionism in its rawest form. As I said before, you cannot
state that on the one hand, American companies must hire American workers
and on the other hand allow foreign companies like Nortel to also hire
American workers and pretend that fairness has anything to do with it.
There are indeed some losers in the outsourcing wars. I never denied it.
But that's a far cry from saying that all Americans become losers or that
outsourcing is bad for all Americans. The US has been losing agricultural
jobs for more than 150 years, and yet the US produces the most food by far
or any country on the planet. The US has been losing manufacturing jobs for
at least 40 years, and yet US manufacturing output is higher than it was
back then. Concurrent with all these job losses has been the inexorable
rise of US living standards.
The simple matter is that jobs are destroyed all the time, which is
obviously painful for the people whose jobs have been destroyed, but
necessary for the nation to advance. When the PC industry grew, it crushed
the typewriter industry, and thousands of workers in the typewriter industry
lost their jobs. Does that mean that the typewriter industry should have
been saved? It's economic folly to have workers produce a product like the
typewriter that the market no longer wants. When was the last time anybody
bought a typewriter? Or consider the garment industry. The fact is,
Americans want cheap clothes. I don't want to be pay a lot for a pair of
socks. If clothing is to be manufactured cheaply, it must be manufactured
overseas, which is unfortunate for those American textile and garment
factory workers, but hey, the American consumer wants cheap clothes and
that's the only way they're going to get them. Who here wants to pay $20
for a pair of socks?
>
> The single strongest objection to outsourcing IT is concern for security.
> For most businesses, particularly technology companies, lax security can
> mean the death of both the company's product and its reputation. "You need
> various layers of security," Kristofferson says, adding that "if there is
an
> attack on your system, you can see it coming in plenty of time before
> there's penetration into the core layers." What this means to you: When
> outsourcing security, perform thorough background checks of the IT
> outsourcing company. Speak to current clients and sign an airtight SLA
(see
> below).
> http://www.itworld.com/Man/2701/ITW0228outsourcing/
This article not only does not support your premise, it actually gives
several reasons why one should consider outsourcing. Consider the following
quotes within that article:
"Technology companies are beginning to use outsourcers to streamline
business processes."
" IT specialization is a business necessity. Because technology changes
literally on a daily basis, it is much easier for companies to outsource at
least part of their IT operations to a firm with IT expertise and economies
of scale. "
"By outsourcing IT operations, companies are able to take advantage of the
rapid deployment and flexibility offered by IT service providers. "
"The more complex the operation, the more cost-efficient outsourcing
becomes. "
"The never-ending quest for skilled IT workers lands on the doorstep of
outsourcing vendors. Many companies do not have the personnel, equipment, or
capital to support a full technology team"
The major objection that is cited, security, is fully dealt with and
encapsulated within that article. Does the article say that outsourcing
should stop because of security concerns? Far from it. It actually
provides methodologies on how to deal with these security concerns. For
example, it states the need for a security SLA and then spends the next 7
paragraphs talking about how to craft a proper security SLA. This article
not only does not show that outsourcing is bad for companies, it actually
shows how it is good for companies.
>
> Outsourcing's Fatal Flaw
>
> http://www.cio.com/archive/080101/cisco.html
This article is a complete non-sequitur, for it confuses 2 entirely
different animals - foreign outsourcing of IT (which is what I thought we
were talking about) and outsourcing of other business processes like
manufacturing, whether those processes are done in a foreign country or
domestic. This second animal actually gets into the issue of vertical
industries and core competencies. The article talks about how Cisco had
some problems with its business initiative of outsourcing manufacturing.
This has nothing to do with offshoring of IT jobs to other countries. Cisco
has outsourced manufacturing of its gear to manufacturing specialists, many
of them domestic. Therefore this is really a confusion of issues. In
particular, the outsourcing partner that is cited in the article is
Solectron, which is a US company.
The simple fact is that many many companies outsource their manufacturing
processes without incident. Coca-Cola doesn't actually manufacture soda.
The manufacturing processes are outsourced to either Coca-Cola Bottling,
which is an entirely separate and independent company. Coca-Cola
specializes in marketing. Coca-Cola Bottling specializes in the actual
production of cans, bottles of soda, and fountains for restaurants. And by
the way, neither one actually sells anything to the end consumer. I will bet
that nobody here has actually bought a can of Coke directly from Coca-Cola
or from Coca-Cola Bottling. Where do you buy your soda? From the
supermarket or from the restaurant, or perhaps from a vending machine (which
in turn are owned by vending-machine operating companies) Therefore the
retail operations are effectively outsourced to yet another party. Let the
specialists do what they are good at. Why should the marketing and branding
geniuses at Coca Cola have to worry about manufacturing and operations
processes? Why should the manufacturing experts at Coca-Cola Bottling have
to worry about marketing? Why should either one of them worry about the
issues specific to retail and distribution?
The same is true for hundreds of Silicon Valley semiconductor companies that
never actually manufacture anything. Those companies design chips and then
outsource the manufacturing to the large foundries like IBM. They've been
doing this for decades. Microsoft sells Windows and Office but does not
actually create the shrink-wrapped cardboard boxes with the MS CD's inside.
They outsource that to somebody else, for after all, Microsoft doesn't want
to be in charge of producing and shipping shrink-wrapped boxes. The list of
companies who outsource their manufacturing goes on and on. Are you saying
all these companies are wrong?
Now obviously that doesn't mean that I condone poorly managed outsourcing,
but that's a general theme I've been stating in this enture response. The
problem is not outsourcing per se, but poor management.
But what exactly does this article have to do with foreign IT outsourcing
being bad for Americans? First of all, like I said, this article has
nothing to do with foreign IT outsourcing, but rather outsourcing of
manufacturing. Second of all, Cisco outsourced its manufacturing to another
American company, Solectron. How is one American company outsourcing its
manufacturing to another American company bad for America as a whole? It
might be bad for Cisco and it might be bad for Cisco workers, but can you
really say it's bad for all Americans? Whatever jobs were "lost" at Cisco
were gained by Solectron and whatever was lost by Cisco in terms of
unnecessary production was gained by Solectron in terms of increased
contracts. Not only does this article have nothing to do with the central
point at hand, it doesn't even show that outsourcing in general is bad in
the aggregate.
>
> The Perils of Offshore Outsourcing
>
> http://www.talenteconomymag.com/include/article2.php?articleID=89
I couldn't open this article. Maybe there's something wrong with their
server.
>
> The case against outsourcing: read this before you consider outsourcing!
>
> http://www.workinfo.com/free/Downloads/117.htm
This article specifically deals with outsourcing HR. It does not talk
specifically about outsourcing IT, and it does not talk about outsourcing to
foreign countries (most HR outsourcing is done domestically), which I
thought was what we were talking about. Are you trying to make a blanket
indictment against all forms of outsourcing, including domestic outsourcing?
In particularly, I am extremely confused as to why you might think that
domestic outsourcing would be bad for America. Whatever jobs or whatever
damage might be done to a particular American company would be compensated
for by the increased jobs and increased business picked up by the American
companies who are providing the outsourcing companies. If one American
company loses 1000 jobs, but another American company gains those 1000 jobs,
how is that bad for America as a whole? Seems like a wash to me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
nrf
"Hansang Bae" <uo...@alp.ee.pbz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a60c548e...@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> In article <qI6dnQ0Gp5q...@sti.net>, rip...@sti.net says...
> > Ok all you Cisco and network admins out there, if you got any balls you
will
> > stop lurking and address this issue instead of just leaving it to just
NRF
> > and Bernie. I guess most of the admins who won't come forward and speak
out
> > against (outsourcing) are afraid of losing their jobs. (Gutless)
>
> In an ideal world, every country would love to have a monopoly on
> strategic business processes.
Even if you take that contention as a starting point of discussion, you
quickly come to realize that very few business functions and/or processes
are truly strategic. Many things that businesses do are necessary, but are
not strategic and are therefore ripe for outsourcing. Consider a simplistic
case - email systems. Every company has to run an email system, but very
very few companies would consider email to be strategic in the sense that
they would derive a permanent competitive advantage by running a better
email system than their competitors. The vast majority of companies just
need an email system that works, but beyond that they're not going to care
very much about it - and therefore email systems are necessary, but not
strategic. The same could be said of many many other functions and
processes. It obviously depends on the company, but most companies really
only have a few processes that are truly strategic in the sense that those
processes are where their long-term competitive advantage lies. Anything
that is not strategic is a candidate for outsourcing, whether foreign or
domestic. This is why companies outsource their janitorial service (not too
many companies deriving strategic advantage by having better janitors than
their competitors), their building maintenance, their food catering, and
whatever else is not strategic. Even HR, finance, legal-services,
manufacturing, distribution, and other staff functions can be deemed
non-strategic and thereby become candidates for outsourcing, depending on
what company we're talking about.
Bernie
>Ok all you Cisco and network admins out there, if you got any balls you will
>stop lurking and address this issue instead of just leaving it to just NRF
>and Bernie. I guess most of the admins who won't come forward and speak out
>against (outsourcing) are afraid of losing their jobs. (Gutless)
Why the blasting of people? Maybe they aren't coming out because most
don't agree with you. "Gutless" surely doesn't apply in a relatively
anonymous forum.
--Bernie
Bernie
<s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>There is nothing wrong with outsourcing. If businesses can get work done
>cheaper elsewhere then good luck to them. I thought you Americans were all
>for the free market and free enterprise? This Brit certainly is. You
>saying that jobs should be protected by American companies for American
>folks? Okay, maybe BP, Shell and Vodaphone which are Brit companies in the
>US should fire all American employees and bring in Brits instead? That is
>the economics of the madhouse. You seem happy enough to buy clothing,
>electronics and other high quality goods from the Far East. These goods are
>now available to people of modest means like us precisely because they are
>not made in the highly unionised, highly paid West. The argument that we
>are slave driving these people making those goods does not hold water -
>they enjoy salaries that are vastly higher than others local to that area.
>
>Stop whining and get a skill that employers want where you reside. If that,
>unfortunately, rules out Cisco work then get another skill and retrain.
>This has been happening in the UK now for years. Whether we like it or not
>is immaterial - we either whine about it or do something positive about it.
Exactly. And along the lines of clothing restrictions, economic
policies that control things like imports, exports, hiring, and firing
generally have very bad effects on the economy. Would you like to
live in Germany where the economic growth for the last decade has been
almost nothing. They have lots of great programs for protecting jobs
and employees from employers, ad nauseam. Most of those have had a
demonstrable adverse affect on their economy. But of course they are
popular with voters because of their feelings (which is why I
reiterate that feelings should have nothing to do with the issue).
--Bernie
Bernie
<snip>
>Let me give you a sports analogy. Kurt Warner is a Pro-bowl quarterback, a
>2-time MVP and a Superbowl winner for the St. Louis Rams. But this year he
>was demoted to second string and Marc Bulger took his place. Kurt Warner
>accomplished a lot in the past, but that doesn't mean that he automatically
>"owns" the starting QB job. Nobody owns that job. The Rams have the right
>to decide who gets to be the starting QB. Just because Warner was great in
>the past does not automatically mean he gets to be the starting quarterback
>forever. Warner held the starting job only to the extent that the Rams
>wanted to give it to him, and once the Rams decided that he was no longer
>the right man for the job, they replaced him. Bulger is doing the exact
>same job that Warner was doing - quarterbacking the Rams. Are you saying
>this is somehow unacceptable and Warner should have been allowed to keep the
>job forever?
Actually, I think a more appropriate analogy would be that Kurt
shouldn't have ever been allowed into the NFL in the first place
because the NFL should restrict any of the lower paid arena league
guys from taking NFL jobs from the higher paid career NFL guys <g>.
<snip>
>> http://members.tripod.com/TheoLarch/privatization.htm
>
>This article raises the same objection as the one above, which is that
>outsourcing is often poorly managed. But again, that's not a problem with
>outsourcing per se, but rather with poor management. I dealt with this
>issue above.
>
>But this article has another tack - it also cites "human costs", in the
>sense people who lose jobs undergo pain. Indeed there is pain. But there
>is also a confusion of issues here. You are attempting to link the specific
>issue of outsourcing with the general topic of layoffs and downsizing. What
>exactly is the difference between a guy who got laid off because the company
>decided to send his job to India and another guy who just got laid off just
>wanted to cut jobs? I don't see how the pain would be any different - if
>you're laid off, then you're laid off.
And I can vouch that people that get laid off just to get laid off are
extremely bitter about it.
>The article quotes: "Studies have also shown that employees who are
>retained also suffer: they have more health and emotional problems, and many
>of them lose motivation and loyalty. Workers who saw the organization as a
>family feel lost without their familiar networks. There was more fraud among
>workers who survived downsizing, and increased distrust of
>management...Those employees who have been left behind usually end up
>working longer hours. For a while they may work harder because they are
>scared of being laid off, but sooner or later they may wish they had been.
>Some may even try to sabotage the company. "
Yes, and this phenomenon is very well documented as it pertains to
just plain downsizing. I have experienced it myself. It is not
unlike war survivors syndrome (not to trivialize what vets go
through).
Maybe the feeling of betrayal by the company is slightly higher for
outsourcing survivors, but in the end, feeling betrayed is feeling
betrayed.
>This is a Cisco newsgroup, so let's use Cisco as an example. When Cisco
>laid off 8500 people in 2001 they didn't outsource those jobs to India, they
>just eliminated thos positions entirely. Would this not have caused the
>very same emotional damage and stunted morale that this article cites? Did
>surviving workers at Cisco feel lost after the layoffs? Yes. Did some of
>them try to sabotage the company? I'm sure some did. But does that mean
>that Cisco should not have laid those people off?
And to reiterate Hansang's point, would those who survived have
preferred that 8500 people be kept and the entire company go under
after a couple of years, resulting in a job loss of 35,000 (I don't
remember the exact employment number from back then). As bad as it
gets with downsizing, you always recognize that it is better than the
alternative, i.e. the whole ship sinking.
>In short, are we talking about the specific issue of outsourcing or the
>general issue of layoffs here? Do you have specific problems with
>outsourcing or is this really part of a generic arc of being opposed to
>layoffs? Are you saying that companies should never be allowed to lay
>people off?
<snip>
--Bernie
John Agosta
"Bernie" <Ber...@weekend.com> wrote in message
news:sb9evv4oq81abjaui...@4ax.com...
I don't know about "always better than the alternative,"
because downsizing is not 'always' an act of survival.
There have been instances where major layoffs have occurred after
very large, even record profits have been realized - perhaps to make
the books look better so that merger/acquisition goes through.
Ameritech is guitly of such behavior, and there are
other companies out there who have played this game as well.
People can be civic minded, selfish, charitable, greedy, etc etc etc,
and remember that it's people who run these shows.
So you're gonna see all sorts of behavior at corporate levels
as well as individual levels.
nrf
> >This is a Cisco newsgroup, so let's use Cisco as an example. When Cisco
> >laid off 8500 people in 2001 they didn't outsource those jobs to India,
they
> >just eliminated thos positions entirely. Would this not have caused the
> >very same emotional damage and stunted morale that this article cites?
Did
> >surviving workers at Cisco feel lost after the layoffs? Yes. Did some
of
> >them try to sabotage the company? I'm sure some did. But does that mean
> >that Cisco should not have laid those people off?
>
> And to reiterate Hansang's point, would those who survived have
> preferred that 8500 people be kept and the entire company go under
> after a couple of years, resulting in a job loss of 35,000 (I don't
> remember the exact employment number from back then). As bad as it
> gets with downsizing, you always recognize that it is better than the
> alternative, i.e. the whole ship sinking.
Actually, I don't think hsb's analogy fits well here, as I don't think
anybody seriously believed that Cisco was under any real threat of
bankruptcy back then. I say that to undermine any charge of Cisco corporate
greed that I fear may follow from exploring this tack too deeply.
What I will say is that Cisco had 2 legitimate reasons to eliminate those
positions that do not fall under the simplistic rubric of greed.
1) Those workers were hired in anticipation of growth that never came.
We should recall that back in those days Cisco was growing at the Promethean
rates of 50-60% per annum, and Cisco was hiring appetite was insatiable.
Then as we all know, the hammer came down and Cisco's growth rates have been
anemic ever since. Cisco hired thousands of people in anticipation of
growth that never came to be, and therefore it could be said that a lot of
people were hired by Cisco who should never have been hired in the first
place. Should Cisco be forced to live with that mistake forever? If
layoffs are taboo, then Cisco would have basically been punished ad
infinitum. This would have the obvious result of greatly discouraging
companies from hiring in the first place, for if the economy sours, those
companies would be saddled with excess employees which they would be unable
to eliminate.
2) The plurality of the eliminated workers came from the service-provider
division.
This is a variation of point #1. Cisco hired lots of service-provider
specialists in anticipation of strong penetration into the provider space
that never came to be, meaning that these specialists now had little to do.
It is therefore perfectly natural for a company to eliminate all the workers
that were hired for a particular initiative if that initiative fails. What
else would you expect to happen? If Walmart opens a store and that store
performs poorly, you would expect Walmart to close that store and layoff all
those workers at that store. Surely it would be unreasonable to think that
Walmart is somehow obligated to keep those workers on when there's no longer
a store for them to work in. Let's say that Cisco decides they want to
compete in a whole new arena - say cellphones. Cisco will then hire all
these cell-phone engineers, cell-phone marketing experts, and so forth.
