It's a depressing day when you wake up, and find out that your skills are no longer marketable. The IT world changes so fast with new fads that come and go. I have been working in the IT field for 7 years now, and specialized in Lotus Notes. A few years ago this skill was sought out by employers, and seen as a prized possesion. Today it's just considered another fad. Adpation is the key, but when your employer pigeon holes you for 7 yrs, you find adaption a tough road to travel. Adapt or die is the IT motto today. With outsourcing also becomming a big concern jobs will be harder to find here in the U.S. Adaption may no longer save us from the evil outsourcing monster. The key now is to develop a diverse skill set, like management. There will always be a need for project managers. The IT world is in trouble here in the U.S. How do we stop companies from taking our jobs away, and giving them to low income countries? I have nothing agianst those countries, but what happens to us when we end up on the street. I send this warning out to the next generation of IT. For now the current generation needs keep doing our job. Adapt and survive is the message to us now, even if that means changing what we love to do. It's a fragile time so keep safe, and above all keep programming. By the way if your wandering I am still programming, and am currently adapting to the next fad J2EE. Like to here evreybodys thoughts to this thread. Agree or Disagree?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations IamaSherpa on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
The Sky Is Falling
- Thread starter techx
- Start date
dilettante
MIS
Auto "insourcing" is utterly different economically from outsourcing as we're seeing it.
Honda and others make cars here to sell here. They don't take jobs out of Japan to create products to sell back in Japan, among the displaced workers.
IT offshoring is done to create cheap software products and services to import back here to mark up and sell to the guy who you worked for last week.
It is unpatriotic, and it's wrong.
Honda and others make cars here to sell here. They don't take jobs out of Japan to create products to sell back in Japan, among the displaced workers.
IT offshoring is done to create cheap software products and services to import back here to mark up and sell to the guy who you worked for last week.
It is unpatriotic, and it's wrong.
So the Japanese don't drive toyota's, honda's, acura's, mitsubishi's or any of their other cars that are manufactured elsewhere?
If a company cannot reduce their costs then they will have to lay off workers. GM spends billions per year on health care for their workers and retirees, forcing them to cut costs. If you company can pay $5/hr instead of $30/hr and add in the associated costs (retirement, health, etc.) a company will save tens of thousands per year.
The person in the third world country now has money to spend to purchase a Maytag (US) washer and dryer, increasing US exports which employs the Iowa worker who then can purchase a car from a US dealer who can then employ other individuals who now have money...
Can US growth keep up and ahead of foreign investments in the US which keeps our standard of living high and affords us cheap goods? That is a debate that is arguable on both sides for economists. It could go either way. But that is a different topic.
Your statement is riduculous and is rhetoric without any logic to back it up. It is a statement of pure emotion.
I am finished with this thread.
If a company cannot reduce their costs then they will have to lay off workers. GM spends billions per year on health care for their workers and retirees, forcing them to cut costs. If you company can pay $5/hr instead of $30/hr and add in the associated costs (retirement, health, etc.) a company will save tens of thousands per year.
The person in the third world country now has money to spend to purchase a Maytag (US) washer and dryer, increasing US exports which employs the Iowa worker who then can purchase a car from a US dealer who can then employ other individuals who now have money...
Can US growth keep up and ahead of foreign investments in the US which keeps our standard of living high and affords us cheap goods? That is a debate that is arguable on both sides for economists. It could go either way. But that is a different topic.
Your statement is riduculous and is rhetoric without any logic to back it up. It is a statement of pure emotion.
I am finished with this thread.
Actually, the Marysville Ohio plant produces right-hand-drive Accords that are exported to Japan.
I'm not clear why. Could it be a political thing? Does Honda not sell enough Accords in Japan (it *is* a large car by Japanese standards) to justify a plant there? Or perhaps some other reason that we are not privy to. But it ship cars there.
There's also the BMW plant in Greer South Carolina that ships X5s (and used to ship Z3s) to Europe. That might be a sales volume thing again.
Chip H.
____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first
Unlimited Wealth: The Theory and Practice of Economic Alchemy - Paul Zane Pilzer
This is a great book that takes a different look at "the market". The outsourcing issue would benefit greatly from some of these philosophies being applied. His best example is the vinyl record industry.
When CDs were first produced, this new technology crippled and ultimately destroyed the vinyl record industry. All the people who were working making records were now out of work. However, an entire new industry was created. Are the people who made records happy about this?? Of course not, they lost their jobs, they were low skill, low technology jobs. But a lot of new people are making money in a new industry. Zane calls this a "transfer of wealth".
Another example, a restaurant owner buys an automatic dishwasher for $10,000. Because of this investment, he can now let go one of the employees who washes dishes (because one person can run the machine, but two people were needed to wash by hand). Assume that the employee who works as a dishwasher gets paid $6/hour (@$12,500/year). The owner of the restaurant has a made an additional $2500 this year PLUS the $12,500 in each subsequent year. The dishwasher who has lost this wealth would have used it to make ends meet - pay the rent, buy groceries. The restaurant owner will spend this extra income on "extras" - take the family on a vacation, buy his wife some jewelry. Does this make the dishwasher happy? Of course not, he lost his job. Is it bad for the economy or the restaurant owner? No.
