Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
You're back peddling. You stated that for every job lost through offshoring 4 new jobs are created. [That's a paraphrase] Now you're pointing to history to say that these better jobs will come.


Give me a reason why you believe it will be different this time?

quote:
That's not much comfort for those losing jobs today.


Nor is there comfort for the people who constitute the other 97% of job losses here. Is it really about comforting people? What's the difference between losing your job to offshoring (less likely) and losing your job for any other reason?

quote:
It's like someone coming to you saying, "If you give me money today, I promise that I'll give you more dollars sometime in the future." Would the proposition be more attractive if I showed you that historically, people that give their dollars to other people have gotten more Euros?


It probably would be more attractive if the alternative was a sure loss, as is the case with protectionism.

quote:
But would the proposition be less credible if I told you up front that for every dollar you give me, I have 4 Euros already in the bank for you; but when you press me to show you the money, I point to history?


If there's no precedent for ending up with a net loss, then why would it not credible?

quote:
Understand, I am not anti-free trade. I am however, anti-unilateral free trade. I am also anti-US government sponsored offshoring under the guise of free trade.


We're in agreement on government-sponsored offshoring. It basically has the same market-distorting effect as protectionism.

On the other hand, unilateral free-trade, while harming certain protected industries by allowing more competition, would be the best policy for all US consumers -- a group which does include employers, by the way. To make this policy more beneficial, structural costs wouls need to be brought down, attracting more foreign and domestic investment.

Free trade helps overall employment in ways that aren't as visible as the certain businesses that may not be able to keep up with more competition.

The argument against free trade is more political than anything else.
Originally posted by Kevin41:
Nice try huh? Well provide some insight beyond rhetoric that outsourcing has created jobs here at a rate at least that of their being exported. I provided figures that show how the job losses coincide with the outsourced sectors. I deserve more than "nice try" for my efforts....don'tcha think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

toussaint posted

Not really. Especially when outsourcing has been going on for quite a while during both economic booms and recessions.


toussaint...you really did weasel the hell out on that one.....now I posted some info that you TRIED to dismiss from a rhetorical and non-factual basis and now you cannot provide any concrete data to support your stance? real weak homie.....that reminds me of when I ask black conservatives why should i support any legislation that reduces educational opportunities for black people? they have no answer...and therefore no credibility within the black social or political scene....I never understood people who have a stance on an issue and cannot support it to the hilt. So if I were your student and asked for concrete proof that outsourcing creates jobs to the extent you were saying they do, would you brush me off the same way then?
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin41:
toussaint...you really did weasel the hell out on that one.....now I posted some info that you TRIED to dismiss from a rhetorical and non-factual basis and now you cannot provide any concrete data to support your stance? real weak homie.....that reminds me of when I ask black conservatives why should i support any legislation that reduces educational opportunities for black people? they have no answer...and therefore no credibility within the black social or political scene....I never understood people who have a stance on an issue and cannot support it to the hilt. So if I were your student and asked for concrete proof that outsourcing creates jobs to the extent you were saying they do, would you brush me off the same way then?


Just look at job creation in the 1990s.

Your "evidence" is not even evidence--again, not even the researchers who wrote the study you cited came to your conclusion, because they didn't have the evidence to do so.

Anyway: While global IT software and service outsourcing displaces some IT workers, total employment in the United States increases as the benefits ripple through the economy. The incremental economic activity that follows offshore IT outsourcing created over 90,000 net new jobs as of 2003 and is expected to create 317,000 net new jobs by 2008.

Conclusions in this study are much more concrete than yours--which doesn't come close to concluding what you conclude.
okay toussaint...IT, are the only jobs being outsourced.....i wish someone woukld please give me some data that shows how how all of the jobs in the other sectors are being replaced with the same number of equivalent paying jobs......that study is nothing but estimates.....i could dissect that study into a million pieces based on the ASSUMPTIONS that is written on......if you really want to be a factual person.....go and find factual employment data from the various sectors that shows how many jobs were lost, how many were gained, and what industry actions/activities fostered the growth ofnew jobs. If there was a tangible connection, you would find it because it would specifically state that it was a catalyst for job creation. That study is pie-in-the-sky nonsense like Dubya's "jobless" recovery.........like you tell me, "good try".........
Kevin41, if there were such a report (one that states actual jobs created as a result of offshoring that indicated that these jobs were of equal quality as those lost to offshoring), don't you think the WSJ, or Forbes, or (if for no other reason than to save face) the clown in Dudya's administration that made the claim that offshoring was good for America, would be wallpapering the world with it?

