- Related Stories
-
Retraining employees for Silicon Alley
January 22, 2006 -
Congress looks askance at firms that bow to China
January 12, 2006 -
Year in review: Big battles for big talent
December 14, 2005 -
India faces offshore IT skills crisis by 2010
December 14, 2005
President says best remedy is to encourage prospective employees in U.S. to acquire more skills.
The story "Bush defends India job outsourcing" published March 3, 2006 at 7:20 AM is no longer available on CNET News.
Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.




What a joke!!!!
And since when has the Washington crew (or any politician, for that matter) been held to the highest standards of intelligence and ethics? If you're going to pick on the politicians, you've got a huge job ahead of you.
If you're going to criticize the President, at least use some current events. If you wanted to touch on his connections and money, the Dubai Ports World hooplah would have been a better candidate than his academic performance.
the souther border, kill the ports deal, etc. etc. etc. But when it
comes to selecting a President based on intellect, in the last
election, you could toss a coin for all the difference between
Bush and Kerry.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/
2005/06/07/
yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student?mode=PF
IMO, no one who will do what is necessary to be elected POTUS,
is the kind of person you want in the office.
grades were higher than those of Kerry @ Yale.
Perhaps your right.... maybe he was not smart enough to invent
the internet...maybe he was not smart enough to bash the USA
in a time of war in an Arab country...maybe should have cheated
at University as did Teddy...
Where would your hero, Hillary Clinton...Rodham Clinton be if
she did not ride the coattail of her husband?
I guess the bottom line is you should get your facts straight...
You are the joke.
There is a capitalist class (stock owners and executives) with about 1% of the population and around 80% of the assets. This is the class of most of the US presidents. You don't see these people much unless you are one of them.
There is a professional class (college educated) with about 20% of the population. Some have money but still are never accepted in association with the capitalists.
And, working class at 60%; poverty class, 20%. These two classes have little ability to get quality education. College is difficult to get into for these people and they find they don't fit in due to social differences.
Less than 10% of the US population move from one class to the adjacent class in their lifetimes. Despite that, class envy is huge. People imitate the class one step up.
Not as severe a caste system as in India, but real, nonetheless.
Each person decides how much to pay for school.
You can pay $2000 in property tax per year to go to a public school rated "Academic Emergency".
Or, you can pay $6000 in property tax per year to go to a public school rated "Excellent". And, the associated costs mean that you need to make well over $60,000 per year to go to these schools. (Unless you get creative and rent a rich person's basement.)
If you live outside a major city, you have no choice but low rated public schools.
That doesn't sound free to me. Not equal opportunity either.
Take a pay cut and get your company in order and you might not have to hire 3rd world programmers to meet budget.
If dell loses %4(just a guess, I have no idea on actual figures) of their customers due to customer service issues, I am betting that puts a large dent into the money they saved by outsourcing their IT support. Things such as quality of service need to be taken into consideration when outsourcing jobs that require CSR's, and being cheaper does not always equate with being more efficient.
It boils down to this. If outsourcing offers your company a better opportunity to compete, no president or CEO who is being responsible to his shareholders is going to pass on the cost saving opportunity. But there are many factors that just cost per man hour to take into consideration.
How about we outsource the Presidency to India? God knows they can't screw up this counry nowhere near as bad as Bush has.
I here too what you are saying to about those corporate raiders. One day when those corporations are no longer recognized as American, they'll realize their mistake.
twice?...well, all i can say is you got what you deserved.
2) social security, medicare, & medicaid
3) strict environmental laws & regulations
4) egalitarian educational system
Basically, we have decided not to be a nation of "haves" and "have nots" -- at least not to the degree that is found in India, China, etc. Time will tell whether we can sustain that. It may turn out that we can't. It may instead turn out that these other countries can't sustain the inequalities in their systems. More likely, both will be the case: the middle class will strengthen in the "Second World" while it weakens in the West. It will no longer be true that smart, hardworking, well-educated Americans will almost automatically be able to earn a good living (but it won't be impossible either). And they will probably have to work longer hours for the same standard of living. On the other hand, technology will continue to improve life. This will be very uneven, of course. Some areas of life will improve even for fairly poor Americans. In other areas, technology will not advance quickly enough to compensate for global competition, and the average person will see his living standard drop in that area.
We need to ask ourselves: If we _could_ maintain our former dominance of industry and technology, but at the price of keeping the people of India, China, etc. permanently backward and primitive, _would_ we? Perhaps at times in the past America has fallen into the trap of "looking out for #1", but that is NOT the American ideal! We like to think that we are better than that. I hope we are.
Than when someone posts datum disputing your spiel, you try to get CNET to cancel their accounts.
Typical.