Let's say that initiative fails and Cisco banks it. Is Cisco then obligated
to keep all these cellphone people on the payroll now that the very reason
that they were hired in the first place is gone? If the answer is 'yes',
then you must agree that that would have a most deleterious effect on
companies' desire to start new initiatives for fear that if they fail, those
companies will be saddled with unwanted personnel that can't be eliminated
and will therefore be a permanent drag to the payroll.
Sierraman
"Hansang Bae" <uo...@alp.ee.pbz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a60c548e...@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> > Ok all you Cisco and network admins out there, if you got any balls you
will
> > stop lurking and address this issue instead of just leaving it to just
NRF
> > and Bernie. I guess most of the admins who won't come forward and speak
out
> > against (outsourcing) are afraid of losing their jobs. (Gutless)
>
> In an ideal world, every country would love to have a monopoly on
> strategic business processes. But that won't ever happen. America is
> the epitome of a capitalistic society. Sometimes, it's a borderline
> oligarchy.
>
> But at the same time, the all mighty $$$ does not have the final say.
> Customer service etc. must come into play.
That's what some of the articles address is the fact that in many cases
outsourcing is based on cost savings about all else and that often leads to
all kinds of problems.
>
> But saying that outsourcing is bad regardless of the situation is plain
> stupid. Consider a company that can keep 10 jobs and outsource or go
> out of business altogether. If you were part of that 10 people work
> force, what would your opinion be?
I wouldn't say that outsourcing is bad regardless of the situation, but
after reading quite a number of these articles over the years from IT
experts and some not, others just journalists who are writing stories,
fodder for their soapbox, nevertheless I have come to the conclusion that
outsourcing is bad for America. It's a blanket statement, and time wise, I
don't have the time to research out some of the better articles, which I
saved somewhere either on print or my hard drive, but the fact is there are
many opponents of outsourcing which are much more knowledgeable then me and
would wage a vigorous debate on this issue. While in many instances I read
and gather info from what others have written, there are many out there who
have first hand experience who have a great disdain for outsourcing. I know
several who have had their jobs taken away repeatedly to outsourcing, and
who are still on the job trail. I talked to one guy who knows the drill
pretty well and he has a masters degree. He is well versed in this
outsourcing debate and he would bring a lot more insight into this
outsourcing troll I started but I was hoping to catch some bigger fish.
Looks like I keep catching the same fish who are clearly in favor of
outsourcing. I had hope that some of these guys would come forward and
speak, but they may not be in this forum or are still lurking and don't want
to commit a little time to take your guys on, concerning some of these
points. My intention was not to post the best arguments but to spark a
response from some of the more knowledgeable IT techs who are against
outsourcing, and there are plenty of them out there. If you say otherwise
then you are a idiot, because you know they are out there. I don't have a
masters degree, but I feel I am educated enough to form a good opinion on
this. I have read enough over the years to conclude that outsourcing is a
bad trend that is bad for American, maybe not in every instance but in the
long run, I think as a nation we will come to regret that we outsourced so
much in a few years from now. I understand what you guys have been saying
and you all have valid points, I am not saying you don't but again without
devoting more time to the subject, again, I stand by what I have said, that
outsourcing is bad for America. Time will bear this out. I know there is
about five or six of you guys who are all on the same side of the fence in
this post, but again rather then devoting a lot of time to it, 4 to 1, me
being the one, I would that someone else would balance this debate out by
coming forth as a powerful opponent of outsourcing. Instead of 4 to 1, lets
even it up!
>
> Of course if no one outsourced, then the above owner wouldn't have to
> make that decision. But again, that's naive thinking. The genie has
> been out of the bottle for quite some time.
Yes it has, forsight is not 20/20 on this one.
Sierraman
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 00:34:22 -0800, "Sierraman" <rip...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> >Ok all you Cisco and network admins out there, if you got any balls you
will
> >stop lurking and address this issue instead of just leaving it to just
NRF
> >and Bernie. I guess most of the admins who won't come forward and speak
out
> >against (outsourcing) are afraid of losing their jobs. (Gutless)
>
> Why the blasting of people? Maybe they aren't coming out because most
> don't agree with you. "Gutless" surely doesn't apply in a relatively
> anonymous forum.
Oh come on, that's pretty lame. Do you really think that there are not
scores and scores of very knowledgeable people that are firmly against
outsourcing. Maybe some just don't have the time or are not willing to
engage in the debate. OK, there are 4 or five of you, and one of me, but
that's hardly a indication of who agrees or disagrees on what. Mainly it's
just you and NRF. As for blasting, it's a troll, not a brilliant troll, but
I was hoping to bring out some of the big fish who are firmly against
outsourcing. Sure gutless could apply. It takes guts to speak you mind on
any forum when you could get flamed or even fired from your job, but that
might be rare. However some might not want to take the risk when their
company piers and higher ups found out how they really feel on subjects that
are potentially a sore spot to their company.
Sierraman
"Balin, Son of Fundin" <s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bt69ln$3goli$1...@ID-179018.news.uni-berlin.de...
> There is nothing wrong with outsourcing.
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but that's not a blanket
statement for all.
If businesses can get work done
> cheaper elsewhere then good luck to them.
It much more complex then that as the articles address, and those articles
are just a handful of random articles, and certainly not the best ones. I
would rather that some of the authors of the better articles could come
address the issues in this forum, but that is highly unlikely.
I thought you Americans were all
> for the free market and free enterprise?
Thought wrong. Again, much more complex then that but we are a murky stew to
say the least. Since I am talking on five opponents then I will keep it
short. I am hoping some others will chime in and address the issues as NRF
has but from the other side.
This Brit certainly is. You
> saying that jobs should be protected by American companies for American
> folks?
In some cases yes.
Okay, maybe BP, Shell and Vodaphone which are Brit companies in the
> US should fire all American employees and bring in Brits instead?
This is NRF line of thinking, and it's not the only issue, but it's a valid
point.
That is
> the economics of the madhouse. You seem happy enough to buy clothing,
> electronics and other high quality goods from the Far East.
Who said? Do I have any choice, and how do you know that I don't buy
American?
These goods are
> now available to people of modest means like us precisely because they are
> not made in the highly unionised, highly paid West. The argument that we
> are slave driving these people making those goods does not hold water -
> they enjoy salaries that are vastly higher than others local to that area.
I don't have a problem with anyone making their lives better in other
countries, but don't take dinner off my table. That is exactly what
outsoucing is doing to thousands of Americans. When Americans have had
enough pain they will rise up in numbers over these issues. Everybody talks
about pain is the result of change but what could be the results when enough
pain have been inflicted on Americans in an economy that is in a recession
where millions are jobless, and potentially millions more could lose their
jobs to outsourcing. When push comes to shove here in America, what happens?
>
> Stop whining and get a skill that employers want where you reside.
I am not whining, I am trolling, looking to draw out some other big fish who
will engage in a hearty debate as an opponent of outsourcing.
If that,
> unfortunately, rules out Cisco work then get another skill and retrain.
Sure, you can retrain as a janitor too.
> This has been happening in the UK now for years. Whether we like it or
not
> is immaterial
Wrong again, it's not immaterial, it actually very material.
- we either whine about it or do something positive about it.
Yes, if you can.
>
> My 2c - no offence.
none taken.
Hansang Bae
[snip]
> several who have had their jobs taken away repeatedly to outsourcing, and
> who are still on the job trail. I talked to one guy who knows the drill
> pretty well and he has a masters degree. He is well versed in this
> outsourcing debate and he would bring a lot more insight into this
> outsourcing troll I started but I was hoping to catch some bigger fish.
Clearly, anyone who lost his or her job would have strong opinions about
outsourcing. I too have seen 1/4 of a call center disappear to India.
So CSR's (for a very large bank) were let go as positions went overseas.
From that CSR's point of view, outsourcing is clearly a bad thing. But
then we had to beef up the connections to India. So an American telco
got a fatter check. Maybe not a 50:50 trade off, but the jobs lost were
low end (< $10/hr) variety. I'm not saying these aren't worthwhile
jobs...I'm just saying that it's not a great brain-drain for the
country. But as you said, time will tell.
> I know there is
> about five or six of you guys who are all on the same side of the fence in
> this post, but again rather then devoting a lot of time to it, 4 to 1, me
> being the one, I would that someone else would balance this debate out by
> coming forth as a powerful opponent of outsourcing. Instead of 4 to 1, lets
> even it up!
It's not about evening it up though. Hell, I'll take on 100 people who
don't share my view on a divisive topic. If I think I'm right, I'll
defend it to the end (though I won't be dogmatic about it)
Sierraman
I wouldn't live anywhere where I don't speak the language.
They have lots of great programs for protecting jobs
> and employees from employers, ad nauseam.
That's not such a bad thing. We need more of that here in America
considering how crooks like Enron and Worldcom where CEO's can walk away
with billions from shareholders without doing any jail time. These guys
should be the sent to Iraq for public hangings.
Most of those have had a
> demonstrable adverse affect on their economy.
Yeah, those bastards sure did screw our workforce. I don't anyone has any
confidence in big employers anymore. With all the scandals from these big
firms to insider trading on wall street is it any wonder that workers are
gun-shy about company stocks. Case in point, Montana power company.
But of course they are
> popular with voters because of their feelings (which is why I
> reiterate that feelings should have nothing to do with the issue).
Considering they have been pissing down workers backs for years with these
huge corporate scams, I can see how this has become quite popular. Can you
blame them?
Hansang Bae
> > the economics of the madhouse. You seem happy enough to buy clothing,
> > electronics and other high quality goods from the Far East.
In article <0KydnffoY8x...@sti.net>, rip...@sti.net says...
> Who said? Do I have any choice, and how do you know that I don't buy
> American?
Because you can't buy American made consumer electronics anymore. Why
is that? In a capitalistic society, people vote with his/her wallet.
For the same reason, Sony is feeling the pain from Samsung. And I'm
sure soon enough, Samsung will feel the pain from some company in China.
That's the way it's supposed to work.
Patriotism goes only so far when your shelling out big bucks. No one
bought Chrysler early on because they made POS cars. On the other hand,
people bought Corollas because they (at the time) were better cars for
the money.
> When Americans have had
> enough pain they will rise up in numbers over these issues. Everybody talks
> about pain is the result of change but what could be the results when enough
> pain have been inflicted on Americans in an economy that is in a recession
> where millions are jobless, and potentially millions more could lose their
> jobs to outsourcing. When push comes to shove here in America, what happens?
Not much. Othewise, people would turn out more to vote. For the most
part, people in the US are fat dumb and happy. As one Russian diplomat
put it, "your homeless people live in their *cars*" But as you said,
if enough people write their congressman (I'm sure 99% don't even know
who they are) things will change.
Sierraman
"nrf" <nogl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S%CJb.49403$xX.251018@attbi_s02...
>
>
>
> "Sierraman" <rip...@sti.net> wrote in message
> news:tOudndw8UYy...@sti.net...
> > I stand by what I have said, outsourcing is bad for American.
>
> You didn't think I was going to let this one go by, did you?
no, but I was hoping to catch some bigger fish that would even up this
lopsided debate. Someone who is an opponent of outsourcing and very well
versed in the issues, which I admit that I am not an expert by far on the
issues but I have read enough over the years to develop a good opinion that
I can live with. Rather then continue to wage war against five opponents, I
am hoping someone else will enter the arena.
>
> Eastern philosophy holds that you can turn an opponent's strength against
> him. I don't want to be overly harsh, but what you cite as evidence not
> only does not support your premise, but actually supports mine.
It can support both of our in certain areas, but the point is I am saying it
is my opinion that outsourcing is bad for American and I think time will
bear this out. Not in every instance, but the trend is alarming. Why do you
think that expert opponents on the issue have bonded together to make public
the names of companies that are sending our jobs oversees? It's a grass
roots movement and you can't stop it. Americans will stop it when they had
enough. They have already started to revolt. I am sure that many americans
have looked at the issues very carefully and have considered everything you
have presented and much more and come to the conclusion that outsourcing is
still not in America's best interest in the long run. They see it as an
alarming trend that will hurt American in the long run as it continues to
take jobs away from Americans who are already at the breaking point.
Your
> premise is, and always has been that outsourcing is bad for Americans.
Not in every instance, but in general I think it's a bad trend that is
growing alarmingly worse.
> This is a comprehensive and categorical statement that is not supported by
> the facts you cite.
I could wage a fair battle but I am not willing to take the time now, for
one since it's a five against one debate, and two, I was hoping for some
bigger fish to come into the debate.
Compare that to what my viewpoint is - which is that
> outsourcing is sometimes appropriate (and sometimes not) and can be a
valid
> business tool when managed correctly.
I agree with that statement.
I simply cannot agree with the
> blanket statement that outsourcing is always bad for all Americans.
That's not my position, (not all Americans) but in the final analysis I
think it's bad for America in the long run.
To
> paraphrase from PT Barnum, it may be bad for some Americans all the time
> (and these Americans should be aided with improved job training and
> continuing education programs) and it may be bad for all Americans some of
> the time, but it's not bad for all Americans all the time. See below.
That's a fair statement.
>
>
> >Maybe once the
> > list is made public of companies sending (our) jobs oversees then maybe
> they
> > will re-think what this means to America. IE-(ours) (just as much ours
as
> > anyone elses, but in my mind even more so)
>
> Once again, your gambit that jobs inherently belong to certain people. I
> dealt with this issue before. The simple reality is that jobs are not
owned
> by anybody.
They are just as much ours as anybody elses, we just have to go out there
and fight for them or somebody else will take them away from us. That why
the grass roots movement to expose companies who are shipping our jobs
oversees, (yes I said ours). This is our way of fighting back so we can put
a damper on outsourcing. These are highly educated people who are involved
in this.
Where does it say that a particular job is owned by an
> American, or a Canadian, or an Indian, or anybody? Employment is a mutual
> transaction between the employer and the employed. Either party can end
the
> transaction at any time. Just because you're employed today doesn't mean
> that your company has to employ you tomorrow. And just because you work
for
> a company today doesn't obligate you to work for that company tomorrow.
> Companies are free to eliminate jobs or give jobs to somebody else
whenever
> they want, and workers are allowed to quit and/or get a job at another
> company whenever they want.
Yes, this is elementary, I do speak in a general sense about the term (ours)
Life is a struggle. We fight for everything we have. It is (ours) for the
taking. We only have to fight for it.
>
> Let me give you a sports analogy. Kurt Warner is a Pro-bowl quarterback,
a
> 2-time MVP and a Superbowl winner for the St. Louis Rams. But this year
he
> was demoted to second string and Marc Bulger took his place. Kurt Warner
> accomplished a lot in the past, but that doesn't mean that he
automatically
> "owns" the starting QB job. Nobody owns that job. The Rams have the
right
> to decide who gets to be the starting QB. Just because Warner was great
in
> the past does not automatically mean he gets to be the starting
quarterback
> forever. Warner held the starting job only to the extent that the Rams
> wanted to give it to him, and once the Rams decided that he was no longer
> the right man for the job, they replaced him. Bulger is doing the exact
> same job that Warner was doing - quarterbacking the Rams. Are you saying
> this is somehow unacceptable and Warner should have been allowed to keep
the
> job forever?
Ok, we can move beyond this, you very rigid point are clear but not
necessary.
It's true that most articles try to weigh the pros and cons. As a reader you
have to research quite a number of articles and decide for yourself unless
you have lots of first hand experience in big companies that outsource but
even a lot of these players are the very ones who have come forward to cry
foul over outsourcing after they have seen the effects time and time again.
>
>
> > While outsourcing IT services could save a company money and human
> > resources, if not managed properly, it also could lead to expensive
> > mistakes, unmet expectations and even project failure.
> > "It's a very deep and wide pool of quicksand,"
> >
> > http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/netsys/article.php/2178081
>
>
>
> This article too, does not support your premise. The article agrees
> up-front that outsourcing can save money.
Most the articles say that it can save money, but that's hardly the point.
In fact that is one of the biggest problems is hasty decesions made based on
dollars without taking into account all the other considerations, concerning
security, management, staff, support, location, language, etc. all kinds of
issues. Problem is too many CEO's have dollar signs in their eyes and the
been blinded.
The article's main point is that
> poor management of outsourcing is deleterious. But of course that is
true.
> Poor management is never a good thing. Poor management of your operations
> processes will result in missed production targets. Poor financial
> management will result in inefficient capital allocation and returns on
> investment. Poor engineering will result in shoddy products. Poor
> marketing will result in damaged branding and reduced market awareness.
If
> an outsourcing project is poorly managed, that's not an indictment against
> outsourcing, but rather an indictment against poor management, and
obviously
> nobody supports poor management.
Exactly.
In fact, the author of the article cites a
> number of ways to improve the management of outsourcing projects.
Well, a good article would do that, but not all outsourcing is bad, but I
don't support the trend to rush to this outsourcing madness that has taken
over the industry, not that is has but it's working that way.
>
> I simply do not see how this article is relevant to your premise that
> outsourcing is bad for Americans. It's a non-sequitur.
