The Old Joel on Software Forum: Part 3 (of 5) - Outsourcing Employees too.....

Outsourcing Employees too.....

Just happened to read this piece .......

http://computerworld.com/managementtopics/outsourcing/story/0,10801,87005,00.html

Seems like this is gonna come down to IT employees too ....

Shai
Thursday, November 13, 2003

Good idea, why not, send all those whining computer nerds to go live somewhere cheaply at a competitive world wage!

Wouldn't it be awesome, in fact, if the wealthy elites and politicians just outsourced the whole country. The government doesn't like the electorate who foolishly voted for Gore and complain about the economy all the time - well, kick them out! And the corporations won't have to worry about pesky American workers who, to be honest, aren't worth their keep in a world marketplace - and nobody will have to fear angry jobless mobs burning the whole country like Benton Harbor. Just kick everybody out! Let Bill Gates and a few of his rich friends have room to roam, to dream big dreams, with only a few servants to be generously allowed to retain residency.

Sounds like a plan. I mean, it worked for Ireland didn't it?

Trollumination
Thursday, November 13, 2003

"The company is pitching the jobs as a way to see the world"

Or at least the inside of a cubicle.

Thursday, November 13, 2003

It's pretty scary when you think about it. Even if the wealthy have always been able to rig things to suit themselves, the other people have always still been present to keep an eye on them.

If this thing takes off, you can see where it will go. Corporate honchoes will live in one country with their servants and a strong military, while they've packed the entire rest of the world to crowded, dirty countries with little water, poor medical facilities and the rest.

a
Thursday, November 13, 2003

I see this board is finally discovering some of the hidden benefits of offshoring - the local labor pool is willing to accept worse conditions for less pay.

As far as the rich living in a nation all their own, I think that' taking it a little too far. Sure technology allows clothing to be made overseas and flown, rather than shipped in, but think of a rich person's lifestyle.

Years ago in a business class I took, we did a sort of thought experiment and took a very simple item like a pencil and thought through all of the things that went in to it.

On the surface, wood, metal, graphite, rubber, and a metal ring. The wood had to come from somewhere, so we involve the lumber industry, so we add chainsaws, hard hats, trucks. Right there we're involving the automobile industry, so glass (windshields), fabric for the seats, stereo systems, and so on.

If I was rich and I wanted to fly to the Bahamas, I would want to be damn sure that there was a good airport nearby. The airport and it's support staff need places to live, sleep, eat, etc. so we have housing, hotels, restaurants. The hotel support staff needs a place to buy their clothes, the people in the clothing stores need a place to buy video games. Sure you can outsource the making of the video games, but you can't outsource the selling of them. Even if you do, you need the Fed Ex guy to deliver it and so on.

Of course, what do you think the top 2% of wealthiest people do with their time anyway? Do you really think their "world" resembles ours? Do you think they really care what happens in Brooklyn from their homes in Westchester, or in some place you've never heard of because it's so exlcusive?

Then you have to think about what makes these people rich in the first place. What happens when there's nobody to consume any of the things they're selling us?

Did I have a point or was I just rambling?

1. Offshoring = cheaper labor all around, both overseas and at home.

2. Even the top 2% that control 80% of the wealth need an infrastructure. I don't think they want to see the world go from Upper Class to Slum in a 5 minute car drive.

www.MarkTAW.com
Thursday, November 13, 2003

"I don't think they want to see the world go from Upper Class to Slum in a 5 minute car drive"

I lived in the Docklands in London, once, many a year ago, and you could walk the distance to the "slum" in five minutes. I still felt more at home amongst the people there (i.e. in the "slum").

Thursday, November 13, 2003

I live in Brooklyn and you can go from old Victorian era homes, beautiful homes on oversized lots to crowded apartments and questionable storefronts in 2 city blocks. After all, someone has to work on your car.

I don't know if you can say that about where the Clintons live.

This is exemplified by the house my friends just sold on Jerome Avenue in Brooklyn. "Lundy Row." These are houses that the owners of Lundy's (the famous restaurant) built for their workers. I don't really know where the owners lived, but the lesson remains:

The waiters, car mechanics, store clerks, etc. have to live close enough to you to work on your car, but not so close that they'll steal it at night.

www.MarkTAW.com
Thursday, November 13, 2003

Am not sure about this... but it seems we are missing a major point here about being "rich" or "poor".

How does one define "rich" Is it the actual $$ one earns/saves being * anywhere * in the world or it is the $$ one makes being at one particular location in the world as compared to the living cost at that place.

If its the first idealogy you adher to then you are just trying to put US as the benchmark for each and every place and that doesn't sound quie correct. right ?

What makes you all think that people in the third world countries are not "rich" ??