"1) minimum wage laws & overtime laws
2) social security, medicare, & medicaid
3) strict environmental laws & regulations
4) egalitarian educational system"
Oh and for the record, it has been the BRITISH who kept the Indians down for so many decades, not American interests.
David I mean this in all sincerity...pack your bags and move to China. Trust me, their govt. has the kind of attitude you'll like.
Our current minimum wage, if it was actually some sort of standard that was used across the board, would make us one of the lowest cost export producers on the face of the Earth. In fact, manufacturers and companies usually pay 2+ times the legal minimum wage, because they couldn't hire anyone (legally) who would work for them otherwise. Minimum wages or less are only used in a few industries (like waiting tables, where tips are expected to make up the difference), or by those that employ illegal workers who come from places where they make even less. The reason - you generally can't live in an advanced, consumer oriented society on the minimum wage. So if such laws didn't exist, it still wouldn't change anything inso far as the cost of living in the US. As for overtime, besides being an emminently fair deal for the worker in question, its also a useful tool to keep manufacturers efficient. If they have to pay more just to keep someone working longer hours to make more product, the obvious incentive is to make your production process more efficient, if possible, so that you don't have to incur that cost.
As for 2,3, and 4 on your list - all actually work to keep costs lower in the fields they deal with. Environmental laws have substantial 'upfront' costs, but the costs that would be incurred from having to clean-up the toxic messes, and taking care of those getting sick or dying fron the same, would be orders of magnitude greater. Its all got to be paid out of the 'national pocket' at some point, so if the corporations have to bear the brunt in order to keep the overall cost lower for the country as a whole, that's just the way it should be.
Similar is the situation with SS/Medicare/caid. While we ceratinly don't utilize the levers of government to our best advantage in the US, other advanced economies have long since learned the cost savings that come from an efficiently run social safety net. In healthcare, not only do they have lower costs on the whole than we do, they also have healthier, more long-lived people. And there's no price you can put on the advantage healthy & experienced people bring to an economy of any sort. As for retirement, think of how much capital has gone up in smoke from companies reneging on their pension plans, and thus how the government has had to step in take up the cost of 'rescuing' these plans anyway - a double whammy. Meanwhile, the current SS system is the most efficient government program we have - something like 80-90% of each dollar going in goes to benefits. Contrast that with the Chilean privatized system (often held up as a counter-example), which is currently being strangled by management fees and unpredictable market fluctuations.
As for egalitarian education ... what exactly is the alternative? Only rich people going to school? How many underprivledged children do we flush down the toilet like that before we realize that one of them might have cured cancer, or invented a better light bulb, or what have you. Human beings are resources too, you know. And if you waste most of them, by not utilizing their brain power to the county's best advantage, that's as economically stupid as picking the best apples from the orchard by sorting through the seeds (i.e. before they've actually grown to their potential).
Again, if its all about efficiency & how any wasted national wealth puts us at a competitive disadvantage with countries that are so underdeveloped as to not have populations that are demanding equivilent standards of living yet (and it is), then these programs you mention aren't hindering us. They're actually keeping us in the game.
__________
Competing on price is not a problem. Pricing is a complaint used by retards in the past: i.e. coal mining and seamstress. In a country with free education, and all you can do is dig dirt or sew, you have a problem.
In a country with free education, and all you can do is whine about losing a job answering phones, you are pathetic.
In a country with free education, and all you can do is whine about losing piece work coding repetitive codes, you are pathetic.
That's one problem whiners have avoided: why are they so pathetic?
It's not fair to call people "whiners" for supposedly not taking advantage of their "free education." Has it occurred to you that people are different, that some don't learn well in a typical classroom setting, that some have little aptitude for math or writing, or that some are debilitated by poor health, language barriers, or dysfunctional parents?
Certainly everyone can "succeed" in the sense of living a meaningful and fulfilled life. But not everyone can be a marine biologist, or an NFL quarterback, or a doctor, or an engineer, or a rock star, or a CEO.
Our corporates, who are americans too, are giving it away. how can u expect a country to snatch our job unless its offered by us.
Countries like India are executing what we are give them. Look inside for answers to solve this by education and better policies rather than blaming others which is the easiest to do for most of us !
I agree with the previous post, let them eat their own dog food and off-shore some executive jobs that will save big $$$$.
The typical Republican rhetoric at play. Take from the poor and give to the rich and then claim how it is our fault for being poor.
1) get rid of all corporate welfare (tax breaks, etc.)