>
>
> >
> > What's Wrong With Downsizing, Privatization, and Outsourcing? I think
the
> > reason is because they are often poorly managed, done for the wrong
> reason,
> > and with no thought for the human cost.
> >
> > http://members.tripod.com/TheoLarch/privatization.htm
>
> This article raises the same objection as the one above, which is that
> outsourcing is often poorly managed. But again, that's not a problem with
> outsourcing per se, but rather with poor management. I dealt with this
> issue above.
Well, that's just one of the problems with outsourcing. You can separate the
definition of outsourcing to confuse the matter, but in my mind and for most
readers it's everything that is related to outsourcing, for good or bad and
I see it as a bad trend.
>
> But this article has another tack - it also cites "human costs", in the
> sense people who lose jobs undergo pain. Indeed there is pain.
I think Americans have enough pain now with the economy with millions out of
work. Americans like all humans will only tolerate so much pain. I think the
movement against companies to expose the names of those shipping (our) jobs
oversees is proof of that. The economy is improving as we speak but it is
too late to stop this movement.
But there
> is also a confusion of issues here. You are attempting to link the
specific
> issue of outsourcing with the general topic of layoffs and downsizing.
No confusion, they are all negative. The population grows larger everyday.
If we continue to eliminate jobs without opening enough new areas and
industries what would be the result of that? We been eliminating jobs for
all three reasons for years faster then creating new ones. That is a very
alarming trend, except for the military and few other areas which will
remain stable or see new growth.
What
> exactly is the difference between a guy who got laid off because the
company
> decided to send his job to India and another guy who just got laid off
just
> wanted to cut jobs? I don't see how the pain would be any different - if
> you're laid off, then you're laid off.
Exactly, it;s all negative.
>
> The article quotes: "Studies have also shown that employees who are
> retained also suffer: they have more health and emotional problems, and
many
> of them lose motivation and loyalty.
I can see why, that's a no brainer. You seem to lose either way. It's no
wonder so many people have left such stressful industries.
Workers who saw the organization as a
> family feel lost without their familiar networks. There was more fraud
among
> workers who survived downsizing, and increased distrust of
> management...Those employees who have been left behind usually end up
> working longer hours. For a while they may work harder because they are
> scared of being laid off, but sooner or later they may wish they had been.
> Some may even try to sabotage the company. "
Yes, you can't win for losing.
>
> This is a Cisco newsgroup, so let's use Cisco as an example. When Cisco
> laid off 8500 people in 2001 they didn't outsource those jobs to India,
they
> just eliminated thos positions entirely. Would this not have caused the
> very same emotional damage and stunted morale that this article cites?
Did
> surviving workers at Cisco feel lost after the layoffs? Yes. Did some of
> them try to sabotage the company? I'm sure some did. But does that mean
> that Cisco should not have laid those people off?
Wouldn't be the first time Cisco got catch telling fables. I know firsthand
at least in one instance personally.
>
> In short, are we talking about the specific issue of outsourcing or the
> general issue of layoffs here? Do you have specific problems with
> outsourcing or is this really part of a generic arc of being opposed to
> layoffs? Are you saying that companies should never be allowed to lay
> people off?
no, actually it's mostly outsourcing that peeves me.
>
>
> >
> > Outsourcing will bite in 2004, Sending jobs offshore will generate even
> more
> > angst next year...
> >
> > http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020505,39118820,00.htm
> >
> > I predict that the relentless focus on lowering costs through offshore
> > outsourcing will come back to haunt companies in 2004.
>
> The article also states "For solving short-term issues or dealing with a
> specific development project or customer service application, the
> outsourcing route is a no-brainer, given the outsourcing partner can meet
> predefined goals for the relationship. "
>
> The article later cites problems with outsourcing certain things and so
on.
> But it is obviously true that outsourcing is no panacea. I never said
that
> outsourcing is good for all companies all the time.
I know that, neither did I say that all outsourcing is bad, but rather a
general statement that it's bad for America. I am running out of time. I
will see if I can just tag a few more bases.
I said that outsourcing
> is a business tool that can sometimes be valuable when managed properly.
> The article concedes this point.
yes,
>
>
> >
> >
>
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/farber_2004_predictions2.html
>
> This is the same article as the one above.
>
>
> >
> > Wichita Workers Rally to Save Jobs
> >
> > On a cold, windy Saturday afternoon in Wichita, KS, over 500 people
staged
> a
> > rally to save jobs from outsourcing. Workers at the Raytheon plant in
> > Wichita decided to organize the rally because of announcements of jobs
> > leaving for Mexico.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.goiam.org/territories.asp?c=4189
>
> This is protectionism in its rawest form. As I said before, you cannot
> state that on the one hand, American companies must hire American workers
> and on the other hand allow foreign companies like Nortel to also hire
> American workers and pretend that fairness has anything to do with it.
Doesn't matter, Americans are not to going to put up with this crap forever.
You can try to articulate it anyway you want, but they don't hear you over
there in Kansas, and it's pretty simple to those folks. When push comes to
shove, what will happen? If we don't protect (our) jobs in some form or
another then what will happen eventually? Back to the same premise, fight
for what is (ours) it is (ours) for the taking if we fight for it. What do
you think the movement is about where the names of companies who are
outsourcing made public is about? Yes, dog eat dog, survival of the fittest,
I think Americans will push, when push comes to shove. It happened before
and it will happen again.
>
> There are indeed some losers in the outsourcing wars. I never denied it.
Wars, yeah, you said it. It is a war. Americans don't like to be on the
losing end of it.
> But that's a far cry from saying that all Americans become losers or that
> outsourcing is bad for all Americans.
No, not bad for all Americans.
The US has been losing agricultural
> jobs for more than 150 years, and yet the US produces the most food by far
> or any country on the planet. The US has been losing manufacturing jobs
for
> at least 40 years, and yet US manufacturing output is higher than it was
> back then. Concurrent with all these job losses has been the inexorable
> rise of US living standards.
Those jobs are gone forever. We should learn from it. I think hindsight
being 20/20 that people are starting to wake up to the pitfalls of
outsourcing.
>
> The simple matter is that jobs are destroyed all the time, which is
> obviously painful for the people whose jobs have been destroyed, but
> necessary for the nation to advance.
Tell to those who have repeatly lost jobs to outsourcing. How would you like
to go from one company to another just to lose yet another job to
outsourcing. You would become an opponent to outsourcing fast, and don't say
you wouldn't because that wold make you a liar.
When the PC industry grew, it crushed
> the typewriter industry, and thousands of workers in the typewriter
industry
> lost their jobs. Does that mean that the typewriter industry should have
> been saved? It's economic folly to have workers produce a product like the
> typewriter that the market no longer wants. When was the last time anybody
> bought a typewriter? Or consider the garment industry. The fact is,
> Americans want cheap clothes. I don't want to be pay a lot for a pair of
> socks. If clothing is to be manufactured cheaply, it must be manufactured
> overseas, which is unfortunate for those American textile and garment
> factory workers, but hey, the American consumer wants cheap clothes and
> that's the only way they're going to get them. Who here wants to pay $20
> for a pair of socks?
Yes, I have commited this argument to memory, thanks.
>
>
> >
> > The single strongest objection to outsourcing IT is concern for
security.
> > For most businesses, particularly technology companies, lax security can
> > mean the death of both the company's product and its reputation. "You
need
> > various layers of security," Kristofferson says, adding that "if there
is
> an
> > attack on your system, you can see it coming in plenty of time before
> > there's penetration into the core layers." What this means to you: When
> > outsourcing security, perform thorough background checks of the IT
> > outsourcing company. Speak to current clients and sign an airtight SLA
> (see
> > below).
> > http://www.itworld.com/Man/2701/ITW0228outsourcing/
>
> This article not only does not support your premise, it actually gives
> several reasons why one should consider outsourcing. Consider the
following
> quotes within that article:
I added that one because of the interest in the security factor.
>
> "Technology companies are beginning to use outsourcers to streamline
> business processes."
>
> " IT specialization is a business necessity. Because technology changes
> literally on a daily basis, it is much easier for companies to outsource
at
> least part of their IT operations to a firm with IT expertise and
economies
> of scale. "
>
> "By outsourcing IT operations, companies are able to take advantage of the
> rapid deployment and flexibility offered by IT service providers. "
> "The more complex the operation, the more cost-efficient outsourcing
> becomes. "
>
> "The never-ending quest for skilled IT workers lands on the doorstep of
> outsourcing vendors. Many companies do not have the personnel, equipment,
or
> capital to support a full technology team"
>
>
>
> The major objection that is cited, security, is fully dealt with and
> encapsulated within that article. Does the article say that outsourcing
> should stop because of security concerns? Far from it. It actually
> provides methodologies on how to deal with these security concerns. For
> example, it states the need for a security SLA and then spends the next 7
> paragraphs talking about how to craft a proper security SLA. This article
> not only does not show that outsourcing is bad for companies, it actually
> shows how it is good for companies.
They all do to a point, but basically most articles are about exactly what
the title says, that outsourcing is sugar coated but poison inside.
skip this one, not enough time.
>
>
> >
> > The Perils of Offshore Outsourcing
> >
> > http://www.talenteconomymag.com/include/article2.php?articleID=89
>
> I couldn't open this article. Maybe there's something wrong with their
> server.
>
>
> >
> > The case against outsourcing: read this before you consider outsourcing!
> >
> > http://www.workinfo.com/free/Downloads/117.htm
>
> This article specifically deals with outsourcing HR. It does not talk
> specifically about outsourcing IT, and it does not talk about outsourcing
to
> foreign countries (most HR outsourcing is done domestically), which I
> thought was what we were talking about. Are you trying to make a blanket
> indictment against all forms of outsourcing, including domestic
outsourcing?
no, and I am sure the best that will happen because the awareness of some is
that outsourcing will be brought under control, but the it's true that the
Jeannie is out of the bottle and only hard lessons will put that Jeannie
back in. Neverthelss there are a few people trying to do the right thing. I
think in the long run we will put this outsourcing Jeannie back in the
bottle.
> In particularly, I am extremely confused as to why you might think that
> domestic outsourcing would be bad for America. Whatever jobs or whatever
> damage might be done to a particular American company would be compensated
> for by the increased jobs and increased business picked up by the American
> companies who are providing the outsourcing companies. If one American
> company loses 1000 jobs, but another American company gains those 1000
jobs,
> how is that bad for America as a whole? Seems like a wash to me.
That's not, but I don't think that scenario is likely. I think greedy CEO's
are bent on destroying this country, while lining their pockets. Just
because it's good for some companies doesn't mean it's good for America. I
think there is too much bad technology that isn't worth a shit, and of
course driven to line investers pockets and really doesn't benifit our
nation as a whole.
nrf
Unfortunately this is precisely the attitude that is going to get Americans
in trouble. I don't want to open a Pandora's Box of a whole 'nother topic,
but the foundation of America's greatness is the hard work and intrepidness
of its people. American history is replete with examples of immigrants who
came who couldn't speak English and with nothing more than the shirts on
their backs and within a few generations became richer than the Americans
who were already here. One prominent example - hundreds of thousands of
German immigrants arrived in the Midwest in the late 1800's in dire poverty
and with no familiarity with American culture, and certainly no ability to
speak English, and were despised by the surrounding population for their
poverty and were invariably relegated to the worst farmland that people
thought couldn't support anybody. Yet within a few generations, these same
Germans were despised because they were now significantly richer than the
American farmers around them, and those farmers then would try to form
cooperatives to discriminate against those farmers under the charge that
they "worked too hard". The same was true of quite a few other immigrant
ethnic groups - the Italians, the Eastern Europeans, the Asians, the South
Asians, etc. who became so economically successfully despite limited
language skills and acculturization and starting with minimal wealth that
they spurred nativist political backlash under the charge that these
immigrants "work too hard" and would try to pass laws restricting companies
from hiring from certain ethnic groups.
I could go on and on about this topic, but why it's relevant here is that
the backbone of the greatness of the United States has always been the
indomitable spirit of its people. Hard work, thrift, resourcefulness,
entrepreneurship - these are the things that have made America great. If
America declines, it will be because these traits will have declined. I can
see it now in the attitudes of American kids - a lot of them simply don't
want to work hard. I can see it in your (sierraman) comment about how you
wouldn't want to live in a country where you can't speak the language. That
sort of thing didn't stop immigrants from coming here in the past, who
succeeded despite no language skills.
>
>
>
> They have lots of great programs for protecting jobs
> > and employees from employers, ad nauseam.
>
>
>
> That's not such a bad thing. We need more of that here in America
> considering how crooks like Enron and Worldcom where CEO's can walk away
> with billions from shareholders without doing any jail time. These guys
> should be the sent to Iraq for public hangings.
I think it's safe to say that the higher-ups at Enron and Worldcom aren't
getting away with very much wealth at all. Ebbers of Worldcom might be
financially ruined.
>
>
>
> Most of those have had a
> > demonstrable adverse affect on their economy.
>
>
>
> Yeah, those bastards sure did screw our workforce. I don't anyone has any
> confidence in big employers anymore. With all the scandals from these big
> firms to insider trading on wall street is it any wonder that workers are
> gun-shy about company stocks. Case in point, Montana power company.
>
>
>
> But of course they are
> > popular with voters because of their feelings (which is why I
> > reiterate that feelings should have nothing to do with the issue).
>
>
>
> Considering they have been pissing down workers backs for years with these
> huge corporate scams, I can see how this has become quite popular. Can you
> blame them?
Consider this quote from Scott Adams of Dilbert fame:
"I think it's useful to put these corporate scandals in perspective. Every
employee I ever worked with in my old cubicle-dwelling days was pillaging
the company on a regular basis, too. But the quantity of loot was rarely
newsworthy. My weasel co-workers were pocketing office supplies, fudging
expense reports, using sick days as vacation and engaging in a wide array of
work-avoidance techniques.
Most people rationalize this kind of behavior by saying that corporations
are evil and so the weasel employees deserve a little extra. The C.E.O.'s
and C.F.O.'s aren't less ethical than employees and stockholders; they're
just more effective. They're getting a higher quality of loot than the rank
and file, and for that they must be punished."
http://www.johntabin.com/archives/000299.html
Sierraman
"Hansang Bae" <uo...@alp.ee.pbz> wrote in message
> > "Balin, Son of Fundin" <s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > That is
> > > the economics of the madhouse. You seem happy enough to buy clothing,
> > > electronics and other high quality goods from the Far East.
>
>
> In article <0KydnffoY8x...@sti.net>, rip...@sti.net says...
> > Who said? Do I have any choice, and how do you know that I don't buy
> > American?
>
> Because you can't buy American made consumer electronics anymore. Why
> is that?
Ask the Japanese?
In a capitalistic society, people vote with his/her wallet.
A very odd statement, but true.
> For the same reason, Sony is feeling the pain from Samsung. And I'm
> sure soon enough, Samsung will feel the pain from some company in China.
> That's the way it's supposed to work.
It is? Dog eat dog? Survival of the fittest? Yes, the rat race I suppose.
How does a nation with the majority of the worlds wealth and a small
percentage of the world population end up working like ants, (IE-Japanese),
Must of done something wrong. Maybe I be better off living in Kuwait.
>
> Patriotism goes only so far when your shelling out big bucks. No one
> bought Chrysler early on because they made POS cars. On the other hand,
> people bought Corollas because they (at the time) were better cars for
> the money.
True, that Americans didn't think with their hearts but rather with their
wallets. This is the same stuff, that Americans tended to follow down the
drain instead of buying American years ago. Now it's much too late, but it's
a free country, so that's what happened.
>
>
> > When Americans have had
> > enough pain they will rise up in numbers over these issues. Everybody
talks
> > about pain is the result of change but what could be the results when
enough
> > pain have been inflicted on Americans in an economy that is in a
recession
> > where millions are jobless, and potentially millions more could lose
their
> > jobs to outsourcing. When push comes to shove here in America, what
happens?
>
> Not much. Othewise, people would turn out more to vote. For the most
> part, people in the US are fat dumb and happy. As one Russian diplomat
> put it, "your homeless people live in their *cars*" But as you said,
> if enough people write their congressman (I'm sure 99% don't even know
> who they are) things will change.
Yeah right, Used to be wooden ships and iron men. Today it is Iron ships and
wooden men. Things could go south like a duck in winter if we continue to
lose millions of jobs year after year, including those lost to outsourcing.
Expect civil unrest in such a situation. However it looks like we are
turning the corner in the economy, and just have to take a wait and see
approach.
Sierraman
I agree with that. I moved sprinkler pipes in almond orchards when I was 15
for mere pennies.
I can see it in your (sierraman) comment about how you
> wouldn't want to live in a country where you can't speak the language.
That
> sort of thing didn't stop immigrants from coming here in the past, who
> succeeded despite no language skills.
Well of course I wouldn't. I would be an idiot to try depending on my age.
When I was young I was good at Spanish but since I didn't use it much I gave
it up. Unlike Europe where you might know three languages, it's not
necessary here. Since I am older now I don't see myself learning a new
language to go live in another country or to work for a outsourcing company
just to get laid off in a short time. If I was going to spend the time to
master a language I would have to be pretty sure that my future would be
secure in that country for sometime or that would be a huge waste of my
life.
nrf
>
> "Balin, Son of Fundin" <s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bt69ln$3goli$1...@ID-179018.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > There is nothing wrong with outsourcing.