Instead, we get "in past transitions, this happened" and vague blanket statement about job growth.
Kweli,

I know that and you know that....but it is nice to watch others skirt the issue and use rhetoric to stand-in for facts....I know damn well that 3.3 million jobs have been lost, unemployment for blacks is in double digits..and these figures coincide with the last few republican presidents....how did we go from a budget surplus, low unemployment to this mess? The article that was posted about dubya and affirmative action for whites says it all......i guess they (whites) thought they couls have prosperity without them black folks....my next older brother said that whites did not attribute anything to Clinton and just thought they were soley responsible for the fat times of the nineties. I love it when I see iowan conservatives bemoan bush.....they were suckered in by that anti-affirmative action bullshit of the republicans presenting themselves as the white party.....yeah...the rich white party....so they get in office, cater to rich whites and big business and ship the jobs abroad......now they are singing the blues like BB King...and the loyalist negro......hell, we could return to slavery today and they would be singing the praises of it....just like their uncle tom great grandmas and grandpas.........and its scary....if there were not so many broke azz white people....dubya would get elected again.....just by making them feel comfortable with his marginally intelligent midwest lilly azz demeanor....i just shake my head at em all.....black and white......the whites are being who history has told them they are....and the blacks....well...lacking self-adequacy makes one behave strangely.........
You chose to ignore a specific in depth study that shows how outsourcing can ultimately create jobs. Of course, you're not satisfied, and I didn't expect you to be.

What you fail to realize is that outsourcing is no different than any other cost-cutting measure, whether it be using new technology, or streamlining production. People lose jobs in the short-term, but ultimately many more new opportunities are created, as resources are spared for other uses.

Also, you have not shown what you would do about the issue, and I'm not surprised. Why? Because the alternative--preventing outsourcing--would be disasterous. If you think people are losing jobs now to outsourcing, wait until more restrictions are put on trade.

Given such anti-outsourcing logic, what do you think we should do about outsourcing to different states? Should we shut that off too, because people lose their jobs? Should we hold off labor-saving technological advances because people lose their jobs because of them?

Maybe you should clarify your stance, instead of simply mounting a failed offensive on mine.
You've summed up my point ... "You chose to ignore a specific in depth study that shows how outsourcing CAN ULTIMATELY create jobs." Not HAS ACTUALLY created JOBS.

Actually, outsourcing is not my concern, it's really OFFSHORING, that concerns me. Businesses can outsource without shipping the jobs overseas to non-competitive marketplaces. I have real problems with business citing cost savings as the reason for offshoring, while paying corporate execs millions for shrinking marketshares and plunging share values. If businesses were acting rationally, they would tie executive compensation to long-term performance. Then people like me would have less problems with the "offshoring for cost-saving" argument."

I am not for trade restrictions; however, I cannot support a national policy of allowing domiciled business to export jobs while the country receives nothing in return, except faked worker productivity reports because business doesn't count the offshored workers. We don't even receive taxes on the offshore produced revenue.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
You've summed up my point ... "You chose to ignore a specific in depth study that shows how outsourcing _CAN ULTIMATELY_ create jobs." Not _HAS ACTUALLY_ created JOBS.


It creates jobs just like any other resource-saving practice. Why is this pinned as a boogey-man when other practices/technology eliminate so many more jobs? I still don't understand the hooplah about this one practice.

quote:
Actually, outsourcing is not my concern, it's really OFFSHORING, that concerns me. Businesses can outsource without shipping the jobs overseas to non-competitive marketplaces.


Jobs are shipped to different parts of the country to cut costs. The people left behind have lost jobs just like those whose company has moved overseas. What's the difference, besides the fact that more people lose jobs due to domestic factors?

quote:
I have real problems with business citing cost savings as the reason for offshoring, while paying corporate execs millions for shrinking marketshares and plunging share values.


This is a different issue. Attacking offshoring will not affect this at all. And even if this is the case, offshoring is still a cost-cutting measure regardless of how much the CEO makes.

quote:
If businesses were acting rationally, they would tie executive compensation to long-term performance. Then people like me would have less problems with the "offshoring for cost-saving" argument."


The two have virtually no effect on each other.

quote:
I am not for trade restrictions; however, I cannot support a national policy of allowing domiciled business to export jobs while the country receives nothing in return,


You're contradicting yourself. You're either for trade restrictions or you're not for them.

And the country does receive planty in return--we're still the one's consuming the same goods at lower costs.
Yeah, but your ducking of facts shows that that IS happenning, Might happen. Those quality jobs might show up here, they might not. But what IS happenning is those jobs being shipped are being replaced by low paying, service industry jobs.

My objection to your argument is your insistence on parroting the pro-business (to hell with the workers) jobless recovery line that, "For every job shipped, 4 are created." That is patently untrue.

Your attempt to equate intra-US outsourcing and extra-US offshoring is either disengenuous or niave. Outsource my job from Tucson to Texas, I can follow it. Offshore it to Taiwan, I can't. Understand?

Your job elimination due to technology vs. offshoring is equally specious. With technology, the jobs are no longer needed. With offshoring, the jobs still exist, there just done somewhere else.

Attacking the cost cutting rationale for offshoring is just to show the corporate lie. More money would be saved through reigning in executive compensation than offshoring. (See recent Forbes Mag., on corporate compensation) And doing so, would strap the country with the transitional costs of offshoring.

Okay, I'm for free trade in a limited way. Just like you are for government in a limited way.

But does those lower costs of goods make up for the dislocation costs and the lack of tax revenue?
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Yeah, but your ducking of facts shows that that IS happenning, Might happen. Those quality jobs might show up here, they might not. But what IS happenning is those jobs being shipped are being replaced by low paying, service industry jobs.


There's much more chance of better jobs showing up than not. But again, what are you prepared to do about it? I still haven't received an answer as of yet.

quote:
My objection to your argument is your insistence on parroting the pro-business (to hell with the workers) jobless recovery line that, "For every job shipped, 4 are created." That is patently untrue.


I just gave a study showing how outsourcing has affected the IT industry. Only if you think that trade kills rather than sustains economies would you advocate a policy that seeks to stop this practice.

quote:
Your attempt to equate intra-US outsourcing and extra-US offshoring is either disengenuous or niave. Outsource my job from Tucson to Texas, I can follow it.


The cost of movement is less, but the benefits from trade are the same. Also, some people may not be able to afford the move. You have still left them out.

quote:
Your job elimination due to technology vs. offshoring is equally specious. With technology, the jobs are no longer needed. With offshoring, the jobs still exist, there just done somewhere else.


Let's see, I'm out of a job, or I'm out of a job. Or the job doesn't need to be done by me, or the job doesn't need to be done by me. Unless there's some market distortion going on by government's encouraging offshoring for god knows what reason, when a company moves it is implied that they don't need people who demand certain wages to complete a given task.

It's the same thing, and the only difference is that people in other countries get jobs.

quote:
Attacking the cost cutting rationale for offshoring is just to show the corporate lie. More money would be saved through reigning in executive compensation than offshoring. (See recent Forbes Mag., on corporate compensation) And doing so, would strap the country with the transitional costs of offshoring.


Offshoring has no other purpose than to cut-costs. There's no point in offshoring unless costs of production will be lower.

quote:
Okay, I'm for free trade in a limited way. Just like you are for government in a limited way.


If you restrict business practices that cut costs, other people will simply let there businesses operate and render our businesses uncompetitive--unles you want to completely close the economy. I don't think that putting our businesses at a disadvantage is the answer.

quote:
But does those lower costs of goods make up for the dislocation costs and the lack of tax revenue?


If you're a consumer, yes. If you're someone who just lost their job, no. Again, I'm not saying that free trade is good for everyone all the time. My point is that it's much better and more moral than any alternative.
taharka,

where are you getting your figures from.......unemployment for blacks is in double digits...in the 90's it dipped to all-time lows for blacks and nationally (6% and 4% respectively) If you look at w's numbers....they are lowered because those who stopped loking are no longer considered unemployed yet they are still JOBLESS....go figure....where in the hell did you get your "facts" from

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

July 13, 2003
Black Unemployment Rises Faster
Posted by kendall (July 13, 2003 01:38 PM)
Unemployment among blacks is rising at a faster pace than in any similar period since the mid-1970's, and the jobs lost have been mostly in manufacturing, where the pay for blacks has historically been higher than in many other fields.

Nearly 2.6 million jobs have disappeared over all during the last 28 months, which began with a brief recession that has faded into a weak recovery. Nearly 90 percent of those lost jobs were in manufacturing, according to government data, with blacks hit disproportionately harder than whites.

At the same time, jobless black Americans have been unusually persistent about staying in the labor force. Having landed millions of jobs in the booming 1990's, they have continued to look for new ones in the soft economy, and so are counted now as unemployed; if they gave up trying to find work, they would not be counted.

These two phenomena help to explain why the black unemployment rate, though still not high by historic standards, is rising twice as fast as that of whites, and faster than in any downturn since the mid-1970's recession. Low-wage workers and women who went from welfare to work in the 1990's have largely kept their jobs; factory breadwinners have borne the pain, men and women alike.

"The number of jobs and the types of jobs that have been lost have severely diminished the standing of many blacks in the middle class," said William Lucy, president of the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists.

In Indianapolis, for example, Autoliv, a Swedish manufacturer of seat belts, is closing a plant and laying off 350 workers, more than 75 percent of them black. Many are young adults who were hired in the late 1990's when the unemployment rate in Indianapolis was only 2 percent and Autoliv, to recruit enough workers to expand production, hired young men without high school diplomas.

"They were taken from the street into decent-paying jobs; they were making $12 to $13 an hour," said Michael Barnes, director of an A.F.L.-C.I.O. training program that helps laid-off workers in Indiana search for new jobs. "These young men started families, dug in, took apartments, purchased vehicles. It was an up-from-the-street experience for them, and now they are being returned to their old environment."

It is not only the recently hired who are losing jobs. So are tens of thousands of textile workers in the South, many with long tenure, as production in the industry shifts to China and India. Bruce Raynor, president of Unite, the union that represents textile workers, ticked off a few of the more recent losses: 1,000 jobs lost in the last two years as mills closed in Roanoke Rapids, N.C.; another 1,000 in mill closings in Columbus, Ga.; 1,500 lost in the closing of a sweatshirt factory in Martinsville, Va.

These workers are mostly black men and women who were earning $11 an hour plus benefits in small towns where other jobs, if there are any, do not pay as well.

"This is not like the cyclical downturns in the old days, when you got furloughed for a few weeks and then recalled," said Jared Bernstein, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute. "These jobs are gone, and that represents a potentially significant slide in living standards."

Black employment in manufacturing, once concentrated in the Midwest and Northeast, is now spread across every state as companies have migrated to lower-wage towns and cities. With an increasing number of these companies migrating again, this time overseas in search of yet lower labor costs, the job loss in manufacturing has intensified. Every state has lost manufacturing jobs over the last three years, according to a study by the National Association of Manufacturers.

In 2000, there were 2 million black Americans working in factory jobs, or 10.1 percent of the nation's total of 20 million manufacturing workers. Blacks were represented in the overall work force in roughly the same proportion. Then came the recession that began in March 2001; since then, 300,000 factory jobs held by blacks, or 15 percent, have disappeared. White workers lost many factory jobs, too "” 1.7 million in all. But because they were much more numerous to begin with, proportionally the damage was less, just 10 percent.

These job losses figure significantly in the rise in the unemployment rate among blacks 20 years of age or older. It has gone up 3.5 percentage points since the onset of the recession, while the rate among whites has risen less than half as much, 1.7 percentage points.

Most damaging, blacks' share of the remaining manufacturing jobs has slipped to 9.6 percent. "Half a percentage point may not sound like much," Mr. Bernstein said, "but to lose that much in such an important sector over a relatively short period, that is going to be hard to recover."

Hispanic workers, in contrast, have fared better over the last 28 months, even expanding their share of manufacturing jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Their overall unemployment rate rose 2.2 percentage points, in line with the increase for the nation as a whole. The national unemployment rate now stands at 6.4 percent.

While blacks have been big losers in the 28 months of recession and weak recovery, they made big gains in the tight labor markets of the late 1990's. Their unemployment rate, which had soared as high as 18 percent in the aftermath of the severe 1981-82 recession and was nearly 13 percent in the early 1990's, fell to less than 7 percent, on average, in 1999 and 2000 "” close to the overall rate of less than 5 percent. Never since the Labor Department began to track unemployment by race in 1972 had black unemployment been so low for a sustained period. