outsourcing

[AlwaysBurning]

How does everyone feel about outsourcing? I was thinking about it this weekend after I saw a movie (appropriately called “Outsourced”, anyone else seen it?) about call center outsourcing in India. There’s a line in it where the US manager explains “A lot of Americans are upset about outsourcing” and the Indian call center work retorts “but sir, most of the products they buy are made in China.” I guess that’s my basic opinion on the subject – I buy products made overseas because they are cheaper – therefore I am the driving force behind outsourcing and therefore can’t complain about its effect on US economy and the job market.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by AlwaysBurning

How does everyone feel about outsourcing? I was thinking about it this weekend after I saw a movie (appropriately called “Outsourced”, anyone else seen it?) about call center outsourcing in India. There’s a line in it where the US manager explains “A lot of Americans are upset about outsourcing” and the Indian call center work retorts “but sir, most of the products they buy are made in China.” I guess that’s my basic opinion on the subject – I buy products made overseas because they are cheaper – therefore I am the driving force behind outsourcing and therefore can’t complain about its effect on US economy and the job market.

You hit the nail on the head buddy, we as consumers drive the marketplace to find the cheapest deal even thought the citizen within us does not like the consequences it brings. We can blame the foreigners all we want but in the end all we can blame is ourselves.

[7960]

I think outsourcing *CAN* be beneficial.

But I also fully admit I've dropped services and products because their help desk is in india/malasia and I can't understand a fucking word those people say.

[6SpeedTA95]

Outsourcing is part of a natural economic distribution of resources. In fact if government would interfere less in the market, cut corporate taxes and make it cheaper to operate in the US this nonsense wouldn't be happening at nearly the pace that it is now and it would provide a smoother transition in our economy.

Though some would argue that we do not need a smoother transition, see unemployment, income growth etc, the US is doing well.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Outsourcing is part of a natural economic distribution of resources. In fact if government would interfere less in the market, cut corporate taxes and make it cheaper to operate in the US this nonsense wouldn't be happening at nearly the pace that it is now and it would provide a smoother transition in our economy.

Though some would argue that we do not need a smoother transition, see unemployment, income growth etc, the US is doing well.

you wear that libertarian label well already...

The main reason companies are outsourcing is because of the cost of labor to produce goods or services not just the taxes on top of it and we can only blame ourselves for it. We want ever cheaper products and if they can get someone to manufacture it for a few dollars an hour there is no tax cut in the world that can compete with that. You can debate about the PACE of it as much as you like but it's happening with or without government "interference". Rather, it's consumer interference (yup the marketplace itself) that is the main driver of this.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

you wear that libertarian label well already...

The main reason companies are outsourcing is because of the cost of labor to produce goods or services not just the taxes on top of it and we can only blame ourselves for it. We want ever cheaper products and if they can get someone to manufacture it for a few dollars an hour there is no tax cut in the world that can compete with that. You can debate about the PACE of it as much as you like but it's happening with or without government "interference". Rather, it's consumer interference (yup the marketplace itself) that is the main driver of this.

So you're gonna sit here and tell me outsourcing has nothing to do with resource usage/distribution and comparative advantage?

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

So you're gonna sit here and tell me outsourcing has nothing to do with resource usage/distribution and comparative advantage?

Did I say that? No I didn't, your putting words in my mouth (or post I should say). I think its disingenuous (and convenient for you free marketers)to ignore or not mention the marketplace affects on outsourcing. The market place is always NOT rational as some seem to believe

But go ahead, keep blaming government for everything like it's the sole reason for our problems....

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Did I say that? No I didn't, your putting words in my mouth (or post I should say). I think its disingenuous (and convenient for you free marketers)to ignore or not mention the marketplace affects on outsourcing. The market place is always NOT rational as some seem to believe

But go ahead, keep blaming government for everything like it's the sole reason for our problems....

Where did I blame government for everything?
I said its primarily about resource distribution and comparative advantage and it is. Low skilled labor goes to cheap countries because they have an abundance of labor, over here we don't. Part of it is due to a high cost of doing business here and you can not ignore the ridiculous burdens placed on companies by our federal government, ignoring that or downplaying it is not looking at the entire picture.