>
> That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but that's not a blanket
> statement for all.
>
> If businesses can get work done
> > cheaper elsewhere then good luck to them.
>
> It much more complex then that as the articles address, and those articles
> are just a handful of random articles, and certainly not the best ones.
So why don't you print the better ones?
>I
> would rather that some of the authors of the better articles could come
> address the issues in this forum, but that is highly unlikely.
>
> I thought you Americans were all
> > for the free market and free enterprise?
>
> Thought wrong. Again, much more complex then that but we are a murky stew
to
> say the least. Since I am talking on five opponents then I will keep it
> short. I am hoping some others will chime in and address the issues as NRF
> has but from the other side.
Why do you need others to chime in? Why can't you address the issues
yourself? I've been in many a thread where I've taken on all comers.
>
> This Brit certainly is. You
> > saying that jobs should be protected by American companies for American
> > folks?
>
> In some cases yes.
Protectionism in the long run is deleterious to the overall economy.
>
> Okay, maybe BP, Shell and Vodaphone which are Brit companies in the
> > US should fire all American employees and bring in Brits instead?
>
> This is NRF line of thinking, and it's not the only issue, but it's a
valid
> point.
>
> That is
> > the economics of the madhouse. You seem happy enough to buy clothing,
> > electronics and other high quality goods from the Far East.
>
> Who said? Do I have any choice, and how do you know that I don't buy
> American?
You can still buy American electronics. You can buy from RCA. At one
point, RCA was the biggest electronics company in the world, being by far
the biggest commercial radio producer in the world and setting the standard
for color-TV. But what happened? Simple. RCA got crushed by Asian
competition and RCA's market share is now miniscule. The consumer chose to
buy fewer RCA products simply because Asian products were cheaper and
better. And that's exactly the way it should be. If you don't produce a
competitive product, you deserve to lose market share. If Kurt Warner can't
play well, then he doesn't deserve a starting quarterback position.
It is the American consumer who has decided that in many cases American
products are no good. The last 6 years, the top selling American car has
been a Japanese model ('98-00, 02-03 was the Toyota Camry, '01 was the Honda
Accord) , despite the fact that Japanese cars are about $1000 more expensive
than an equivalent American model. Why? Because Americans have a fetish
for Japanese cars? Hardly. The reason is simple. Japanese cars are
significantly more reliable than American cars, which means that Japanese
resale values are significantly higher.
One of the most telling and interesting advertising campaigns in recent
history is the one where GM basically admitted that they produced shoddy
cars in the past and is now apologizing for it.
"...What's a little more unusual is a company coming out and apologizing for
just being generally lousy over the past couple of decades. But that is
essentially what GM is doing now, with a curious campaign touting its
journey on "the road to redemption." GM has run big two-page ads in major
newspapers and also spins its tale on the Web.
Like all ad campaigns, the bottom line is that GM, right now, is a fine,
high-quality company, whose products you should buy immediately. It's the
journey to this obvious destination that's interesting. "Thirty years ago,
GM quality was the best in the world," the print ad starts. "Twenty years
ago, it wasn't.""
http://slate.msn.com/id/2084377/
The fact is, if you produce uncompetitive products, you deserve to lose
market share. GM's market share has been steadily dropping for decades.
And that's exactly the way it should be. You can't just say that just
because you're an American company, you deserve a certain market share. If
you want market share, you have to produce a competitive product, and if
you don't, then you're going to lose share and you will have nobody to blame
for that but yourself. If you think GM deserves more market share, then ask
yourself why GM can't make a more reliable car?
> > now available to people of modest means like us precisely because they
are
> > not made in the highly unionised, highly paid West. The argument that
we
> > are slave driving these people making those goods does not hold water -
> > they enjoy salaries that are vastly higher than others local to that
area.
>
> I don't have a problem with anyone making their lives better in other
> countries, but don't take dinner off my table. That is exactly what
> outsoucing is doing to thousands of Americans. When Americans have had
> enough pain they will rise up in numbers over these issues. Everybody
talks
> about pain is the result of change but what could be the results when
enough
> pain have been inflicted on Americans in an economy that is in a recession
> where millions are jobless, and potentially millions more could lose their
> jobs to outsourcing. When push comes to shove here in America, what
happens?
> >
> > Stop whining and get a skill that employers want where you reside.
>
> I am not whining, I am trolling, looking to draw out some other big fish
who
> will engage in a hearty debate as an opponent of outsourcing.
Well, I'm here. :->
>
> If that,
> > unfortunately, rules out Cisco work then get another skill and retrain.
>
> Sure, you can retrain as a janitor too.
The simple fact of the matter is that nobody has the right to a job based
simply on what passport they hold. You can't say that just because you're
an American, you deserve an IT job, but if you're from India or wherever,
then you don't. If you want a certain job, you will have to be competitive
for that job.
>
> > This has been happening in the UK now for years. Whether we like it or
> not
> > is immaterial
>
> Wrong again, it's not immaterial, it actually very material.
I beg to differ. If we go by what we like and don't like it, then I would
like a world where I make a million dollars day for doing nothing and where
I'm dating Jennifer Lopez. I think it's safe to say that that's not going
to happen.
nrf
And yet those are precisely the risks taken by the immigrants of the past.
Those immigrants were certainly not guaranteed anything when they arrived,
and many died. Couldn''t speak the language, didn't know anybody, didn't
understand the culture, and yet they became more successful than the
surrounding population. That goes to show you that what matters most of all
is your attitude, particularly your attitude towards hard work. Those
immigrants came with nothing and basically worked harder than the population
around them and that's why they became more successful.
I take it you're not a Native American, so what were your circumstances of
your ancestors coming to the US? Probably not particularly different from
the situation I described above- they probably came with limited (if any)
English skills, knowing few if any people, almost certainly having very
little money (if they had money, they probably wouldn't have left their
homeland) and being unfamiliar with the culture here, and yet they were
clearly able to establish themselves through hard work and diligence. Their
personal values and attitude overcame their shortcomings. This toughness
and can-do spirit is unfortunately being lost in present-day America. How
many Americans today are as tough and as hard-working as the old immigrants
of the past?
nrf
I rather doubt there would be any unrest at all. Unemployment peaked at
about 7% which is historically extremely low for a recession. Back in the
Great Depression, US unemployment peaked at 25% and there wasn't a lot of
civil unrest in the US. Heck, even as recently as the recession of 1981-82,
the peak unemployment rate was over 10% and I don't remember any civil
unrest. So why now?
nrf
>
> "nrf" <nogl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:S%CJb.49403$xX.251018@attbi_s02...
> >
> >
> >
> > "Sierraman" <rip...@sti.net> wrote in message
> > news:tOudndw8UYy...@sti.net...
> > > I stand by what I have said, outsourcing is bad for American.
> >
> > You didn't think I was going to let this one go by, did you?
>
> no, but I was hoping to catch some bigger fish that would even up this
> lopsided debate. Someone who is an opponent of outsourcing and very well
> versed in the issues, which I admit that I am not an expert by far on the
> issues but I have read enough over the years to develop a good opinion
that
> I can live with. Rather then continue to wage war against five opponents,
I
> am hoping someone else will enter the arena.
What's so bad about waging war with 5 opponents? I have crossed swords with
many more than that on several occassions.
> >
> > Eastern philosophy holds that you can turn an opponent's strength
against
> > him. I don't want to be overly harsh, but what you cite as evidence not
> > only does not support your premise, but actually supports mine.
>
> It can support both of our in certain areas, but the point is I am saying
it
> is my opinion that outsourcing is bad for American and I think time will
> bear this out. Not in every instance, but the trend is alarming. Why do
you
> think that expert opponents on the issue have bonded together to make
public
> the names of companies that are sending our jobs oversees? It's a grass
> roots movement and you can't stop it. Americans will stop it when they had
> enough. They have already started to revolt. I am sure that many americans
> have looked at the issues very carefully and have considered everything
you
> have presented and much more and come to the conclusion that outsourcing
is
> still not in America's best interest in the long run. They see it as an
> alarming trend that will hurt American in the long run as it continues to
> take jobs away from Americans who are already at the breaking point.
And yet the very articles that you cite not only do not support your
contention that outsourcing is bad, but many of those articles actually
concede that outsourcing is, on the aggregate, actually good. So then who
are these experts that you claim to oppose outsourcing and might you produce
the relevant links?
>
> Your
> > premise is, and always has been that outsourcing is bad for Americans.
>
> Not in every instance, but in general I think it's a bad trend that is
> growing alarmingly worse.
See below
>
> > This is a comprehensive and categorical statement that is not supported
by
> > the facts you cite.
>
> I could wage a fair battle but I am not willing to take the time now, for
> one since it's a five against one debate, and two, I was hoping for some
> bigger fish to come into the debate.
I didn't ask for the help of my esteemed colleagues (but I certainly don't
mind the help). But if it makes you feel better, just consider this to be a
one-on-one discussion between you and me.
>
> Compare that to what my viewpoint is - which is that
> > outsourcing is sometimes appropriate (and sometimes not) and can be a
> valid
> > business tool when managed correctly.
>
> I agree with that statement.
>
> I simply cannot agree with the
> > blanket statement that outsourcing is always bad for all Americans.
>
> That's not my position, (not all Americans) but in the final analysis I
> think it's bad for America in the long run.
Again, not supported by the facts, and not supported by the articles you
cited.
I don't see this as a way of "fighting back" except by appealing to
demagoguery. OK, so you publish the names of these companies. So what?
Should we also publicize in Canadian newspapers how many Americans Nortel
hires? Should we publicize in British newspapers how many Americans Shell
hires?
Or how about this. In addition to publicizing the names of companies who
outsource, let's also publish the names of individual American consumers who
buy foreign products. If you drive a Japanese car, let's publish your name.
If you drink imported German beer, let's publish your name. If you wear
Italian suits, let's publish your name. If you wear a Swiss wristwatch,
let's publish your name. Why stop at publishing information only about the
companies? Why single them out? Let's publish ALL the information about
everybody who hires or otherwise does business with foreigners. How about
that?
>
> Where does it say that a particular job is owned by an
> > American, or a Canadian, or an Indian, or anybody? Employment is a
mutual
> > transaction between the employer and the employed. Either party can end
> the
> > transaction at any time. Just because you're employed today doesn't
mean
> > that your company has to employ you tomorrow. And just because you work
> for
> > a company today doesn't obligate you to work for that company tomorrow.
> > Companies are free to eliminate jobs or give jobs to somebody else
> whenever
> > they want, and workers are allowed to quit and/or get a job at another
> > company whenever they want.
>
> Yes, this is elementary, I do speak in a general sense about the term
(ours)
> Life is a struggle. We fight for everything we have. It is (ours) for the
> taking. We only have to fight for it.
Then go and take it. Be more competitive than the other guys and you will
assuredly have the jobs. But you can't appeal to raw patriotism and
nativism. That's not what competiveness is about. Competitiveness is about
doing quality work at a low price. People in India don't say that they
deserve IT jobs just because they're from India. So Americans can't say
that they deserve IT jobs just because they're American.
And yet this article concedes that the pros actually outweigh the cons. You
would think that an article that opposed outsourcing would attempt to argue
that the cons outweigh the pros, but that's precisely what did not happen.
> >
> >
> > > While outsourcing IT services could save a company money and human
> > > resources, if not managed properly, it also could lead to expensive
> > > mistakes, unmet expectations and even project failure.
> > > "It's a very deep and wide pool of quicksand,"
> > >
> > > http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/netsys/article.php/2178081
> >
> >
> >
> > This article too, does not support your premise. The article agrees
> > up-front that outsourcing can save money.
>
> Most the articles say that it can save money, but that's hardly the point.
I'm sorry to inform you, but that is PRECISELY the point. What is business
if not a profit-making venture? Businesses exist for the purpose of making
money. Period. Paragraph. You say that if a company fires you and
replaces you with a guy in India, then that's just a maneuver to save money
and increase profits. But why did the company hire you in the first place?
Because they thought you were a cool guy? No, of course not. The company
hired you because they thought that by doing so, they would somehow improve
their bottom line. They hired you because if they didn't, their network
might get jacked and they would lose money by having a malfunctioning
network. In other words, their hiring of you was a move to save money.
Your presence doesn't increase revenues (read: you're not a salesman, and
you're not an engineer who's building new products to sell), so the only
reason you were brought onboard in the first place is because your presence
saves them money when compared to them not having you around. Was this
wrong?
> In fact that is one of the biggest problems is hasty decesions made based
on
> dollars without taking into account all the other considerations,
concerning
> security, management, staff, support, location, language, etc. all kinds
of
> issues. Problem is too many CEO's have dollar signs in their eyes and the
> been blinded.
You have confused the notion of saving money with the notion of saving money
only in the short-term. The article does not make this distinction - it
implicitly concedes that outsourcing can save money in both the short and
long term. What you have gotten at is poor management. I freely concede
that poor management is bad. But that's not a problem with outsourcing per
se, but rather a problem with poor management.
>
> The article's main point is that
> > poor management of outsourcing is deleterious. But of course that is
> true.
> > Poor management is never a good thing. Poor management of your
operations
> > processes will result in missed production targets. Poor financial
> > management will result in inefficient capital allocation and returns on
> > investment. Poor engineering will result in shoddy products. Poor
> > marketing will result in damaged branding and reduced market awareness.
> If
> > an outsourcing project is poorly managed, that's not an indictment
against
> > outsourcing, but rather an indictment against poor management, and
> obviously
> > nobody supports poor management.
>
> Exactly.
But why blame outsourcing? What does that have to do with poor management?
Let's identify the culprit here - poor management - and not throw the baby
out with the bathwater. The articles you cited invariably concede that
well-managed outsourcing can be good for the company.
>
> In fact, the author of the article cites a
> > number of ways to improve the management of outsourcing projects.
>
> Well, a good article would do that, but not all outsourcing is bad, but I
> don't support the trend to rush to this outsourcing madness that has taken
> over the industry, not that is has but it's working that way.
Well, that's a different premise than the one you have been proposing. It's
obviously true that poor management is no good, and not just for
outsourcing, but for every aspect of business. I don't see you banging the
drum against poor management of, say, operations or sales or marketing, yet
that's equally as bad. Why concentrate on only outsourcing?
> >
> > I simply do not see how this article is relevant to your premise that
> > outsourcing is bad for Americans. It's a non-sequitur.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > What's Wrong With Downsizing, Privatization, and Outsourcing? I think
> the
> > > reason is because they are often poorly managed, done for the wrong
> > reason,
> > > and with no thought for the human cost.
> > >
> > > http://members.tripod.com/TheoLarch/privatization.htm
> >
> > This article raises the same objection as the one above, which is that
> > outsourcing is often poorly managed. But again, that's not a problem
with
> > outsourcing per se, but rather with poor management. I dealt with this
> > issue above.
>
> Well, that's just one of the problems with outsourcing. You can separate
the
> definition of outsourcing to confuse the matter, but in my mind and for
most
> readers it's everything that is related to outsourcing, for good or bad
and
> I see it as a bad trend.
The bad trend, if you will, is, again, poor management.
You cited the examples of Enron and Worldcom. Poor management indeed, but
not because of outsourcing. Enron and Worldcom did not engage in any
serious outsourcing, and in fact, I don't think they engaged in any. The
common theme is poor management, so why concentrate on only outsourcing?
Enron and Worldcom suffered from the same kind of poor management - poor
financial management and controls.
>
>
>
> >
> > But this article has another tack - it also cites "human costs", in the
> > sense people who lose jobs undergo pain. Indeed there is pain.
>
> I think Americans have enough pain now with the economy with millions out
of
> work. Americans like all humans will only tolerate so much pain.
25% unemployment in the 1930's. Americans seem to have a very high pain
threshold.
>I think the
> movement against companies to expose the names of those shipping (our)
jobs
> oversees is proof of that. The economy is improving as we speak but it is
> too late to stop this movement.
Let's also expose the names of American consumers who buy foreign goods.
What's fair is fair.
>
> But there
> > is also a confusion of issues here. You are attempting to link the
> specific
> > issue of outsourcing with the general topic of layoffs and downsizing.
>
> No confusion, they are all negative. The population grows larger everyday.
> If we continue to eliminate jobs without opening enough new areas and
> industries what would be the result of that? We been eliminating jobs for
> all three reasons for years faster then creating new ones. That is a very
> alarming trend, except for the military and few other areas which will
> remain stable or see new growth.
Is a peak of 7% unemployment cause for alarm? I don't think so.
Unemployment was over 10% in 1982, and that was followed by the boom of the
1980's, a relatively short recession, and then the boom of the 90's. This
too shall pass.
I categorically disagree that other fields are not being opened. The US is
clearly extending its lead in health-care, especially biotech. The US is
also becoming stronger in financial services - downtown Manhattan is without
a doubt the heart of the world financial system. American pop culture is
increasing its dominance - Michael Jordan is perhaps the world's most
recognizable athlete despite never having played a single game outside the
US. High level R&D in the US is tremendously strong and getting stronger -
the US wins the lion's share of Nobel Prizes and the best students of the
world are familiar with and want to attend American universities like
Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, and Princeton. With the possible
exception of Oxford and Cambridge, are there any foreign universities that
the best American students would consider attending?