Every transfer of wealth has a "winner" and a "loser". If you're the loser, life sucks, if you're the winner, all's good. The above examples were fairly localized, outsourcing is an international or global transfer of wealth. But the advancement of technology that allows outsourcing to occur isn't a personal blow to you. The Indians aren't out to get YOUR job, they are just trying to improve their own situation.
If you stop and think about it, how is outsourcing any different from the fuedal days? If a country or area had a resource that was desired, others tried to take it away - Gold, Oil, Coal? How many wars were fought over "resources"? India is trying to take our resource (development) and to do that they are waging war on the costs (pay rates) that are currently paid to US developers.
Leslie
Anything worth doing is a lot more difficult than it's worth - Unknown Induhvidual
This is a great book that takes a different look at "the market". The outsourcing issue would benefit greatly from some of these philosophies being applied. His best example is the vinyl record industry.
When CDs were first produced, this new technology crippled and ultimately destroyed the vinyl record industry. All the people who were working making records were now out of work. However, an entire new industry was created. Are the people who made records happy about this?? Of course not, they lost their jobs, they were low skill, low technology jobs. But a lot of new people are making money in a new industry. Zane calls this a "transfer of wealth".
Another example, a restaurant owner buys an automatic dishwasher for $10,000. Because of this investment, he can now let go one of the employees who washes dishes (because one person can run the machine, but two people were needed to wash by hand). Assume that the employee who works as a dishwasher gets paid $6/hour (@$12,500/year). The owner of the restaurant has a made an additional $2500 this year PLUS the $12,500 in each subsequent year. The dishwasher who has lost this wealth would have used it to make ends meet - pay the rent, buy groceries. The restaurant owner will spend this extra income on "extras" - take the family on a vacation, buy his wife some jewelry. Does this make the dishwasher happy? Of course not, he lost his job. Is it bad for the economy or the restaurant owner? No.
Every transfer of wealth has a "winner" and a "loser". If you're the loser, life sucks, if you're the winner, all's good. The above examples were fairly localized, outsourcing is an international or global transfer of wealth. But the advancement of technology that allows outsourcing to occur isn't a personal blow to you. The Indians aren't out to get YOUR job, they are just trying to improve their own situation.
If you stop and think about it, how is outsourcing any different from the fuedal days? If a country or area had a resource that was desired, others tried to take it away - Gold, Oil, Coal? How many wars were fought over "resources"? India is trying to take our resource (development) and to do that they are waging war on the costs (pay rates) that are currently paid to US developers.
Leslie
Anything worth doing is a lot more difficult than it's worth - Unknown Induhvidual
dilettante
MIS
An excellent point, chiph. I should know better than to speak in absolutes.
Some of the reason might be economies of scale and supply-chain as well. Once you have manufacturing capacity and tooling in place it only makes sense to use it. Many of these plants source parts from domestic (U.S.) plants as well.
I have to agree with kHz that we're told health care costs have become a painful expense for manufacturers. I suppose the same is true for anyone in the software game or who uses custom software in the conduct of their primary business. Moving work offshore where there are weaker labor standards (and thus smaller or no health care costs) would pay the offshorer back yet a second time then.
One can only wonder how it was ever possible for these companies to compete in domestic (let alone world) markets at all? What exactly has changed? Could it be deregulation?
This leads to a land rush, creating a new factor: profitability pressure. Without high enough returns a company loses investor support in favor of higher-profit competition who have already moved to cheap labor pools.
If this is a large enough factor driving the game we have only two options that I can see. One is to decide that investors deserve ever-growing profit margins, and throw working people overboard. The other would be to decide that this isn't what our economy is about, and impose (by which I mean put back in place) across the board regulation and controls to level the playing field between these companies in support of domestic workers.
Efforts to get control of health care costs should be a priority in any event. I suspect the problem here is the same one once again: maximum shareholder profit at any cost to society at large.
But my only real point is that I don't buy the argument of any reciprocal equivalence between offshoring and inshoring. Inshoring as we currently experience it was driven by trade regulation, and serves primarily to domestically produce goods or services for domestic consumption - by a foreign business. Because of this it enjoys many ancilliary benefits including reduced shipping costs for the finished products.
How much software developed offshore by U.S. companies is used in those foreign countries though? I suspect that nearly 100% is "re-imported" for domestic use. I have to think that the UK, Australia, and others are experiencing much the same thing.
Some of the reason might be economies of scale and supply-chain as well. Once you have manufacturing capacity and tooling in place it only makes sense to use it. Many of these plants source parts from domestic (U.S.) plants as well.