2) get rid of all personal welfare (Soc. Sec., Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) except for disabled people and people over 75
3) get rid of all subsidies of all kinds (incl. flood insurance, most disaster relief, and education grants, as well as those benefitting specific industries)
4) do all forensic tests that could exonerate anyone in prison
5) those given a death sentence would have 10 years maximum to appeal
6) convert all life sentences for 1st degree murder to death sentences, retroactively
7) make 1st degree rape a capital crime, retroactively
8) make embezzlement of more than $1M a capital crime, retroactively
9) make drug trafficking across state or national boundaries a capital crime, retroactively
10) eliminate the mortgage interest rate deduction and the charitable giving deduction
11) permanently set the personal and dependent deductions to what they were in 1955 (in constant dollars)
12) balanced budget amendment to Constitution
13) mandatory 1-year service by all citizens between ages of 18 to 21 in either military, National Guard, Peace Corps, or Service Corps
14) National Guard can not be sent overseas without permission of both houses of Congress
15) amend Constitution so that federal judges shall have a 10 year term of office
16) amend Constitution so that simple majority of both houses of Congress can nullify a judicial decision
17) amend Constitution to eliminate seniority system in Congress
18) change congressional rules so that simple majority can stop a filibuster
19) kill the Space Shuttle and the ISS; use the money to fund research
20) triple taxes on energy but reduce income taxes to make it revenue-neutral
21) reduce reliance of military on super-expensive weapons platforms
[http://I reserve the right to flip-flop on any issue.|http://I reserve the right to flip-flop on any issue.]
Him George Walker Bush
I know that isn't the point of the thread, but that irks me.
I maintain that this is short-sighted because if you don't provide your local economy with jobs, you reduce the market for your products and those rich CEOs and board members will eventually have to deal with rapidly declining sales.
But this doesn't concern the Bush administration now. They rarely look beyond what they are going to have for dinner tonight. And by the time the American economy comes crashing to the ground, they'd already have fleeced America enough for them and their families to live quite comfortably for a long time.
We most teach Economic warfare and Manufacturing warfare to our MBA?S.
Remember this when you outsource you give up control of your local market by reducing
your customer base for a given product If your betting on income level of your customers
to be at level to buy given products and the over all market reduces this level by outsourcing you saved little and set your company to bankruptcy in future
IBM (an open source advocate) is one of the largest importer and outsourcers of jobs while Microsoft is a large net exporter and as a percentage of employees has one of least outsourced workforce for a software company. I heard this in a news report so don?t have the exact figures but I am sure one can search it up online.
Shrub and his cohorts don?t get this, which is ironic considering how pro big business they are: It?s all about the bottom line.
Could you please justify this assertion with some reasoning and facts.
Oh and have you been to places like India to see what the skills of people there are like even if they earn lesser wages than their counterparts in the US.
Cheers !
'Can i put u on hold sir' is all i hear and then get a stupid reply in the end.
- If Next Google, Amazon, Is Created In India? Like Russian Roulette!
- by concernedcitizen March 3, 2006 5:40 PM PST
- What if Google or Amazon or Ebay were started by a tech worker in India, China, or Russia, instead of by tech workers in the US? I think most people do not actually stop to realize the enormous negative consequences that such an outcome would have had on the US economy, like losses in future US revenue streams, not only for Americans citizens, but for the US Government (and Military) as well. When you outsource steel production to China, you can be pretty sure that a foreign steel worker will not create a million or billion dollar company (it hasn't really happend that much in the past, right?). But when you outsource the wrong tech jobs, you just can't reliably predict which tech employee might create the next big internet company that provides the US with jobs and the US government with revenue (this actually has happened a substantial number of times in the past!). It's kind of like playing russian roulette, but with potentially enormous future revenue streams, instead of with ones own mortality. You just don't know for sure. -- Do you pull the trigger and wait and see? (Bush apparently likes this choice) - or do you decide not to play russian roulette to begin with? (I feel safer chosing this alternative).
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- Update: US Companies Only Care About THEIR Profits - NOT USA Revenues
- by concernedcitizen March 3, 2006 6:10 PM PST
- US Corporations have an interest ONLY in THIER current and future corporate profits -- they do NOT care or concern themselves with current or future US Revenues. So, for companies, outsourcing is great; they increase THEIR profits by decreasing THIER costs (which of course is exactly what they are suppose to do). But what is good for US corporate profits is not necessarily what is good for future US government revenue streams. You see, it is not the particular US company doing the outsourcing that has to pay the price if the next Google is created offshores as a result of THEIR corporate offshoring -- it's the US government (and US citizens) that will pay the price.
- View reply
Processing -
- "You just don't know for sure"....
- by Captain_Spock March 3, 2006 8:48 PM PST
- ... You and everyone else that are concerned about these issues can "know" for sure if you know how to do your Financial (IRR), Economic (ERR), Technical, Risk Analyses et cetera, et cetera.... (I have some formulas available for you) How do the US Political Leaders; or, for that matter - any country's leaders factor in these sophisticated evaluations is quite beyond me. If you ever find out - would you be so kind enough as to let the world know! :-\
- View all 3 replies
Processing -
Showing 1 of 2 pages (95 Comments)