>
> What
> > exactly is the difference between a guy who got laid off because the
> company
> > decided to send his job to India and another guy who just got laid off
> just
> > wanted to cut jobs? I don't see how the pain would be any different -
if
> > you're laid off, then you're laid off.
>
> Exactly, it;s all negative.
So let's just talk about downsizing in general. Why concentrate solely on
outsourcing?
So you are saying Cisco should not have been allowed to lay people off,
right?
> >
> > In short, are we talking about the specific issue of outsourcing or the
> > general issue of layoffs here? Do you have specific problems with
> > outsourcing or is this really part of a generic arc of being opposed to
> > layoffs? Are you saying that companies should never be allowed to lay
> > people off?
>
> no, actually it's mostly outsourcing that peeves me.
Why? Like you said, it's all negative. So why concentrate on one small
slice of the whole downsizing pie?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Outsourcing will bite in 2004, Sending jobs offshore will generate
even
> > more
> > > angst next year...
> > >
> > > http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020505,39118820,00.htm
> > >
> > > I predict that the relentless focus on lowering costs through offshore
> > > outsourcing will come back to haunt companies in 2004.
> >
> > The article also states "For solving short-term issues or dealing with a
> > specific development project or customer service application, the
> > outsourcing route is a no-brainer, given the outsourcing partner can
meet
> > predefined goals for the relationship. "
> >
> > The article later cites problems with outsourcing certain things and so
> on.
> > But it is obviously true that outsourcing is no panacea. I never said
> that
> > outsourcing is good for all companies all the time.
>
> I know that, neither did I say that all outsourcing is bad, but rather a
> general statement that it's bad for America. I am running out of time. I
> will see if I can just tag a few more bases.
And it's precisely that general statement that is not supported by the
premise. The article neither states nor implies that outsourcing is on the
whole bad for America, and in fact the tone of the article actually implies
that it's on the whole good.
Allright fine, then let's fire all those Nortel American workers who work in
Richardson, Texas and let's see what those Americans will say about it. If
American wants to push, then Canada and the rest of the world should be
allowed to push back.
> >
> > There are indeed some losers in the outsourcing wars. I never denied
it.
>
> Wars, yeah, you said it. It is a war. Americans don't like to be on the
> losing end of it.
I don't believe the aggregate of Americans are on the losing end. Specific
Americans lose. But other Americans benefit. For example, the Americans
who work for Nortel are benefitting. By saying that American companies
should only hire Americans, then you are saying that foreign companies
should never hire Americans, and then those American workers at Nortel
become the losers.
>
> > But that's a far cry from saying that all Americans become losers or
that
> > outsourcing is bad for all Americans.
>
> No, not bad for all Americans.
>
> The US has been losing agricultural
> > jobs for more than 150 years, and yet the US produces the most food by
far
> > or any country on the planet. The US has been losing manufacturing jobs
> for
> > at least 40 years, and yet US manufacturing output is higher than it was
> > back then. Concurrent with all these job losses has been the inexorable
> > rise of US living standards.
>
> Those jobs are gone forever. We should learn from it. I think hindsight
> being 20/20 that people are starting to wake up to the pitfalls of
> outsourcing.
And yet, like I said, the loss of those old-school jobs was concurrent with
a rise in living standards. It may well prove to be the case that
outsourcing will be concurrent to another rise in living standards. Why
not? The US certainly didn't get poorer when the country lost millions of
farming jobs.
> >
> > The simple matter is that jobs are destroyed all the time, which is
> > obviously painful for the people whose jobs have been destroyed, but
> > necessary for the nation to advance.
>
> Tell to those who have repeatly lost jobs to outsourcing. How would you
like
> to go from one company to another just to lose yet another job to
> outsourcing. You would become an opponent to outsourcing fast, and don't
say
> you wouldn't because that wold make you a liar.
And that is exactly the same mindset that would have compelled the US to
"save" farming jobs of the 1800's. How much better off would the country be
today if half the nation still worked the fields? But hey, it's all about
saving old jobs, right?
And furthermore, how would you like it if you're told that you can't work
for a foreign company like Nortel because you're an American?
Uh, no, once again, that article neither states nor implies that. I have
read the article several times and I cannot fathom any way that the article
states what you say it states. If anything, the article actually tacitly
approves of outsourcing. The summation of the article is that while there
are some dangers in outsourcing, properly managed, outsourcing is
beneficial.
Why would you want to bottle up domestic outsourcing?
>
> > In particularly, I am extremely confused as to why you might think that
> > domestic outsourcing would be bad for America. Whatever jobs or
whatever
> > damage might be done to a particular American company would be
compensated
> > for by the increased jobs and increased business picked up by the
American
> > companies who are providing the outsourcing companies. If one American
> > company loses 1000 jobs, but another American company gains those 1000
> jobs,
> > how is that bad for America as a whole? Seems like a wash to me.
>
> That's not, but I don't think that scenario is likely. I think greedy
CEO's
> are bent on destroying this country, while lining their pockets. Just
> because it's good for some companies doesn't mean it's good for America. I
> think there is too much bad technology that isn't worth a shit, and of
> course driven to line investers pockets and really doesn't benifit our
> nation as a whole.
Uh, once again, that's a complete non-sequitur. Once again, you're veering
into topics that are not supposed by the arguments you are presenting. If
a CEO really wanted to destroy the country, why would he outsource jobs to
another American company? How does that achieve his supposed goal of
destroying this country? And how exactly is domestic outsourcing bad for
America? What one American company might lose, another will gain, so how is
that bad for the nation in the aggregate?
>
>
>
nrf
>
> "Hansang Bae" <uo...@alp.ee.pbz> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1a60c548e...@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> > In article <qI6dnQ0Gp5q...@sti.net>, rip...@sti.net says...
> > > Ok all you Cisco and network admins out there, if you got any balls
you
> will
> > > stop lurking and address this issue instead of just leaving it to just
> NRF
> > > and Bernie. I guess most of the admins who won't come forward and
speak
> out
> > > against (outsourcing) are afraid of losing their jobs. (Gutless)
> >
> > In an ideal world, every country would love to have a monopoly on
> > strategic business processes. But that won't ever happen. America is
> > the epitome of a capitalistic society. Sometimes, it's a borderline
> > oligarchy.
> >
> > But at the same time, the all mighty $$$ does not have the final say.
> > Customer service etc. must come into play.
>
> That's what some of the articles address is the fact that in many cases
> outsourcing is based on cost savings about all else and that often leads
to
> all kinds of problems.
Here I have to disagree with hsb and say that when it comes to business, the
dollar does indeed rule, and why would it not? After all, the only reason
for business to exist to make money. Businesses are not charities and they
don't spring forth spontaneously just to give people jobs. They exist to
make profit. If there is no profit, there is no business. Companies don't
hire you because they think it's cool to have you hanging around the office
and it's fun to pay you. They hire you because they think they will somehow
make a profit from doing so. If they didn't think this would happen, they
wouldn't hire you.
Unfortunately, there are far far more experts who agree that outsourcing, on
the whole is good for the country. The entire economics profession, almost
without exception, would agree that outsourcing is good for it falls under
the rubric of free trade and comparative advantage. I'll trust a boatload
of Nobel Prize winners and some of the greatest minds in history over other
experts. If these experts that you tout are really so great, then why don't
they come up with a seminal piece of work ala Adam Smith or David Ricardo?
A mark of greatness is doing something that people will still be talking
about centuries after your death. People still talk about and teach the
ideas of Smith and Ricardo even though they've been dead for 2 centuries,
and I am confident that 1000 years in the future, Smith and Ricardo will
still be mentioned in the history books (which is not that surprising -
people still talk about the works of Plato and Aristotle and they've been
dead for almost 2500 years), whereas I rather doubt that your experts will
be remembered. About the only historical figure that you may be able to
appeal to is Marx, and we all know how well Marxism worked out.
Sierraman
This is not true about all businesses. That is a blanket statement.
Do you have any numbers to back that up?
The entire economics profession, almost
> without exception, would agree that outsourcing is good for it falls under
> the rubric of free trade and comparative advantage.
I would to see some hard data to support that.
I'll trust a boatload
> of Nobel Prize winners and some of the greatest minds in history over
other
> experts.
Painting with a broad brush.
If these experts that you tout are really so great, then why don't
> they come up with a seminal piece of work ala Adam Smith or David Ricardo?
> A mark of greatness is doing something that people will still be talking
> about centuries after your death. People still talk about and teach the
> ideas of Smith and Ricardo even though they've been dead for 2 centuries,
> and I am confident that 1000 years in the future, Smith and Ricardo will
> still be mentioned in the history books (which is not that surprising -
> people still talk about the works of Plato and Aristotle and they've been
> dead for almost 2500 years), whereas I rather doubt that your experts will
> be remembered.
Well, they are not my experts but they are various like mined people nation
wide, some talented, many well educated who have come to the conclusion that
outsourcing is bad for America. You don't have to be Einstein to figure that
one out, but I agree it is subjective and a matter of opinion for the time
being so I don't have enough hard data to back up my claims or the claims of
others. Again, my opinion is based on reading what others have printed over
the years and I don't have any first hand experience like some, but I know
and have talked to many who have and have read tons more articles who are
opponents of outsourcing. My conclusion is that outsourcing is bad for
America and I stand by that just like countless scores of other Americans.
Maybe when you lose you job several times over to outsourcing, which may or
may not happen, you will change your opinion. It's quite different when you
are on the blunt end of things and you are likely to mold yet another
version of outsourcing. Some might think outsourcing is great as long as it
benifits you and doesn't actually affect you but in the long run it might
somehow anyway.
Sierraman
It's true of the old saying, (Wooden ships and Iron men) today - (Iron ships
and Wooden men) Actually our roots are traced to Scotland, so it's likely
that our ancestors who were some of the first to come over already spoke
English and has it somewhat easier. I can't say for sure but my cousin is
the expert on our roots as he traveled to Scotland to trace our roots. Our
name is used quite a bit nation wide in Scotland on taverns and Scottish
quilts today so it possible that our ancestors has some money to start with
when they came. It's true that toughness and can-do spirit is being lost in
America somewhat, maybe our youth are somewhat overwhelmed by technology and
maybe also they feel overwhelmed too by entrepreneurship since so much has
been invented already, and all the new stuff will be very challenging.
Others have very different outlooks on life and technology and see things as
mad science run amuck and have very conservative views about life on earth.
Sometimes I think I would be much happier living on an island like Alby
Mangels but then I realize sooner or later I would miss all these little
toys I have grown used too. Maybe a native girl might make up for that!
Sierraman
That was a much different time and people were not organized like they are
today. IE- Million Man March. If jobs continue to be lost at staggering
levels for years to come you can expert lots of civil unrest. They are not
going to just wait around in bread lines waiting for things to get better.
They will organize, they will march, they will protest.
Heck, even as recently as the recession of 1981-82,
> the peak unemployment rate was over 10% and I don't remember any civil
> unrest. So why now?
That's was a different time as well, but without researching that, I can't
speak to the percentage you gave right now.
Sierraman
>
> "Sierraman" <rip...@sti.net> wrote in message
> news:0KydnffoY8x...@sti.net...
> >
> > "Balin, Son of Fundin" <s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:bt69ln$3goli$1...@ID-179018.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > There is nothing wrong with outsourcing.
> >
> > That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but that's not a blanket
> > statement for all.
> >
> > If businesses can get work done
> > > cheaper elsewhere then good luck to them.
> >
> > It much more complex then that as the articles address, and those
articles
> > are just a handful of random articles, and certainly not the best ones.
>
> So why don't you print the better ones?
I would have to find them, scan them and then link to huge graphics files,
not a smart way to do it. Omni Pro, which I suppose is the best for
converting graphic text into plain text is still not very good at what it
does.
>
> >I
> > would rather that some of the authors of the better articles could come
> > address the issues in this forum, but that is highly unlikely.
> >
> > I thought you Americans were all
> > > for the free market and free enterprise?
> >
> > Thought wrong. Again, much more complex then that but we are a murky
stew
> to
> > say the least. Since I am talking on five opponents then I will keep it
> > short. I am hoping some others will chime in and address the issues as
NRF
> > has but from the other side.
>
> Why do you need others to chime in? Why can't you address the issues
> yourself? I've been in many a thread where I've taken on all comers.
Because I want hear what others say. There are other voices out there.
Hansang Bae
says...
> Here I have to disagree with hsb and say that when it comes to business, the
> dollar does indeed rule, and why would it not? After all, the only reason
> for business to exist to make money.
True up to a point. Remember the backlash when 123 had the key disks?
Just about every program had a "key disk" that you needed. I even had a
hardware CopyIIPC card because I didn't trust having just one key disk.
Everyone did this to protect their investment. Then the backlash
started. And all of sudden, no one was using copy protection anymore.
In this case, customer relationship trumped making $$$. The latest
example is what Intuit did with TurboTax.
> Businesses are not charities and they
> don't spring forth spontaneously just to give people jobs. They exist to
> make profit. If there is no profit, there is no business.
Absolutey true. But even in business, there's a concept of good will
and blue sky. There are non tangible aspects of business which
initially costs money for the business, but the rewards are well worth
it.
nrf
Now this is a blanket statement of which I will support. Ultimately, every
single business has to make money, or it will go bankrupt. The raison
d'etre for business is to make money. Why else would a business exist?
See below. Heck, even the experts that you cited in your articles conceded
that outsourcing was overall a good thing. If you have more articles, then
by all means, post them.
>
> The entire economics profession, almost
> > without exception, would agree that outsourcing is good for it falls
under
> > the rubric of free trade and comparative advantage.
>
> I would to see some hard data to support that.
Do you not remember a similar debate over Nafta? I seem to recall that
something like 24 out of 25 economics studies showed that nafta would be
good on the aggregate for the US. The last study was the one seized upon by
Ross Perot to back his claim that a "giant sucking sound" would be heard of
jobs that would stream to Mexico. Even that last study did not deny the
overall economic benefits of nafta to the US.
Ultimately, if you are an economist, you must accept the basic principles of
free trade, of which outsourcing is an outgrowth. An economist who doesn't
accept free trade is like a mathematician who doesn't accept algebra or a
physicist who doesn't accept quantum mechanics.
>
> I'll trust a boatload
> > of Nobel Prize winners and some of the greatest minds in history over
> other
> > experts.
>
> Painting with a broad brush.
As are you?
Will I also change my opinion when I have worked for quite a few foreign
companies which I would not have been allowed to do because foreign
companies should never have been allowed to 'outsource' their jobs to me?
Or when I buy higher-quality foreign products like Japanese cars? Or when
the overall US economy gains, and I as an investor in the US economy
therefore benefit, due to the efficiencies of outsourcing? If you want to
tally the winners and losers, I think you will find that there are far more
winners than losers. Consider the case of IBM outsourcing its IT work to
India. Individual American IBM workers lose out. But investors in IBM (who
are mostly American) win due to higher IBM profits, and consumers of IBM
products (who are also mostly American) win due to lower prices. Clearly
you can see that there are far more winners than losers.
nrf
"Hansang Bae" <uo...@alp.ee.pbz> wrote in message
> In article <DOTJb.737786$Tr4.1975927@attbi_s03>, nogl...@hotmail.com
> says...
> > Here I have to disagree with hsb and say that when it comes to business,
the
> > dollar does indeed rule, and why would it not? After all, the only
reason
> > for business to exist to make money.
>
> True up to a point. Remember the backlash when 123 had the key disks?
> Just about every program had a "key disk" that you needed. I even had a
> hardware CopyIIPC card because I didn't trust having just one key disk.
> Everyone did this to protect their investment. Then the backlash
> started. And all of sudden, no one was using copy protection anymore.
> In this case, customer relationship trumped making $$$. The latest
> example is what Intuit did with TurboTax.
But that's not a proper reading of what I said. Ultimately, things like
customer service and brand-name translate into long-term dollars. There is
indeed a difference between short-term profits (which can be goosed by
various tactics, some of which are unwise) and long-term profits (which
require that you take care of things like your brand-name and your customer
service), but that's a far cry from saying that business doesn't care about
money. What you could say is that some businesses (foolishly) care too much
about short-term profitability at the expense of long-term profitability.
But it is absolutely true that all companies care about overall profit, both
short and long-term, and that's exactly the way it should be. Intuit would
never have changed its mind if they didn't think that they would be harming
their long-term profitability. The point is that it all boils down to
profits, either short or long-term.
>
> > Businesses are not charities and they
> > don't spring forth spontaneously just to give people jobs. They exist
to
> > make profit. If there is no profit, there is no business.
>
> Absolutey true. But even in business, there's a concept of good will
> and blue sky. There are non tangible aspects of business which
> initially costs money for the business, but the rewards are well worth
> it.
Which also translates into long-term profitability. What 'rewards' are
businesses interested in, if they are not ultimately converted into profits?
Businesses are not interested in doing good works (they aren't charities)
unless those good works burnish their brand-name and therefore enhance their
long-term profitability.
nrf
<snip>
Nah, it most likely has to do with post-generation immigration syndrome,
something that has been remarked upon time and time again by all immigrant
groups (Germans, Italians, Irish, Chinese, Japanese, Jews, Poles, etc. etc.)