I have to agree with kHz that we're told health care costs have become a painful expense for manufacturers. I suppose the same is true for anyone in the software game or who uses custom software in the conduct of their primary business. Moving work offshore where there are weaker labor standards (and thus smaller or no health care costs) would pay the offshorer back yet a second time then.
One can only wonder how it was ever possible for these companies to compete in domestic (let alone world) markets at all? What exactly has changed? Could it be deregulation?
This leads to a land rush, creating a new factor: profitability pressure. Without high enough returns a company loses investor support in favor of higher-profit competition who have already moved to cheap labor pools.
If this is a large enough factor driving the game we have only two options that I can see. One is to decide that investors deserve ever-growing profit margins, and throw working people overboard. The other would be to decide that this isn't what our economy is about, and impose (by which I mean put back in place) across the board regulation and controls to level the playing field between these companies in support of domestic workers.
Efforts to get control of health care costs should be a priority in any event. I suspect the problem here is the same one once again: maximum shareholder profit at any cost to society at large.
But my only real point is that I don't buy the argument of any reciprocal equivalence between offshoring and inshoring. Inshoring as we currently experience it was driven by trade regulation, and serves primarily to domestically produce goods or services for domestic consumption - by a foreign business. Because of this it enjoys many ancilliary benefits including reduced shipping costs for the finished products.
How much software developed offshore by U.S. companies is used in those foreign countries though? I suspect that nearly 100% is "re-imported" for domestic use. I have to think that the UK, Australia, and others are experiencing much the same thing.
I said I was finished, but this will be my last post.
Health care costs for employers are very high, almost to the point that small businesses cannot afford to cover their employees.
Medicare and Medicaid is growing around 20% per year and there hasn't been any serious effort made to reduce or stem the rising costs. The prescription drug plan is a monumental expense that wasn't needed.
Now companies are wanting to send the un- and low-skilled labor to third-world countries to lower their costs. If GM doesn't have to pay $20/hr for someone to install wipers every day and their totally free health care, as well as a 401k, vacation, sick time, personal days, etc., then it adds to the company bottom line.
The US hold $49 trillion in housing and stocks while the rest of the world total is a combined $55 trillion. But our standard of living is being bankrolled by foreign countries and a correction could lower the US standard of living. Of course, if growth continues then the lower standard of living won't occur, but some stagnation or lowering of wages has been happening for the past four years. This typically can occur during a recession, however, it usually reverses itself when the economy picks up as it did last year - but wages still declined. Economists are perplexed by this event.
Protectionism could also harm the US standard of living instead of helping it and could also cause a worldwide econmic problem.
The best one can do is to prepare themselves for any and all possible outcomes. For me, this is educating myself to take the skilled, professional, knowledge jobs that will always need to be filled, and probably to a greater extent in the next few years with baby boomers retiring.
Health care costs for employers are very high, almost to the point that small businesses cannot afford to cover their employees.
Medicare and Medicaid is growing around 20% per year and there hasn't been any serious effort made to reduce or stem the rising costs. The prescription drug plan is a monumental expense that wasn't needed.
Also in the post-WWII era, globalization was not something the US needed to concern itself with, because manufacturing and all other jobs (for the most part) were done in the US. Ford and GM didn't have plants in South Korea and Mexico. So the companies didn't have to compete with low-cost, unskilled labor in third-world countries.
Now companies are wanting to send the un- and low-skilled labor to third-world countries to lower their costs. If GM doesn't have to pay $20/hr for someone to install wipers every day and their totally free health care, as well as a 401k, vacation, sick time, personal days, etc., then it adds to the company bottom line.
The US hold $49 trillion in housing and stocks while the rest of the world total is a combined $55 trillion. But our standard of living is being bankrolled by foreign countries and a correction could lower the US standard of living. Of course, if growth continues then the lower standard of living won't occur, but some stagnation or lowering of wages has been happening for the past four years. This typically can occur during a recession, however, it usually reverses itself when the economy picks up as it did last year - but wages still declined. Economists are perplexed by this event.
Protectionism could also harm the US standard of living instead of helping it and could also cause a worldwide econmic problem.
The best one can do is to prepare themselves for any and all possible outcomes. For me, this is educating myself to take the skilled, professional, knowledge jobs that will always need to be filled, and probably to a greater extent in the next few years with baby boomers retiring.
In the software industry especially, one should always be learning. You don't want to end up pigeonholed like COBOL programmers!
But even in other industries, you should always be prepared for massive disruptive change to happen. The people making vinyl records mentioned above is a good example. That industry disappeared almost entirely over a 5 year span. Not outsourced, offshored, or other transfer to a distant land --- it disappeared from the face of the earth.
So, it always pays to have some skills in an un-related industry. Healthcare seems to be a good bet right now, with the growth of the aged population. Either in direct healthcare (nursing, etc) or in support (biomedical equipment repair).
Chip H.
____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first
- Status
Similar threads