In this its more of a matter of choice for people from say Finland to goto India and work there. And mind you not just for the money part but for exploring something new......

As i see it, its more of having/keeping a job (may be in some totally different country) and earn *good * salary (competitive with the locals) than * not having a job at all * in your own country.

Sooner ot later there will more stories of this sort in the field of IT. As is we all yearn for * good work * and good working conditions. So if the good work is not available at your place/country why not move to a place where it is ? Seems logical. Doesn't it ?

And yes to quantify the "rich" and "poor" part; try out the simplistic * coffee index * concept. Its basically the comparison of the ratio of one currency value (say $$) to the cost of coffee (say espresso/latte) in that country with tha same ratio in the other country. Like :

Your $$ Salary (in US)/ Cost of Coffee (in US)

compared to

Your $$ equivalent Salary (in say India)/ Cost of Coffee (in $$ in India)

The higher ratio is the place to stay and be "rich"..... !!

Shai
Thursday, November 13, 2003

If you check with India, most companies can _only_ send foreign nationals there on a temp visa. In the US, I believe these are L-visas.

The workers in the article are going to train their replacements and be dismissed. That people believe other countries are "open" to full immigration shows how well PR works.

Most countries protect their own workforces. The US is the worst for failing to protect itself and then calling it a "global economy." It is only global if everyone plays. That Americans think everyone has to follow our rules is our arrogance and curse.

AnOn
Thursday, November 13, 2003

Shai, you seem to be assuming that nobody ever wants to go home. If I go and workin India for four rupees a day and all the tea I can drink I will not have saved very much in terms of my home currency when I want to go home.

Thursday, November 13, 2003

I just heard our CIO tell us that there are only two functions in IT that cannot be offshored or outsourced. He failed to elaborate on what those are, but it certainly got me thinking. I myself have my last day at the end of this year due to being replaced by an Indian firm.

If you decide that you as a business process owner (say, all of IT) think other people can do a better job for a better value than your people, what are you really saying? Are you saying ever person in your organization is inept, that they cannot meet goals at a given cost. What if you have never told anybody what these goals are? How would you know if they could meet it?

If you have given up so much on your business, why not just hand everything over to your bigger competitor. Obviously they must be more efficient than you if they are bigger. If the goals is to run the most efficient operations for your stock holders, just send the whole operation the most efficient competitor. Where does it end?

m
Thursday, November 13, 2003

>> I just heard our CIO tell us that there are only two functions in IT that cannot be offshored or outsourced. He failed to elaborate on what those are,

I'd bet that one of them is "CIO"...

RocketJeff
Thursday, November 13, 2003

m: if IT is not the element of your business that distinguishes you from the competition, then investing effort in IT to become best-in-class is wasted.

If, of course, IT is the most important factor in beating the competition then you'd be a fool to outsource it.

Which is true for your company?

Jack
Thursday, November 13, 2003

Without revealing the true nature of our business, I would say IT distinguishes our business. Our service is closely tied to billing of our service and as many real-time whiz-bang billing features we can add, the better for our customers. Of course, I would say the most important aspect of attracting and retaining customers is our customer service folks, which account for 25% of our headcount. Now they are looking to outsource them as well. I guess I am glad to be leaving, even if involuntarily.

m
Thursday, November 13, 2003

This is a great plan. A Finn developer makes $30/hr ons average, an Indian developer makes $15/hr on average. So if we can get the Finn to move to India and work for $7.50/hr, we can save a bundle.

Damn I wish I'd thought of that.

CFO
Thursday, November 13, 2003

If only we could get prisoners to program for $.25 per hour.

m
Thursday, November 13, 2003

"it worked for Ireland didn't it?"

Aaaaaaaxkotkx.

Mmmmm... wish I could think of a rebuttal since I think you're right but I don't want to admit it.

Elaine McFadden
Thursday, November 13, 2003

"I don't think they want to see the world go from Upper Class to Slum in a 5 minute car drive. "

I think you are wrong. The ancient kings of Europe were happy to live ain dank stickholes and be afflicted by disease as long as they had more than the wretched peons forced to serve them. It's called feudalism, it works, and it's coming back.

Elaine McFadden
Thursday, November 13, 2003

Elaine McFadden,

Okay, I won't argue with that. Personally, I've never seen much difference between Feudalism and Capitalism anyway.

www.MarkTAW.com
Thursday, November 13, 2003

"I'd bet that one of them is "CIO"... "

And the other is his executive assistant. The one he is cheating on his wife with.

Mister Fancypants
Thursday, November 13, 2003

That's an interesting point, they are similar indeed. I think the difference is that in capitalism, there's the option of struggling your way to the top without having to cut the head off the guy in charge, or marry the bastard.

Elaine McFadden
Thursday, November 13, 2003