, and not just in the US, but also in Canada, Australia, Brazil, Argentina,
and any other country that has had a long history of immigration. The first
generation is invariably extremely tough and hard working, although they are
handicapped by their low acculturization and therefore their lack of
familiarity with the language and customs of their new home. This
generation is the one that will take any menial job, sometimes hold 2 or 3
jobs at once, work back-breaking hours, and try to spend as little money as
possible on themselves. The second generation is fully acculturized, can
speak the language of their new homeland fluently, but is noted for not
being quite as hard-working or as thrifty as their parents. By the 3rd or
4th generation, the hard-work and thrift is largely lost.
I also see the trends of American education to be disheartening. This whole
outsourcing/offshoring issue stems from the fact that the US is the world's
leader in technology and science, and has been since ww2 (before ww2, Europe
was the clear leader). I think you would not be particularly perturbed if
I were to tell you that Germany has more beer-brewing jobs than the US does,
for the simple reason that Germany makes the best beer in the world (heck,
the majority of the prominent US beer-breweries were started by German
immigrants). But how long will the US leadership in technology last? Go
visit an elite American computer science school, say, MIT, and take a gander
at the enrollment of the computer science PhD program. I will bet you that
a great many of those PhD students, possibly more than half of them, will
be citizens of foreign countries, usually from China, Korea, India, Russia,
Taiwan, etc. Of those students that are American citizens, most will be
members of an American ethnic minority - usually Asian-American. I don't
want to go around pushing old tired stereotypes like 'all Asians are good at
math' but it's an indisputable fact that Asian-Americans earn a highly
disproportionate number of the nation's engineering and science degrees and
that Asian-Americans are disproportionately prominent in the world of
high-tech. But what about Americans who are not Asian-Americans? Many
Asian-Americans, especially Chinese-Americans and Indian-Americans, may want
to move back to Asia to start technology companies or otherwise take
advantage of the new business opportunities afforded by the tremendous
economic growth of their homelands, and if they do, what will happen to US
technological leadership? Again, don't think that things can't change
quickly. It was only 60 years ago that the US was a research backwater and
almost all the major advances were being made in Europe, especially the UK
and Germany.
nrf
> >
> > I rather doubt there would be any unrest at all. Unemployment peaked at
> > about 7% which is historically extremely low for a recession. Back in
the
> > Great Depression, US unemployment peaked at 25% and there wasn't a lot
of
> > civil unrest in the US.
>
> That was a much different time and people were not organized like they are
> today. IE- Million Man March. If jobs continue to be lost at staggering
> levels for years to come you can expert lots of civil unrest. They are not
> going to just wait around in bread lines waiting for things to get better.
> They will organize, they will march, they will protest.
Again, I rather doubt it. Americans are richer than they ever have been
before. Like I said before, US home-ownership rates have never been higher,
and the number of registered cars has exceeded the number of registered
drivers for the first time in history. The fact is, from an economic
standpoint, Americans have never had it so good. The million-man march
dealt with social issues, not economic ones. When it comes to economic
problems, the outrage would be rather muted for the simple fact is that
Americans are richer than they ever have been.
nrf
>
> "nrf" <nogl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dnQJb.727982$HS4.5454891@attbi_s01...
> >
> > "Sierraman" <rip...@sti.net> wrote in message
> > news:0KydnffoY8x...@sti.net...
> > >
> > > "Balin, Son of Fundin" <s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bt69ln$3goli$1...@ID-179018.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > > There is nothing wrong with outsourcing.
> > >
> > > That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but that's not a
blanket
> > > statement for all.
> > >
> > > If businesses can get work done
> > > > cheaper elsewhere then good luck to them.
> > >
> > > It much more complex then that as the articles address, and those
> articles
> > > are just a handful of random articles, and certainly not the best
ones.
> >
> > So why don't you print the better ones?
>
> I would have to find them, scan them and then link to huge graphics files,
> not a smart way to do it. Omni Pro, which I suppose is the best for
> converting graphic text into plain text is still not very good at what it
> does.
Fear not, I will wait.
> >
> > >I
> > > would rather that some of the authors of the better articles could
come
> > > address the issues in this forum, but that is highly unlikely.
> > >
> > > I thought you Americans were all
> > > > for the free market and free enterprise?
> > >
> > > Thought wrong. Again, much more complex then that but we are a murky
> stew
> > to
> > > say the least. Since I am talking on five opponents then I will keep
it
> > > short. I am hoping some others will chime in and address the issues as
> NRF
> > > has but from the other side.
> >
> > Why do you need others to chime in? Why can't you address the issues
> > yourself? I've been in many a thread where I've taken on all comers.
>
> Because I want hear what others say. There are other voices out there.
Sure, but just because the cavalry isn't coming doesn't mean that you can't
fend for yourself. I've never been afraid of a pack-rush.
Sierraman
I guess you have never run into a pack of coyotes before in the mountains on
foot, with no firepower. It's a pretty scary thing. Remember, you are part
of the food chain. BTW, look for a special to aire on Primetime about how
the opponents of Outsourcing are working to stop it and what they plan to
do.
Bernie
Perhaps the reason that the mention of losing millions of jobs is not
a compelling argument is that it is obvious to a casual observer that
it is only half the story. If you were a Laker fan, would it please
you to hear me say that last night the Lakers scored 85 points
(without telling you how many their opponent scored). Would you be
disappointed or happy about the outcome of the game? It depends on
how many the opponent scored right? If they scored 84, then you are
happy. Or if I was a CEO and reported to Wall Street a quarterly
(gross) revenue of 5 billion dollars without any mention of net or
cost, would you be happy as an investor? If I didn't tell you, you
couldn't possibly know whether the earnings were good or bad news.
You have to know the entire story. So I really don't care if a
million jobs go overseas if a million +1 come here from overseas. And
I think I remember that the unemployment rate is now starting to drop
which indicates that the number of jobs is increasing despite the
number of jobs leaving. That should make you smile.
>Expect civil unrest in such a situation. However it looks like we are
>turning the corner in the economy, and just have to take a wait and see
>approach.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> hsb
>>
>> "Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
>> *************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
>> ********************************************************************
>> Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
>> reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
>> ********************************************************************
>
--Bernie
Bernie
>> The simple matter is that jobs are destroyed all the time, which is
>> obviously painful for the people whose jobs have been destroyed, but
>> necessary for the nation to advance.
>
>Tell to those who have repeatly lost jobs to outsourcing. How would you like
>to go from one company to another just to lose yet another job to
>outsourcing. You would become an opponent to outsourcing fast, and don't say
>you wouldn't because that wold make you a liar.
A) I think if I had lost 2 or more jobs due to outsourcing, I would
seriously take a look at the jobs I was taking. For example, if I was
a customer service rep, and kept losing jobs, I would find another
line of work rather than keep losing jobs. That is common sense. To
do otherwise is foolish, and I don't believe in hampering our entire
economy just to protect the foolish.
What that means in the modern IT world is that you should be careful
of any phone support jobs, those are prime candidates for outsourcing.
If you were to take such a job, don't act surprised when it gets
outsourced.
B) You really shouldn't tell someone what they would say before they
say it, nor should you accuse someone of lying just because you
personally wouldn't share the opinion under such circumstances. A
person can lose a job to outsourcing and not be an opponent. It is
simply called recognizing how things work. Some people blame the
system when something bad happens--others learn from the event and
adapt without becoming bitter about it. I could easily have said, "if
you believe in evolution, you would be a hypocrite to be an opponent
of outsourcing regardless of how many jobs you have lost due to
outsourcing." That probably wouldn't be very fair, would it? But it
is just as arguably true as your claim that Nrf would be a liar given
your premise.
--Bernie
Bernie
>
>"Bernie" <Ber...@weekend.com> wrote in message
>news:up8evvoclmc7mpsjh...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 00:34:22 -0800, "Sierraman" <rip...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Ok all you Cisco and network admins out there, if you got any balls you
>will
>> >stop lurking and address this issue instead of just leaving it to just
>NRF
>> >and Bernie. I guess most of the admins who won't come forward and speak
>out
>> >against (outsourcing) are afraid of losing their jobs. (Gutless)
>>
>> Why the blasting of people? Maybe they aren't coming out because most
>> don't agree with you. "Gutless" surely doesn't apply in a relatively
>> anonymous forum.
>
>Oh come on, that's pretty lame. Do you really think that there are not
>scores and scores of very knowledgeable people that are firmly against
>outsourcing.
I never said anything to that effect, did I? You are implying that
there are all these people lurking in this group that agree with you.
And your effort at inciting support actually got two more people to
disagree with you and none to openly agree. That doesn't mean that
there is no one that is reading this that wouldn't agree with you, nor
does it mean that there are no educated people (anywhere) that agree
with you. It simply means that your opinion is not as popular as you
seem to think it is, at least not here.
So the evidence seems to indicate that in this forum, your ideas are
not that popular. You can choose to believe what you will despite the
evidence, and you can choose to create all kinds of excuses as to why
these people don't post, but that is your problem not mine.
>Maybe some just don't have the time or are not willing to
>engage in the debate. OK, there are 4 or five of you, and one of me, but
>that's hardly a indication of who agrees or disagrees on what.
You are the one trying to get all the silent masses to speak. I'm
just trying to figure out why they aren't, and none of your excuses
make much sense.
>Mainly it's
>just you and NRF. As for blasting, it's a troll, not a brilliant troll, but
>I was hoping to bring out some of the big fish who are firmly against
>outsourcing. Sure gutless could apply. It takes guts to speak you mind on
>any forum when you could get flamed or even fired from your job, but that
>might be rare.
Is there a posting requirement that says you have to post you name,
rank, serial number, and employer when you post? No. So what is
stopping someone from using an alias and posting their opinion? And
why would they be afraid of getting flamed? No one has flamed you, so
there doesn't seem to be a high risk involved. And if I was taking
even small precautions (such as using an alias, not mentioning my
company name, etc), don't you think it is rather easy to not get
noticed by my company? I really don't think my ISP would reveal my
account details to same random company that called asking who posted
this opinion.
>However some might not want to take the risk when their
>company piers and higher ups found out how they really feel on subjects that
>are potentially a sore spot to their company.
And if those higher ups contacted your ISP to find out your real
identity and then fired you for having an opinion (assuming they first
had legitimate reason to think they had a rogue employee on Usenet,
and assuming your ISP cooperated with providing such information when
there was no crime committed), you could sue the pants off them....
>>
>> >"Sierraman" <rip...@sti.net> wrote in message
>> >news:tOudndw8UYy...@sti.net...
>> >> I stand by what I have said, outsourcing is bad for American. Maybe
>once
>> >the
>> >> list is made public of companies sending (our) jobs oversees then maybe
>> >they
>> >> will re-think what this means to America. IE-(ours) (just as much ours
>as
>> >> anyone elses, but in my mind even more so)
>> >>
>> >> SM
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------
>> >>
>> >> In October, global outsourcing nearly flat-lined the hospital at the
>> >> University of California at San Francisco. To save money, the school
>had
>> >> been sending out thousands of patient medical records for
>transcription.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.rescueamericanjobs.org/newsroom/internet/20031219_rherr.pdf
>> >>
>> >> While outsourcing IT services could save a company money and human
>> >> resources, if not managed properly, it also could lead to expensive
>> >> mistakes, unmet expectations and even project failure.
>> >> "It's a very deep and wide pool of quicksand,"
>> >>
>> >> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/netsys/article.php/2178081
>> >>
>> >> What's Wrong With Downsizing, Privatization, and Outsourcing? I think
>the
>> >> reason is because they are often poorly managed, done for the wrong
>> >reason,
>> >> and with no thought for the human cost.
>> >>
>> >> http://members.tripod.com/TheoLarch/privatization.htm
>> >>
>> >> Outsourcing will bite in 2004, Sending jobs offshore will generate even
>> >more
>> >> angst next year...
>> >>
>> >> http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020505,39118820,00.htm
>> >>
>> >> I predict that the relentless focus on lowering costs through offshore
>> >> outsourcing will come back to haunt companies in 2004.
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/farber_2004_predictions
>2.html
>> >>
>> >> Wichita Workers Rally to Save Jobs
>> >>
>> >> On a cold, windy Saturday afternoon in Wichita, KS, over 500 people
>staged
>> >a
>> >> rally to save jobs from outsourcing. Workers at the Raytheon plant in
>> >> Wichita decided to organize the rally because of announcements of jobs
>> >> leaving for Mexico.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://www.goiam.org/territories.asp?c=4189
>> >>
>> >> The single strongest objection to outsourcing IT is concern for
>security.
>> >> For most businesses, particularly technology companies, lax security
>can
>> >> mean the death of both the company's product and its reputation. "You
>need
>> >> various layers of security," Kristofferson says, adding that "if there
>is
>> >an
>> >> attack on your system, you can see it coming in plenty of time before
>> >> there's penetration into the core layers." What this means to you: When
>> >> outsourcing security, perform thorough background checks of the IT
>> >> outsourcing company. Speak to current clients and sign an airtight SLA
>> >(see
>> >> below).
>> >> http://www.itworld.com/Man/2701/ITW0228outsourcing/
>> >>
>> >> Outsourcing's Fatal Flaw
>> >>
>> >> http://www.cio.com/archive/080101/cisco.html
>> >>
>> >> The Perils of Offshore Outsourcing
>> >>
>> >> http://www.talenteconomymag.com/include/article2.php?articleID=89
>> >>
>> >> The case against outsourcing: read this before you consider
>outsourcing!
>> >>
>> >> http://www.workinfo.com/free/Downloads/117.htm
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>> --Bernie
>
--Bernie
Bernie
Nice how you avoided the question. I was obviously not asking about
the language, but the economic situation. So let me rephrase since
you want to play that way....All things being equal, would you prefer
to be German living in Germany where they have had none of the
economic growth over the past two decades we have had? A Germany that
has been widely reported in magazines such as Newsweek as having an
anemic growth (like around 1-2% at best) year after year after year.
A Germany that is being passed up by many of the other EU countries
that have traditionally been poorer.
> They have lots of great programs for protecting jobs
>> and employees from employers, ad nauseam.
>
>
>
>That's not such a bad thing. We need more of that here in America
>considering how crooks like Enron and Worldcom where CEO's can walk away
>with billions from shareholders without doing any jail time. These guys
>should be the sent to Iraq for public hangings.
Actually, when you protect jobs too tightly it has the opposite
affect. Jobs are not created because you cannot fire people. Being
able to fire people has a dramatic affect on a companies willingness
to hire. So if you want it to be easy to find jobs, you have to
suffer that it is easier to lose jobs as well. Countries like Germany
serve to show that you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
>
>
> Most of those have had a
>> demonstrable adverse affect on their economy.
>
>
>
>Yeah, those bastards sure did screw our workforce. I don't anyone has any
>confidence in big employers anymore. With all the scandals from these big
>firms to insider trading on wall street is it any wonder that workers are
>gun-shy about company stocks. Case in point, Montana power company.
You make my case very nicely. Would you rather live in a country
where the damage is confined to individual companies and their
shareholders or would you rather live in a country where the entire
nation is virtually stagnant (and really moving backwards by
comparison to the nations around you)? I'd take huge growth and
occasional problems with individual companies any day....but that is
just me.
> But of course they are
>> popular with voters because of their feelings (which is why I
>> reiterate that feelings should have nothing to do with the issue).
>
>
>
>Considering they have been pissing down workers backs for years with these
>huge corporate scams, I can see how this has become quite popular. Can you
>blame them?
Sure, I can see why they are popular. But when has popularity been a
true indicator of what is best. It would be very popular with my kids
if I let them eat candy all day. But it wouldn't be best for them
either.
Our country was founded with a distrust for mob rule.
--Bernie
Bernie
You were the first to insinuate the numbers of "experts" and highly
educated people who agree with you. You didn't provide numbers, so
why would you ask Nrf for numbers? It is not up to Nrf to disprove
your assertion about the numbers first. You made the claim...you
should provide your own numbers before asking your detractor to prove
his counter assertion.
> The entire economics profession, almost
>> without exception, would agree that outsourcing is good for it falls under
>> the rubric of free trade and comparative advantage.
>
>I would to see some hard data to support that.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want hard
data, you should first provide hard data to support your claims about
how many "experts" agree with you. But Nrf is right. If you know
much about basic economic theory and Smith, you would know that his
ideas inherently do not support the tight controls and restrictions as
you would propose to keep jobs here.
> I'll trust a boatload
>> of Nobel Prize winners and some of the greatest minds in history over
>other
>> experts.
>
>Painting with a broad brush.
>
> If these experts that you tout are really so great, then why don't
>> they come up with a seminal piece of work ala Adam Smith or David Ricardo?
>> A mark of greatness is doing something that people will still be talking
>> about centuries after your death. People still talk about and teach the
>> ideas of Smith and Ricardo even though they've been dead for 2 centuries,
>> and I am confident that 1000 years in the future, Smith and Ricardo will
>> still be mentioned in the history books (which is not that surprising -
>> people still talk about the works of Plato and Aristotle and they've been
>> dead for almost 2500 years), whereas I rather doubt that your experts will
>> be remembered.
