America Inc. Outsourced to India

[Nbadan]

The Great Recession was a disaster for American workers; but, for corporate CEOs, it was an opportunity to turn eastward in search of cheaper labor costs.


6lVXWO7wjrY


While the corporations and CEOs are making this a global issue why are we not able to make workers rights a global issue? why are we not allowed to make minimum wage a global issue? why should we fall silent while our jobs are taken by people who are willing to work for next to nothing?

Please explain why they can operate on a global basis of globalising the workforce, removing nationality, sovereignty and domestic rights - but we the workers still have to respect those things based on some personal moral high ground?

The people of America absolutely need to stand up and so no more, they need to tell the corporations, executives and the people who are stealing their jobs this - the scabs.

Our military is justified in targeting the people of a regime, not those in charge, our corporations target the people and not those in charge, so do the politicians - wake up, get angry, get really, angry. Its not the fact they are Indians that should worry you - it is the fact that they are taking your jobs.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe we need to tell our government to make the USA a better place for global corporations to do business. Last time I looked, we had the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world.

[Nbadan]

Last time I looked, we had the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Are you looking at their theoretical tax rate or effective tax rate? It's misleading to say we have the 2nd highest tax rate in the world when businesses pay no taxes thanks to loopholes and corporate entitlements....

[Wild Cobra]

Are you looking at their theoretical tax rate or effective tax rate? It's misleading to say we have the 2nd highest tax rate in the world when businesses pay no taxes thanks to loopholes and corporate entitlements....
Yep...

The ones who get those big tax breaks stay, while the ones that don't, go elsewhere.

Why don't we just lower the tax rates and remove the loop holes?

[Nbadan]

Yep...

The ones who get those big tax breaks stay, while the ones that don't, go elsewhere.

Why don't we just lower the tax rates and remove the loop holes?

Let them go, but if they want to ship their shit back to the U.S... tax the shit an import tax....

[Wild Cobra]

Let them go, but if they want to ship their shit back to the U.S... tax the shit an import tax....

Why don't we just raise import taxes on everything, and bring blue collar jobs back to our shores?

[boutons_deux]

"raise import taxes on everything"

The UCA doesn't want that, so it won't happen.

Meanwhile, the central Chinese planning of undervaluing their currency vs the "free, unplanned capitalistic market" of the US$ has/is/will contininue exporting American jobs.

[RandomGuy]

Outsourced Call Centers Return, To U.S. Homes April 2010 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129406588)

Maureen Quigley-Hogan is the next generation of call center worker.

Wearing pink slippers and sitting at her desk in her home office in Virginia, she takes a call from a woman in New Jersey who has a question about her credit card bill.

...

For years, Americans have had their phone calls about credit card bills and broken cell phones handled by people in the Philippines or India. But American firms are starting to bring call centers back to the U.S. — and this time around, they are hiring more people to work in their own homes.

Ten years ago, it made a lot of sense to outsource these jobs overseas. But that's changing. Increasingly, companies that want to outsource their customer service jobs are happy with these domestic arrangements.

High inflation and double-digit annual raises in some sectors are pushing up the cost of labor in India. At the same time wages in the U.S. are falling and companies are rethinking the trade-offs associated with outsourcing.

Story #1

[RandomGuy]

India Is Outsourcing Legal Jobs BACK To The U.S. Jun 2011 (http://www.businessinsider.com/india-is-outsourcing-legal-jobs-back-to-the-us-2011-6)



For years, the story has been about how outsourcing jobs from "high-wage" US to "low wage but competent in both English and skills" India has been moving UP the value-added chain.

Indeed, this was a phenomenon we noticed last summer, as it was just starting to become visible.

Now, all of a sudden, it seems there's a BIT of a reversal -- no flood yet, but there IS something happening, at least in the legal world.

The leader in exporting US legal jobs to India has been the Mumbai & New York-based Pangea3, as noted above.

But now, it seems, the New York Times reports that same company is taking the lead in bringing legal jobs BACK INTO the US.

Now admittedly, they're not $300 / hour, the way the ones leaving were -- but we don't think that's a bad thing, nor do we think anybody but over-paid lawyers will either ;-) .

And they ARE providing opportunities for at least a living wage for law graduates who would otherwise either be temps or totally unemployed.

Outsourcing firms, the companies that in recent years added to the financial woes of the American legal profession by sending work to low-cost countries like India, are now creating jobs for lawyers in the United States.

The American salaries for outsourced work, typically in the $50,000 to $80,000 range, may look meager compared with the six figures that new associates might still hope to draw at a big firm.

But outsourcing jobs typically pay better than temp work — and certainly better than no work at all.

Story #2

[RandomGuy]

The trouble with outsourcing
Outsourcing is sometimes more hassle than it is worth Jul 2011 Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/21524822)


WHEN Ford’s River Rouge Plant was completed in 1928 it boasted everything it needed to turn raw materials into finished cars: 100,000 workers, 16m square feet of factory floor, 100 miles of railway track and its own docks and furnaces. Today it is still Ford’s largest plant, but only a shadow of its former glory. Most of the parts are made by sub-contractors and merely fitted together by the plant’s 6,000 workers. The local steel mill is run by a Russian company, Severstal.