Also keep in mind that for high end manufacturing many companies are coming back to the US for our quality labor. The falling dollar is also forcing many companies to rethink their outsourcing plans and many companies are building new plants in the US or adding capacity to existing facilities.

[goldenponderbob]

Is it possible to pose the query in terms of shopping for an American made equivalent for any "thing" you are planning to buy. Even to the point of giving the American made product the "benefit of the doubt".

For me, whether it's underwear or Automobiles, I'm looking for the "made In USA" among factors that determine my choice,

If it turns out I can't satisfy the labor issue, outsourcing, in many cases, at least keeps the profits here.

Think of America as a small town, with cash flowing in and out. When outsiders buy stuff made in your community cash flows in, When you buy something made in some far off place, like maybe Peoria, IL Or Austin, TX, the cash flows away from your town, leaving less cash flowing through the town.

When enough cash flows away from your community, its called a recession,
and when the scarcity of cash finally affects your life personally, it gets depressing.

People all over the world teach their kids that simple economics lesson, but parking lots outside American factories are just loaded with foreign-made cars.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by goldenponderbob

Is it possible to pose the query in terms of shopping for an American made equivalent for any "thing" you are planning to buy. Even to the point of giving the American made product the "benefit of the doubt".

For me, whether it's underwear or Automobiles, I'm looking for the "made In USA" among factors that determine my choice,

If it turns out I can't satisfy the labor issue, outsourcing, in many cases, at least keeps the profits here.

Think of America as a small town, with cash flowing in and out. When outsiders buy stuff made in your community cash flows in, When you buy something made in some far off place, like maybe Peoria, IL Or Austin, TX, the cash flows away from your town, leaving less cash flowing through the town.

When enough cash flows away from your community, its called a recession,
and when the scarcity of cash finally affects your life personally, it gets depressing.

People all over the world teach their kids that simple economics lesson, but parking lots outside American factories are just loaded with foreign-made cars.

That's what these free marketers refuse to acknowledge, consumerism and the quest for higher profits has a dark side that sometimes need regulating. Instead they resort to the tired old "blame the government" speech. Yes taxes are higher then it should be and reform is a must, but to ignore the other side of the equation is just plain dumb as it is dangerous. You don't solve the problem of government by giving all or significant power to the private sector.

[DosEquis]

This was an issue talked about at great length in the republican debate last night.

Cutting their taxes won't keep them here. Their taxes are really not that high anyway. They go because cost of material and labor is cheaper over in China and other places. Then we have "free" trade with them, while they fuck us with their currency and trade policy. They have a huge advantage on us because we let them do this to us. Why don't they let the free trade go both ways? I mean its sooo beneficial isnt it? No, its not beneficial for them and they don't because we are their gravy train. Maybe they are afraid to compete? Thats what I am accused of if I say we should do 'fair' trade instead of 'free' trade.

Our skilled manufacturing industry is all but gone. Duncan Hunter illustrated one of my personal fears in the debate. He needed a place that manufactured steel so that we could get some armor for our vehicles in Iraq. There was ONE place he could find. What happens if we go to a real war and we need some new tanks? Our industry is 30+ years behind. That shit doesn't get 'remodeled' over night. It would take over a year to gear up any significant\adequate production capacity. Against an actual legitimate adversary that is a year too long.

The reliance on foreign oil and foreign manufacturing are far greater security risks to us than Al Qaeda, Iran, or Saddam would ever dream to be.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

This was an issue talked about at great length in the republican debate last night.

Cutting their taxes won't keep them here. Their taxes are really not that high anyway. They go because cost of material and labor is cheaper over in China and other places. Then we have "free" trade with them, while they fuck us with their currency and trade policy. They have a huge advantage on us because we let them do this to us. Why don't they let the free trade go both ways? I mean its sooo beneficial isnt it? No, its not beneficial for them and they don't because we are their gravy train. Maybe they are afraid to compete? Thats what I am accused of if I say we should do 'fair' trade instead of 'free' trade.