>
>Well, they are not my experts but they are various like mined people nation
>wide, some talented, many well educated who have come to the conclusion that
>outsourcing is bad for America.
Either
A) You are claiming this because you are trying to imply that few
experts disagree with your position, i.e. most experts side with you,
or
B) You are simply trying to bolster the credibility of your own
argument based on nebulous statements about random smart people who
are like minded.
Neither have much merit in a discussion. Conspiracy theorists are
usually *very* bright and educated people, but there is a
psychological aspect that lends them to distrust authority and believe
far out things. There is no lack of such individuals. And as I said
they are very smart and educated people. It doesn't automatically
make what they say right though. So I frankly could care less if
there are educated people that agree with your position. That goes
without saying. No matter how nutty an opinion you might voice, you
can always find at least a handful of intelligent, educated,
like-minded individuals that will agree with your opinion.
It seems like you are trying to start a pissing match about how many
big brains are in one camp vs another rather than deal with the real
issues.
>You don't have to be Einstein to figure that
>one out, but I agree it is subjective and a matter of opinion for the time
>being so I don't have enough hard data to back up my claims or the claims of
>others. Again, my opinion is based on reading what others have printed over
>the years
Not to be mean, but based on the articles you have posted, I don't
really trust your perspective on what has been read over the years.
You post them as supporting your cause, but they really don't. So I
am automatically suspicious of all these other articles you refer to.
>and I don't have any first hand experience like some, but I know
>and have talked to many who have and have read tons more articles who are
>opponents of outsourcing. My conclusion is that outsourcing is bad for
>America and I stand by that just like countless scores of other Americans.
>Maybe when you lose you job several times over to outsourcing, which may or
>may not happen, you will change your opinion. It's quite different when you
>are on the blunt end of things and you are likely to mold yet another
>version of outsourcing. Some might think outsourcing is great as long as it
>benifits you and doesn't actually affect you but in the long run it might
>somehow anyway.
If that is what you think has been said then you have missed it
entirely. There is the issue of what might hurt an individual. There
is also the issue of what might hurt the aggregate of individuals as a
whole. War is a perfect example of balancing the needs of the few
with the needs of the many. There are many times that war is the
better choice (even if invaded, war is still a choice). Some suffer,
but as a whole all are better off. This is the same case. No one is
saying that the pro of outsourcing is to benefit one individual.
> About the only historical figure that you may be able to
>> appeal to is Marx, and we all know how well Marxism worked out.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Of course if no one outsourced, then the above owner wouldn't have to
>> > > make that decision. But again, that's naive thinking. The genie has
>> > > been out of the bottle for quite some time.
>> >
>> > Yes it has, forsight is not 20/20 on this one.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > >
>> > > hsb
>> > >
>> > > "Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
>> > > *************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
>> > > ********************************************************************
>> > > Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
>> > > reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
>> > > ********************************************************************
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
--Bernie
nrf
> > Sure, but just because the cavalry isn't coming doesn't mean that you
> can't
> > fend for yourself. I've never been afraid of a pack-rush.
>
> I guess you have never run into a pack of coyotes before in the mountains
on
> foot, with no firepower. It's a pretty scary thing. Remember, you are part
> of the food chain. BTW, look for a special to aire on Primetime about how
> the opponents of Outsourcing are working to stop it and what they plan to
> do.
First of all, I rather doubt that anybody here on this ng, and certainly not
myself, Bernie, hsb, balin, or any of my supporters on this thread are out
to threaten your life.
I am indeed part of the food chain, which is why I like it when I can get a
job at a foreign company. I've worked for quite a few foreign companies,
and I may do so again, but according to your rules, I should not be allowed
to do that. So if I feel like working for Sony I should not be allowed to
do that because I'm not a citizen of Japan. If I want to work for Nokia, I
can't because I don't hold a passport from Finland. Perhaps we should have
a Primetime special on that?
>
Bernie
><snip>>
>> >This is a Cisco newsgroup, so let's use Cisco as an example. When Cisco
>> >laid off 8500 people in 2001 they didn't outsource those jobs to India,
>they
>> >just eliminated thos positions entirely. Would this not have caused the
>> >very same emotional damage and stunted morale that this article cites?
>Did
>> >surviving workers at Cisco feel lost after the layoffs? Yes. Did some
>of
>> >them try to sabotage the company? I'm sure some did. But does that mean
>> >that Cisco should not have laid those people off?
>>
>> And to reiterate Hansang's point, would those who survived have
>> preferred that 8500 people be kept and the entire company go under
>> after a couple of years, resulting in a job loss of 35,000 (I don't
>> remember the exact employment number from back then). As bad as it
>> gets with downsizing, you always recognize that it is better than the
>> alternative, i.e. the whole ship sinking.
>
>Actually, I don't think hsb's analogy fits well here, as I don't think
>anybody seriously believed that Cisco was under any real threat of
>bankruptcy back then. I say that to undermine any charge of Cisco corporate
>greed that I fear may follow from exploring this tack too deeply.
Of course, it wasn't an immediate threat. If MS started losing 5
billion a year, they wouldn't be in any imminent danger either. But
it would also be hard to argue that they should just do nothing
because they aren't going to go bankrupt any time soon. I recalled
that Cisco was losing money, both in real terms and in pro-forma terms
back then. Yahoo's history of Cisco finances confirmed it for me when
I checked.
Usually when a company is losing money, downsizing is part of the plan
to fix it, and it is usually understood that if nothing is done at
all, the expectation is that the company will eventually run out of
money sooner or later. I don't recall the line item reasons for the
big loss, and maybe I overstated the long term risk to Cisco, but when
you lose over a billion in a year, you also cannot trivialize the risk
and suggest that downsizing isn't important to the survival of the
company.
The point is that I don't think anyone back then would have argued
that Cisco should do nothing that they would be just fine. And if
people generally agreed that action was necessary, I'm not sure how
you could say that the downsizing that took place wasn't part of that
necessary action, that it was more to maximize profits (even though
there wasn't a profit to maximize at the time).
>What I will say is that Cisco had 2 legitimate reasons to eliminate those
>positions that do not fall under the simplistic rubric of greed.
>
>1) Those workers were hired in anticipation of growth that never came.
>
>We should recall that back in those days Cisco was growing at the Promethean
>rates of 50-60% per annum, and Cisco was hiring appetite was insatiable.
>Then as we all know, the hammer came down and Cisco's growth rates have been
>anemic ever since. Cisco hired thousands of people in anticipation of
>growth that never came to be, and therefore it could be said that a lot of
>people were hired by Cisco who should never have been hired in the first
>place. Should Cisco be forced to live with that mistake forever? If
>layoffs are taboo, then Cisco would have basically been punished ad
>infinitum. This would have the obvious result of greatly discouraging
>companies from hiring in the first place, for if the economy sours, those
>companies would be saddled with excess employees which they would be unable
>to eliminate.
>
>2) The plurality of the eliminated workers came from the service-provider
>division.
>
>This is a variation of point #1. Cisco hired lots of service-provider
>specialists in anticipation of strong penetration into the provider space
>that never came to be, meaning that these specialists now had little to do.
>It is therefore perfectly natural for a company to eliminate all the workers
>that were hired for a particular initiative if that initiative fails. What
>else would you expect to happen? If Walmart opens a store and that store
>performs poorly, you would expect Walmart to close that store and layoff all
>those workers at that store. Surely it would be unreasonable to think that
>Walmart is somehow obligated to keep those workers on when there's no longer
>a store for them to work in. Let's say that Cisco decides they want to
>compete in a whole new arena - say cellphones. Cisco will then hire all
>these cell-phone engineers, cell-phone marketing experts, and so forth.
>Let's say that initiative fails and Cisco banks it. Is Cisco then obligated
>to keep all these cellphone people on the payroll now that the very reason
>that they were hired in the first place is gone? If the answer is 'yes',
>then you must agree that that would have a most deleterious effect on
>companies' desire to start new initiatives for fear that if they fail, those
>companies will be saddled with unwanted personnel that can't be eliminated
>and will therefore be a permanent drag to the payroll.
>>
>> >In short, are we talking about the specific issue of outsourcing or the
>> >general issue of layoffs here? Do you have specific problems with
>> >outsourcing or is this really part of a generic arc of being opposed to
>> >layoffs? Are you saying that companies should never be allowed to lay
>> >people off?
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> --Bernie
>
--Bernie
Bernie
<j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote:
>
>"Bernie" <Ber...@weekend.com> wrote in message
>news:sb9evv4oq81abjaui...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:31:30 GMT, "nrf" <nogl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> And to reiterate Hansang's point, would those who survived have
>> preferred that 8500 people be kept and the entire company go under
>> after a couple of years, resulting in a job loss of 35,000 (I don't
>> remember the exact employment number from back then). As bad as it
>> gets with downsizing, you always recognize that it is better than the
>> alternative, i.e. the whole ship sinking.
>>
>
>
>I don't know about "always better than the alternative,"
You misquoted me and took the quote out of context. I was talking
about a situation where a company is losing money. Yahoo financials
show Cisco's fiscal 2001 year as a loss of 2 billion dollars, and if I
am reading it right, 1 billion reported as pro-forma loss. So there
was a danger that if nothing was done then down the road the future of
the company might be in question. Maybe it would have taken more than
two years to drain their cash, but nevertheless a real risk existed
that demanded action.
As for the quote, I said you always recognize [given the stated
situation] that it is better than the company going under resulting in
everyone losing a job. I didn't say "it is always better than the
alternative," i.e. not downsizing. Please quote me accurately.
>because downsizing is not 'always' an act of survival.
True, but that wasn't the context, and my quote shouldn't have been
twisted to mean that all downsizing is an act of survival either.
>There have been instances where major layoffs have occurred after
>very large, even record profits have been realized - perhaps to make
>the books look better so that merger/acquisition goes through.
>Ameritech is guitly of such behavior, and there are
>other companies out there who have played this game as well.
At the very least it is hard to argue that Cisco's downsizing was just
to maximize profits, and not as an act to ensure long term survival
since the layoffs occurred when they were losing money.
>People can be civic minded, selfish, charitable, greedy, etc etc etc,
>and remember that it's people who run these shows.
>So you're gonna see all sorts of behavior at corporate levels
>as well as individual levels.
>
>
--Bernie
Bernie
>I guess you have never run into a pack of coyotes before in the mountains on
>foot, with no firepower. It's a pretty scary thing. Remember, you are part
>of the food chain. BTW, look for a special to aire on Primetime about how
>the opponents of Outsourcing are working to stop it and what they plan to
>do.
I guess my question for you is what are you doing to try to stop it.
You can post lists of companies all you like, but if you aren't
willing to shop elsewhere, those companies will also ignore your
action all you like.
To bring my point home, I would ask why you are posting with software
from a company that is outsourcing support to India. And so you don't
think that I am picking on just you, do you really think that these
groups can stop MS? Are all of these people prepared to not use a
single MS product any more? I think there will be lots of people
either living a secret lie, or choking on their own threats once they
issue them.
--Bernie
nrf
And what will happen if the US Linux companies, Sun, and Apple start
outsourcing some of their helpdesk to foreign countries, if they haven't
done so already? Hmmm, I guess these groups will have to stop using
computers.
>
> --Bernie
Bernie
>> I would to see some hard data to support that.
>
>Do you not remember a similar debate over Nafta? I seem to recall that
>something like 24 out of 25 economics studies showed that nafta would be
>good on the aggregate for the US. The last study was the one seized upon by
>Ross Perot to back his claim that a "giant sucking sound" would be heard of
>jobs that would stream to Mexico. Even that last study did not deny the
>overall economic benefits of nafta to the US.
>
>Ultimately, if you are an economist, you must accept the basic principles of
>free trade, of which outsourcing is an outgrowth. An economist who doesn't
>accept free trade is like a mathematician who doesn't accept algebra or a
>physicist who doesn't accept quantum mechanics.
And there is a tremendous wealth of historical data that supports
these principles. Any time you close your economy to the rest of the
world, you suffer in the long run. Enacting broad-sweeping, crippling
tarriffs on all imports might boost the country in the very short
term, but any economist in their right mind knows that this is a very
bad idea for the long term.
Furthermore, it is also a well-known principle that when you protect
something from natural competitive forces, that thing becomes weaker
in the long run. Take any athlete out of a competitive environment,
and he will no longer achieve to the same level as he did when
competing. This is simply human nature. Take competition out of the
mix for a company, and the products will no longer be as high in
quality or low in cost. The company will become fat and lazy, and the
customer will suffer. When you make it so that Americans don't have
to compete for jobs internationally, then Americans will eventually
fall behind the world in skills.
--Bernie
Bernie
And even if they don't, I don't know many such anti-outsourcing IS
people that would follow their conscience in defining company policy.
If they did, they would have to force ol' Mable in accounting (who can
barely operate Windows and Word after a few years of working at it) to
learn Linux and a whole new set of office style apps. This would
result in tons of lost productivity at the office, and it would
probably ensure that the IS department would get outsourced at the
first opportunity <g>. So such people would just have to compromise
at work and then go home to Linux. I don't think MS is scared of
sanctions by those who are against foreign outsourcing. A few more
Linux hobbyists won't hurt them.
And you know what? Even if they were worried about it and brought
support back here, they would just raise the price of the products to
cover the difference. They would get their money one way or the
other, but we would all pay more. And the other fallout is that
places like China would become even more friendly to pirates than they
already are if MS refused to employ people over there. Right now MS
is at least making some progress in making changes over there, but it
is through investing in their universities, employing them, etc. And
again, Americans would end up paying the difference for their lost
revenue.
--Bernie
nrf
> On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 02:21:01 GMT, "nrf" <nogl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> I would to see some hard data to support that.
> >
> >Do you not remember a similar debate over Nafta? I seem to recall that
> >something like 24 out of 25 economics studies showed that nafta would be
> >good on the aggregate for the US. The last study was the one seized upon
by
> >Ross Perot to back his claim that a "giant sucking sound" would be heard
of
> >jobs that would stream to Mexico. Even that last study did not deny the
> >overall economic benefits of nafta to the US.
> >
> >Ultimately, if you are an economist, you must accept the basic principles
of
> >free trade, of which outsourcing is an outgrowth. An economist who
doesn't
> >accept free trade is like a mathematician who doesn't accept algebra or a
> >physicist who doesn't accept quantum mechanics.
>
> And there is a tremendous wealth of historical data that supports
> these principles. Any time you close your economy to the rest of the
> world, you suffer in the long run. Enacting broad-sweeping, crippling
> tarriffs on all imports might boost the country in the very short
> term, but any economist in their right mind knows that this is a very
> bad idea for the long term.
Unfortunately, economists personally never have enough votes to counteract
the appeals of political demagoguery. Those people who lose jobs from free
trade are easily identified and vote accordingly. Those people who gain
jobs from free trade are not so easily identified and therefore do not
represent a powerful voting bloc. Politicians who want to pander for votes
do very well by engaging in fearmonging and appealing to the lowest common
denominator.
John Agosta
Yes, I did take that quote out of context -
But I wasn't trying to 'twist your words' or argue with your points -
- just bringing up another point about corporate citizenship.
Please don't shoot.
Sierraman
I have said my peace pretty much already. The troll was intended to hook
other big fish who have excellent opinions to the reverse. I don't have the
time to be taking on you and NRF, nor was that my intent. I wanted to read
what others have said but there doesn't seem to be any checking in right
now. You admit that there are plenty out there that would argue with good
data to the reverse. I want to read what others say from the other side of
the fence now that I have been bombarded by you NRF. It's too bad they don't
check in. I believe if I wanted to spend a lot of time gathering data and
putting together a good rebutal I believe I could. Since you guys are double
teaming, I should also likewise call out the troops, and I suppose I could
rally a few to come in here and we could put up stiff resistence to the way
you guys see it. That was never my intention. THIS IS NOT THE END OF THE
WORLD! It is about what the truth is and not about who wins an argument, so
that is why the discussion need to be more rounded and robust on both sides.
I failed to draw out the big fish, ok, I can live with that. If some of the
like minded people who believe that outsourcing is bad for America just
happened to check in here then this would be a more robust and healthy
debate. Right now it's lopsided, for one because two pretty smart guys are
teaming up against one guy of average intelligent who has stated that he
doesn't want to spent twice the time to, nor do I have the time, and two, I
am looking for bigger fish. It is noted that I read all your replies and I
am not blind to your facts and data but right now we need to hear from the
other side with a very comprehensive rebuke, with good data and vigorious
defense for being (against) outsourcing.
Look for a comprehensive special to aire in primetime from very
knowledgeable people who are putting together a grass roots movement to stop
outsourcing and what they plan to to do. Stay tuned.
SM
Sierraman
No, I am not afraid of you guys, but the debate is not well rounded and
robust on both sides. That is not my fault that the troll failed to bring
out more opponents. That the way it goes for now. Maybe in the future when
the movement grows you will find more speaking out in this forum. Since it
is a Cisco cert forum there is no measurement of how many are for or against
outsourcing. Since you have worked for foreign companies that might have
something to do with your views on this subject. Opponents of it can make a
difference if they work hard at stopping it. There will always be two
schools of thought on this, it just depends on how many people get involved
at the right levels to stop it. Again, watch the special if you want. At
least from that a person can get more imput from the other side, which I
haven't seen in this group. Once again I believe anyone can do the research
on the net and come to a conclusion, but for the time being I believe
outsourcing is bad for America, not in every instance but I think it's an
alarming trend, out of control. Rather then drag this out, I would rather
shorten it because I haven't heard from the other side. If I said that 3000
manufacting jobs have been lost because of Nafta then you would love to
argue the point. I would rather not since my troll didn't land any data
crunching opponents of outsourcing.