Outsourcing has transformed global business. Over the past few decades companies have contracted out everything from mopping the floors to spotting the flaws in their internet security. TPI, a company that specialises in the sector, estimates that $100 billion-worth of new contracts are signed every year. Oxford Economics reckons that in Britain, one of the world’s most mature economies, 10% of workers toil away in “outsourced” jobs and companies spend $200 billion a year on outsourcing. Even war is being outsourced: America employs more contract workers in Afghanistan than regular troops.

Can the outsourcing boom go on indefinitely? And is the practice as useful as its advocates claim, or is the popular suspicion that it leads to cut corners and dismal service correct? There are signs that outsourcing often goes wrong, and that companies are rethinking their approach to it.

The latest TPI quarterly index of outsourcing (which measures commercial contracts of $25m or more) suggests that the total value of such contracts for the second quarter of 2011 fell by 18% compared with the second quarter of 2010. Dismal figures in the Americas (ie, mostly the United States) dragged down the average: the value of contracts there was 50% lower in the second quarter of 2011 than in the first half of 2010. This is partly explained by America’s gloomy economy, but even more by the maturity of the market: TPI suspects that much of what can sensibly be outsourced already has been.

Miles Robinson of Mayer Brown, a law firm, notes that there has also been an uptick in legal disputes over outsourcing. In one case EDS, an IT company, had to pay BSkyB, a media company, £318m ($469m) in damages. The two firms spent an estimated £70m on legal fees and were tied up in court for five months. Such nightmares are worse in India, where the courts move with Dickensian speed, or in China, where the legal system is patchy. And since many disputes stay out of court, the well of discontent with outsourcing is surely deeper than the legal record shows.

...

[very long, in depth article, well worth reading--RG]

Executive summary: what can be sensibly outsourced has been, and a variety of factors is causing jobs to move back to the US.

Article #3

Oddly enough, our legal system seems to be a big selling point, and taxes, or the lack thereof, don't mean jack shit, conservative lies about corporate tax rates notwithstanding.

I could post a few more. There was a rather recent bit where 10,000 jobs are moving back to the US as well that was in the news, as there was a Mumbai firm hiring Americans for call center work.


Indian and Chinese Universities simply aren't up to the task of meeting the demands their economies are placing on them, and legal protections in those countries leave something to be desired.

[RandomGuy]

Companies are rethinking outsourcing, rather than jettisoning it. They are dumping huge long-term deals in favour of smaller, less rigid ones. The annualised value of “mega-relationships” worth $100m or more a year fell by 62% this year compared with last. Companies are forming relationships with several outsourcers, rather than putting all their eggs in few baskets. They are signing shorter contracts, too. But still, they need to think harder about what is their core business, and what is peripheral. And above all, newspaper editors need to say no to the temptation to outsource business columns to cheaper, hungrier writers.

:lol

[RandomGuy]

Why don't we just raise import taxes on everything, and bring blue collar jobs back to our shores?

Because that would lower living standards for everybody.

Macro-economics 101.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff


Neoclassical economic theorists tend to view tariffs as distortions to the free market. Typical analyses find that tariffs tend to benefit domestic producers and government at the expense of consumers, and that the net welfare effects of a tariff on the importing country are negative. Normative judgments often follow from these findings, namely that it may be disadvantageous for a country to artificially shield an industry from world markets, and that it might be better to allow a collapse to take place. Opposition to all tariffs is part of the free trade principle; the World Trade Organization aims to reduce tariffs and to avoid countries discriminating between differing countries when applying tariffs.

Read the section. It isn't always cut and dried, but generally lowers living standards ("welfare" in the economics sense).

[boutons_deux]

"Neoclassical economic "tend to view tariffs as distortions to the free market"

great idea when there are no tariffs anywhere, but one country (USA) allows tariff-free imports from countries (china) that have tariffs and technical barriers for imports, the tariff-free country's employees (USA) are screwed.

[Spurminator]

I'm sure if we reduce corporate taxes, corporations will benevolently hire more expensive workers in the U.S. After all, if they are able to keep more of the revenue they generate, what possible motivation could they still have for hiring cheaper labor (aside from making more money?)

[boutons_deux]

Just like Cisco killing 10% of its jobs, HSBC is killing 30K jobs "to improve profitability" (aka, stuff the pockets of mgmt and investors with fired workers' salaries).

[ElNono]

I'm sure if we reduce corporate taxes, corporations will benevolently hire more expensive workers in the U.S. After all, if they are able to keep more of the revenue they generate, what possible motivation could they still have for hiring cheaper labor (aside from making more money?)

Basically.

The ways to turn this around is:
A) Use protectionist measures as WC was cheerleading above (although that would be very anti-capitalism)
B) Use the capitalism solution... which is to ride it out. As demand increases and supply is scarce, costs increases, eventually hitting the point where it's no longer convenient to run the operations overseas.

B is what I see happening with India, up to an extent, at this point.
On the other hand, China has a good strategy to starve off both A and B. They avoid B by dumping a good chunk of the money they make through exports overseas on long term loans (i.e.: US treasury bonds) instead of investing all that cash in the country. They can also use the loan rates as leverage to ensure A won't happen to them. Seeing the US is entirely reliant on that loan money to operate you know A won't be happening. At least against them.

[boutons_deux]

"very anti-capitalism"

we needa a LOT more anti-capitalism since capitalism has completely screwed up the world's economy and environment.

"capitalism solution... which is to ride it out"

USA has been playing this sucker's game aggressively for 35 years, and look where is dumped us.

btw, there was no way US was going to default on interest payments, since the US wealthy hold 40%+ of those T bonds and they own the Treasury and Fed, too.

[Wild Cobra]

Because that would lower living standards for everybody.

I didn't mean it as a solution, I was trying to make a point.

I do believe we need to tariff some items. We can make a good argument on so many items, while still maintaining low to no tariffs on some items. On items that we can and should make here in the USA, we need to tax imports enough that they are still affordable, but do not undercut US prices. Give people a real choice, instead of no choice... since imports often costs so much less...

Tariffs used to be the major part of taxed revenues. When the 16th amendment was passed, tariffs decreased and income taxes continued to increase. When the Social Security act was passed, tariffs declined again, and have continued to do so as we adopt "free trade."

This is a mistake to eliminate tariffs that protect US jobs. We should only have zero or low tariffs on items that do not compete with US products.

[DarrinS]

In the not-too-distant future, your doctor's last name will be Singh or Wang.

[ElNono]

In the not-too-distant future, your doctor's last name will be Singh or Wang.

Maybe it already is. My last outpatient procedure was done by an Indian doctor. She did a great job too, I might add.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe it already is. My last outpatient procedure was done by an Indian doctor. She did a great job too, I might add.
One of the best engineers I ever worked with was on a work visa from India. She probably got paid the same pay scale as other engineers in the company we worked for, but at some point she had to return to India. I'll bet her families standard of living was enhanced by her US work experience.

That said, this was an example of not needing her, because it took away the slot from a US citizen. Still, I really liked her.

[boutons_deux]

Here's how fucked Human-Americans are, just as the VRWC has planned them to the past 35 years:

How Recession Is Hastening the Wal-Martization of America

"But a new report by the National Employment Law Project looking at the jobs created since the recession officially ended brings the focus sharply back to jobs, and its findings are frightening: 73 percent of the jobs created since the supposed economic recovery began have been in low-wage fields, where workers make between $7.51 (the national minimum wage) and $13.52 an hour ($15,621 to $28,122 a year for full-time).

In contrast, 60 percent of the layoffs from the Great Recession were in what the report calls midwage occupations, those that make between $28,142 and $42,973 per year.

“But in the weak recovery to date, employment growth has been concentrated in lower-wage occupations, with minimal growth in midwage occupations and net losses in higher-wage occupations,” the report notes."

[DarrinS]

Maybe it already is. My last outpatient procedure was done by an Indian doctor. She did a great job too, I might add.

Was she hot?

[ElNono]

Was she hot?

Not really, no, IMO. But I didn't go there looking for chicks, tbh.

[coyotes_geek]

In the not-too-distant future, your doctor's last name will be Singh or Wang.

Some of us are already there. My doctor is Indian.

[boutons_deux]

a cardiologist I visted recently at SA Medical center was Indian. (he said I had heart of Pure Gold)

A friend in CA hasn't been cared for by an EA in years in the Kaiser healthcare.

[DarkReign]

Our pediatrician's entire office is Indian.

Theyre great until they speak. Its all pops and buzzes to me...just cant get through the accent. Entirely too thick and too influenced by the blimey English to make any sense to this American.

[Wild Cobra]

a cardiologist I visted recently at SA Medical center was Indian. (he said I had heart of Pure Gold)

No wonder you hate capitalist repugs... You think they want to steal and sell your heart!

[DarrinS]

Our pediatrician's entire office is Indian.

Theyre great until they speak. Its all pops and buzzes to me...just cant get through the accent. Entirely too thick and too influenced by the blimey English to make any sense to this American.

That accent gives me trouble too. I work with a woman from India and she's probably getting tired of me asking her to repeat what she just said.

[RandomGuy]

Basically.

The ways to turn this around is:
A) Use protectionist measures as WC was cheerleading above (although that would be very anti-capitalism)
B) Use the capitalism solution... which is to ride it out. As demand increases and supply is scarce, costs increases, eventually hitting the point where it's no longer convenient to run the operations overseas.

B is what I see happening with India, up to an extent, at this point.
On the other hand, China has a good strategy to starve off both A and B. They avoid B by dumping a good chunk of the money they make through exports overseas on long term loans (i.e.: US treasury bonds) instead of investing all that cash in the country. They can also use the loan rates as leverage to ensure A won't happen to them. Seeing the US is entirely reliant on that loan money to operate you know A won't be happening. At least against them.

China is actually investing a massive amount of funds in-country, and appears to be doing so very very inefficiently.