Our skilled manufacturing industry is all but gone. Duncan Hunter illustrated one of my personal fears in the debate. He needed a place that manufactured steel so that we could get some armor for our vehicles in Iraq. There was ONE place he could find. What happens if we go to a real war and we need some new tanks? Our industry is 30+ years behind. That shit doesn't get 'remodeled' over night. It would take over a year to gear up any significant\adequate production capacity. Against an actual legitimate adversary that is a year too long.

The reliance on foreign oil and foreign manufacturing are far greater security risks to us than Al Qaeda, Iran, or Saddam would ever dream to be.

Our skilled mfg is gone primarily because of unions.

We're still the number one mfg of aircraft in the world and foreign car companies are employing hundreds of thousands of americans at US facilities. Why? Because htey're not straddled with the legacy union costs imposed on US manufacturers. Those costs forced US mfg's to move facilities overseas in an attempt to remain profitible. Also the loss of this skilled mfg obviously isn't too bad given our low rates of unemployment and high demand for college educated individuals.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

This was an issue talked about at great length in the republican debate last night.

Cutting their taxes won't keep them here. Their taxes are really not that high anyway. They go because cost of material and labor is cheaper over in China and other places. Then we have "free" trade with them, while they fuck us with their currency and trade policy. They have a huge advantage on us because we let them do this to us. Why don't they let the free trade go both ways? I mean its sooo beneficial isnt it? No, its not beneficial for them and they don't because we are their gravy train. Maybe they are afraid to compete? Thats what I am accused of if I say we should do 'fair' trade instead of 'free' trade.

Our skilled manufacturing industry is all but gone. Duncan Hunter illustrated one of my personal fears in the debate. He needed a place that manufactured steel so that we could get some armor for our vehicles in Iraq. There was ONE place he could find. What happens if we go to a real war and we need some new tanks? Our industry is 30+ years behind. That shit doesn't get 'remodeled' over night. It would take over a year to gear up any significant\adequate production capacity. Against an actual legitimate adversary that is a year too long.

The reliance on foreign oil and foreign manufacturing are far greater security risks to us than Al Qaeda, Iran, or Saddam would ever dream to be.

AND how easily they forget the protections our government give them from being sued and other legal protections, not to mention massive loopholes that allow some huge companies not to pay any tax at all. Oh and there is all the incentives we give to small business to help them grow. Many of these protections and incentives you don't see in other countries.

Our corporations should thank their lucky fucking stars they are in America, as much as free marketers like to shit on our government, they sure do like all the perks they get from them and what they do with all that money the get back or the protections allow them to generate? Take it out of our economy and cry about our big bad government

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Our skilled mfg is gone primarily because of unions.

We're still the number one mfg of aircraft in the world and foreign car companies are employing hundreds of thousands of americans at US facilities. Why? Because htey're not straddled with the legacy union costs imposed on US manufacturers. Those costs forced US mfg's to move facilities overseas in an attempt to remain profitible. Also the loss of this skilled mfg obviously isn't too bad given our low rates of unemployment and high demand for college educated individuals.

If your talking about car manufactures like GM I call

Yes the legacy costs did not help and did hurt GM, but so did their terrible business model, opening plant after plant, producing much more volume than could be justified by the demand, making cars for years that had terrible quality (thus tarnishing their brand)..in large part the US automakers did to themselves and the unions are a convenient scapegoat for them.

Toyota faced import taxes and their cars were more expensive then the US automakers but consumers bought them for the brand image of quality and Toyota's growth exploded (they grew smartly and always looked for ways to cut costs besides simply laying off people). So that BS that the unions made cars too expensive is nonsense when the automakers did it to themselves by making bad cars for years and having out of control growth that did not match demand.

Once again for those that will ignore the first part of this post, yes the unions played a significant role but don't ignore the fact that the business was just plain run badly and that too played a big role.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

If your talking about car manufactures like GM I call

Yes the legacy costs did not help and did hurt GM, but so did their terrible business model, opening plant after plant, producing much more volume than could be justified by the demand, making cars for years that had terrible quality (thus tarnishing their brand)..in large part the US automakers did to themselves and the unions are a convenient scapegoat for them.

Toyota faced import taxes and their cars were more expensive then the US automakers but consumers bought them for the brand image of quality and Toyota's growth exploded (they grew smartly and always looked for ways to cut costs besides simply laying off people). So that BS that the unions made cars too expensive is nonsense when the automakers did it to themselves by making bad cars for years and having out of control growth that did not match demand.

Once again for those that will ignore the first part of this post, yes the unions played a significant role but don't ignore the fact that the business was just plain run badly and that too played a big role.

Yeah I'm talking about GM and Ford. Of course there are biz model issues but when wha tlittle profit you would be getting is eaten alive by ridiculous costs it makes it very VERY difficult to make the structural changes necessary to move forward. It takes substantial dollars to change an organization as big as GM and move them towards a global engineering firm. Being straddled with ridiculous labor contracts makes that even more difficult. Why should someone make 100k/yr to screw bolts into a car door? Thats what they get paid...RIDICULOUS!


Automakers had a role to play in their problems but when trying to changes unions made that almost impossible, you can't cut the ridiculous wages, you can't cut their cushy benefits you can't streamline by firing people until the contracts are over...or you can buy them out for ridiculous sums of money. The list goes on and on and on. Unions make it much harder for an organization to change in today's world. The red tape, the costs, all of it make it tougher to change an already large and slow moving organization.

GM has been trying to turn their program around since 1992. They designed fantastic cars for their time in the early 90s and guess what, in order to remain profitible and MEET their union obligations they were forced to cut corners on quality to maintain profitibility. Right or wrong that is the decision they made, influenced in large part by the unions and their stiff penalties for contract violations.

GM management and ford management have made mistakes, chrysler is a joke.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Yeah I'm talking about GM and Ford. Of course there are biz model issues but when wha tlittle profit you would be getting is eaten alive by ridiculous costs it makes it very VERY difficult to make the structural changes necessary to move forward. It takes substantial dollars to change an organization as big as GM and move them towards a global engineering firm. Being straddled with ridiculous labor contracts makes that even more difficult. Why should someone make 100k/yr to screw bolts into a car door? Thats what they get paid...RIDICULOUS!


Automakers had a role to play in their problems but when trying to changes unions made that almost impossible, you can't cut the ridiculous wages, you can't cut their cushy benefits you can't streamline by firing people until the contracts are over...or you can buy them out for ridiculous sums of money. The list goes on and on and on. Unions make it much harder for an organization to change in today's world. The red tape, the costs, all of it make it tougher to change an already large and slow moving organization.

GM has been trying to turn their program around since 1992. They designed fantastic cars for their time in the early 90s and guess what, in order to remain profitible and MEET their union obligations they were forced to cut corners on quality to maintain profitibility. Right or wrong that is the decision they made, influenced in large part by the unions and their stiff penalties for contract violations.

GM management and ford management have made mistakes, chrysler is a joke.

Ok I concede that point, the myopic union contracts have really hurt in their attempts to restructure their business model

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Ok I concede that point, the myopic union contracts have really hurt in their attempts to restructure their business model

Exactly, that doesn't dismiss or really even minimize the mistakes management made. I think their decision to skimp on quality in the face fo these union demands ultimately hurt them. Had they made a quality car in the 1990s their reputation would have been turned around much sooner and they could use the net loss as a HUGE bargaining chip with the unions. Management made mistakes, but the unions magnified the mistakes they would have made with or without them and forced management to make other bad decisions. Two way street most definately.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Outsourcing is part of a natural economic distribution of resources. In fact if government would interfere less in the market, cut corporate taxes and make it cheaper to operate in the US this nonsense wouldn't be happening at nearly the pace that it is now and it would provide a smoother transition in our economy.

Though some would argue that we do not need a smoother transition, see unemployment, income growth etc, the US is doing well.

Yep it would certianly help us in our transition into a third world economy or country. Yea it is really so so wonderful.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Yep it would certianly help us in our transition into a third world economy or country. Yea it is really so so wonderful.

You have no understanding of comparative advantage, do you?