This issue may rekindle in the future.
SM
Bernie
Actually, I never said anything about "good data" supporting the
reverse. I admitted that there are smart, educated people that would
hold the reverse point of view in spite of the facts, just like there
are smart educated people that cling to the [conspiracy] theory that
we never fought in WWII.
And as I said, it means nothing that smart people hold a particular
point of view. What matters is whether they are right or not. So
supposing smart, educated people are on opposite sides of the fence on
an issue, they both cannot be right. I am sure you will admit there
are smart, educated people that are for outsourcing (not the poor
management variety). So are both right? Hopefully you don't believe
that reality is subjective and you will say "no" to that question. Or
is one side wrong about it?
As an example, there are brilliant and educated people that believe in
evolution, and there are brilliant educated people that believe God
created the Earth in six days. Can both be right? No. So the fact
that the side that is wrong (whichever that might be) has smart,
educated people promoting their conclusion means absolutely nothing in
terms of determining who is right.
>I want to read what others say from the other side of
>the fence now that I have been bombarded by you NRF. It's too bad they don't
>check in. I believe if I wanted to spend a lot of time gathering data and
>putting together a good rebutal I believe I could. Since you guys are double
>teaming,
Actually, if you will recall, I barely posted in the initial thread in
response to you except when you accused Nrf of being a troll, and when
you addressed me personally. My only other posts were responses to
Socal Sentinel. You then "called in the troops" at which point you got
not only me but a couple of other people involved as well. So lets
not pretend that you were double teamed prior to you calling in the
troops. It was for the most part mano a mano, until you called in the
troops.
>I should also likewise call out the troops, and I suppose I could
>rally a few to come in here and we could put up stiff resistence to the way
>you guys see it. That was never my intention. THIS IS NOT THE END OF THE
>WORLD! It is about what the truth is and not about who wins an argument,
Lets see. So far you have accused us of holding our views simply
because:
a) we just want to win an argument
b) Nrf has worked for a foreign company
c) we just like to spin instead of landing on an opinion
d) Nrf was a troll
And even though we have each (mostly Nrf though) presented an
objective argument for outsourcing, you still accuse us of holding our
view because of personally subjective circumstances. That isn't how
reason works. At no time has anyone inferred that you are only
against outsourcing because you have been personally impacted
negatively. I would expect the same courtesy in return.
No, it isn't the end of the world. However, it isn't the people that
are *for* outsourcing that are claiming the sky is falling (actually,
a better way of stating my position is that I am simply not against
it, not that I am necessarily "for" it). That would be the people
that are against it. We aren't raising any alarms. You guys are. So
PUH-LEASE don't accuse us of treating this like the end of the world.
Yes it is about truth. I have stated that before. Nrf and I both
know that we are defending the truth of the matter. But if it makes
it easier for you to dismiss reason by claiming that your detractor(s)
is just arguing to argue, by all means do so. But if that is your
belief about people who are on a different side of an issue, why did
you bother raising the issue again?
>so
>that is why the discussion need to be more rounded and robust on both sides.
>I failed to draw out the big fish, ok, I can live with that. If some of the
>like minded people who believe that outsourcing is bad for America just
>happened to check in here then this would be a more robust and healthy
>debate. Right now it's lopsided, for one because two pretty smart guys are
>teaming up against one guy of average intelligent
It isn't about the people, it is about the reason. Having more people
doesn't make it more robust if they don't present compelling reason.
>who has stated that he
>doesn't want to spent twice the time to, nor do I have the time, and two, I
>am looking for bigger fish. It is noted that I read all your replies and I
>am not blind to your facts and data but right now we need to hear from the
>other side with a very comprehensive rebuke, with good data and vigorious
>defense for being (against) outsourcing.
>
>Look for a comprehensive special to aire in primetime from very
>knowledgeable people who are putting together a grass roots movement to stop
>outsourcing and what they plan to to do. Stay tuned.
>
>SM
>
--Bernie
Bernie
<j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote:
Well you did put it in quotes as if I had stated it that way even
though it wasn't at all what I had said.
> - just bringing up another point about corporate citizenship.
>Please don't shoot.
I am not shooting, but I admit it did peave me to be misquoted.
--Bernie
Sierraman
See the new post. There are better links there. Much better.
SM
John Agosta
John Agosta
Sorry to "peave you off."
Rest assured, there was no intention to argue your points, or try to make it
seem like you said anything that you didn't say. The line just felt like a
good segue into
my 2 cents on corporate citizenship.
Keep up the good work.
-ja
Sierraman
> > >
> > > So why don't you print the better ones?
> >
> > I would have to find them, scan them and then link to huge graphics
files,
> > not a smart way to do it. Omni Pro, which I suppose is the best for
> > converting graphic text into plain text is still not very good at what
it
> > does.
>
> Fear not, I will wait.
>
drown in these links for sure. The evidence is overwhelming and these all
look to be pretty decent links to articles posted in an extremely
comprehensive html document from someone who looks to be behind the 8 ball
when it comes to opponents who have written oursourcing documentation.
SM
nrf
It is not just that I have worked for foreign companies in the past, but
also because me, you, and the rest of us may work for foreign companies in
the future and it is important not to take away that option. More to the
point you can't support the free market only when it helps you and not
support it when it doesn't. You either believe in the free market or you
don't. If American companies are not allowed to hire foreigners, then
foreign companies should not be allowed to hire Americans.
Hansang Bae
[snip]
> debate. Right now it's lopsided, for one because two pretty smart guys are
> teaming up against one guy of average intelligent who has stated that he
Hey now...you don't have to call Bernie a "guy of average
intelligence"... we know that already! :)
nrf
>
> Lets see. So far you have accused us of holding our views simply
> because:
>
> a) we just want to win an argument
> b) Nrf has worked for a foreign company
> c) we just like to spin instead of landing on an opinion
> d) Nrf was a troll
Let's not forget that I was also accused of being a Canadian. I'm not
entirely sure if that was an insult or not.
Sierraman
While were at it...
There is a chance that you guys are in the higher income bracket where the
admins are. If you are not feeling the upturns or downturns then it might be
in your best interest to try to squash any posts from opponents of
outsourcing. It's also possible that you are enjoying perks that came from
profits that companies made by trashing the workforce in favor of
outsourcing. Are you sharing the perks of company CEO's who have skimmed
creme off the top from those profits? If you guys are elite admins, then
that scenario is possible and I can understand why you might be against
opponents of outsourcing since it mostly empowers the rich top percent in
these companies. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. One of the
most riduclous things you have said is that the Americans are doing better
then they ever have before. We know that's a crock. At least now readers can
get a good view of the problems from the new post instead of from the
spinmasters.
SM
nrf
>
> "nrf" <nogl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:QFzKb.73289$I07.369145@attbi_s53...
> >
> > >
> > > Lets see. So far you have accused us of holding our views simply
> > > because:
> > >
> > > a) we just want to win an argument
> > > b) Nrf has worked for a foreign company
> > > c) we just like to spin instead of landing on an opinion
> > > d) Nrf was a troll
> >
> > Let's not forget that I was also accused of being a Canadian. I'm not
> > entirely sure if that was an insult or not.
>
> While were at it...
>
> There is a chance that you guys are in the higher income bracket where the
> admins are. If you are not feeling the upturns or downturns then it might
be
> in your best interest to try to squash any posts from opponents of
> outsourcing. It's also possible that you are enjoying perks that came from
> profits that companies made by trashing the workforce in favor of
> outsourcing. Are you sharing the perks of company CEO's who have skimmed
> creme off the top from those profits? If you guys are elite admins, then
> that scenario is possible and I can understand why you might be against
> opponents of outsourcing since it mostly empowers the rich top percent in
> these companies.
Ah, so is that how it is? You are accusing us of ulterior motives? Surely
you should realize that I could easily accuse you of the same - that your
whole purpose of these posts is to protect yourself from outsourcing
whatever the costs may be. For example I could very easily accuse you of
protecting your job even if it means that Bernie will lose his job at
Nortel because he's not a Canadian and all Americans who work at foreign
companies will lose their jobs. Do you really want to go down this road?
You know, Sierraman, I had respect for you. Until now. I've been following
the standard decorum of argumentative persuasion which includes, among other
things, a ban on accusations of ulterior motives. I expect the same
courtesy from you.
I never once accused you of ulterior motives.
> The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. One of the
> most riduclous things you have said is that the Americans are doing better
> then they ever have before. We know that's a crock.
A crock, eh? Then why is it supported by the economic evidence?
The US GDP in the year 2000, was $9.9 trillion
The US GDP in the year 2003, adjusted to 2000 dollars (therefore eliminating
inflation) is $10.49 trillion
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls
In Q4 of 2000, prior to the recession, US personal income was $8.56
trillion. In Q#, 2003, personal income was $9.2 trillion. Personal income
consists of wages, salaries, proprietor's income, interest income, rent, and
government payouts like welfare and social security. Americans as a whole
therefore have more income than they ever did before.
US Disposable personal income in Q4,2000 was $7.3 trillion. Disposable
personal income in Q3, 2003 was $8.3 trillion. Americans therefore have
more income to spend than they ever did before.
US Personal consumption in Q4, 2000 was $6.8 trillion. Personal consumption
in Q3, 2003 was $7.4 trillion. Americans are buying more things and
therefore enjoying more goods and services than they ever did before.
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid
US Home ownership rates in the year 2002 was 67.9%. This is the highest
home ownership rate on record. Moreoever, home ownership rates have
increased every year since at least 1996.
http://www.danter.com/statistics/homeown.htm
And, like I said, there are now more registered cars than registered drivers
in the US, the first time in the history of the world that this has happened
in any country. If this doesn't seem like a big deal to you, then ask
yourself why didn't this happen 20 years ago? Why now? It therefore
indicates that Americans are richer and can therefore afford more cars than
they ever could before.
Now does that mean that EVERY American is benefitting? No, of course not.
There hasn't been a single point in American history where every single
American was benefitting. Even in the best times, somebody somewhere is
having something bad happening to him. The US had the greatest spurt of
economic growth in the nation's history in the late 1800's, and this was a
time when millions of American farmers lost their jobs. But that does not
by itself mean that Americans as a whole are doing badly. Some Americans
right now are getting hurt. That's undeniable. But what's also undeniable
is that many other Americans are improving their conditions. Like I said,
incomes are increasing, home ownership rates are increasing, personal
consumption is increasing, and the ratio of cars to drivers is higher than
it has ever been before. It's difficult to argue that Americans as a
whole are doing worse when those numbers are going up.
>At least now readers can
> get a good view of the problems from the new post instead of from the
> spinmasters.
Who's to say that we're not the truthtellers and the your articles aren't
written by the spinmasters? The only way to judge is to assess the facts.
This is why, as Bernie said, you should not rely on your emotions and your
feelings, but rather on your rational judgment. I provided a point-by-point
commentary on the last series of articles you posted, and while I don't
believe I'm going to be doing that for the current series of postings (it's
a lot of articles, I would have to type for awhile), I am writing a rebuttal
as we speak.
>
>
>
> SM
>
>
Bernie
>
>"nrf" <nogl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:QFzKb.73289$I07.369145@attbi_s53...
>>
>> >
>> > Lets see. So far you have accused us of holding our views simply
>> > because:
>> >
>> > a) we just want to win an argument
>> > b) Nrf has worked for a foreign company
>> > c) we just like to spin instead of landing on an opinion
>> > d) Nrf was a troll
>>
>> Let's not forget that I was also accused of being a Canadian. I'm not
>> entirely sure if that was an insult or not.
>
>While were at it...
When it is pointed out that you have nothing more than ad hominems as
your response, you attempt another? Incredible. Try addressing the
points rather than the person. That is why you haven't gotten any
respect from anyone in here.
>There is a chance that you guys are in the higher income bracket where the
>admins are. If you are not feeling the upturns or downturns
Nrf has clarified many times where I work. If you would even hint
that I haven't felt the downturn of the economy, you live in the
remotest part of the darkest corner of the world. I can only conclude
that you haven't turned on your TV or read a paper in three years.
You certainly wouldn't be qualified to talk about the economy.
>then it might be
>in your best interest to try to squash any posts from opponents of
>outsourcing. It's also possible that you are enjoying perks that came from
>profits that companies made by trashing the workforce in favor of
>outsourcing. Are you sharing the perks of company CEO's who have skimmed
>creme off the top from those profits?
Name one "admin" that is skimming with their CEO. Anyone who believes
that network admins should be lumped in with the corporate executives,
raise your hand. Your claims are becoming increasingly maniacal in
tenor.
Before you assume, next time why don't you ask me, for example, if I
have gotten a bonus in the last three years before you fire
accusations from the hip.
And this claim is even more ludicrous for the simple fact that CEOs
have been overpaid and have skimmed long before the foreign
outsourcing trend. Outsourcing doesn't cause skimming. So you now
make the categorical error of confusing age old personal ethics
problems with recent business trends.
>If you guys are elite admins, then
>that scenario is possible
Possible that elite admin==CEO??????? Is that what you are really
saying???
>and I can understand why you might be against
>opponents of outsourcing since it mostly empowers the rich top percent in
>these companies.
You think "network admins" (not that I am saying I am a "network
admin", but I am working with your assumption here) are in the top %1
that owns more than 30% of the nations wealth?!?!?!?!? Boy you really
do believe the daytime ads. Sorry to burst your bubble, but no, I
don't moonlight as an MVP MLB player for extra income.
>The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. One of the
>most riduclous things you have said is that the Americans are doing better
>then they ever have before. We know that's a crock. At least now readers can
>get a good view of the problems from the new post instead of from the
>spinmasters.
Huh? You claim that Jim is not a spinmaster? He blames every problem
in the US on Bush and champions Howard Dean on many issues. He links
to many far-left political activist sites. He takes articles that
present *both* sides of the issue and then re-titles it to say
something like: "Bush hates you and your dog, wants to take your job,
kill you, drop you in the Hudson, kill your dog, drop him in the
Hudson too, vote Howard Dean in 2004". Oh but he is just telling the
honest-to-God truth, lol.
That site has the most blatant spin on issues, even a casual observer
can see the far-left spin within a couple of seconds. But I am sure
the other rabid extremists love it because it gets people riled up.
--Bernie
Bernie
And Jim, that web site owner, who claims to be angry and mentally
deranged, blames everything on Bush, links to many of the extremist
political activist websites, has no ulterior motives...
Actually Sierraman only listed the retitled articles. The original
ones often were fair, balanced articles, and Jim retitled them to
"India took your job, killed your wife, raped your daughter, and is
now laughing at you for being a redneck loser". Of course Sierraman
listed only the titles that Jim gave them, not the real article
titles.
>The only way to judge is to assess the facts.
>This is why, as Bernie said, you should not rely on your emotions and your
>feelings, but rather on your rational judgment. I provided a point-by-point
>commentary on the last series of articles you posted, and while I don't
>believe I'm going to be doing that for the current series of postings (it's
>a lot of articles, I would have to type for awhile), I am writing a rebuttal
>as we speak.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> SM
>>
>>
>
--Bernie
Hansang Bae
> There is a chance that you guys are in the higher income bracket where the
> admins are. If you are not feeling the upturns or downturns then it might be
> in your best interest to try to squash any posts from opponents of
> outsourcing.
Chances are, yes we are in the higher bracket than most who hang out
here. Not bragging, just realty based on experience etc. But it's
certainly not in our best interest to squash anything. I think nrf runs
his own business, so he'll do what it takes to make his payroll. Bernie
works for a big networking equipment company (and I work in a financial
company) so we're both quite familiar with outsourcing.
> It's also possible that you are enjoying perks that came from
> profits that companies made by trashing the workforce in favor of
> outsourcing.
Trust me....no perks for me. In fact, there were no raises for the last
two years...all the while the company made record profits in the
*B*illions.
> Are you sharing the perks of company CEO's who have skimmed
> creme off the top from those profits?
Have you seen my name mentioned on "Your world with Neil Cavuto?"
> If you guys are elite admins, then
> that scenario is possible and I can understand why you might be against
> opponents of outsourcing since it mostly empowers the rich top percent in
> these companies. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
The rich have been getting richer since time immemorial. That will
never change.
> One of the
> most riduclous things you have said is that the Americans are doing better
> then they ever have before. We know that's a crock.
It is? Americans for the most part do not know what real poverty is.
No American had to make a choice on selling body parts to support his
family. No American has had to sell his/her daughters into prostitution
to support the rest of the family. All of the above excludes the
whacko's that surface from time to time. If it's not fair comparing the
US to the rest of the world, go back to a few decades....Americans are
doing better.
> At least now readers can
> get a good view of the problems from the new post instead of from the
> spinmasters.
Pot, kettle.
Sierraman
I'll read it. Post it. I am disadvantaged time wise but I will read it.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > SM
> >
> >
>
>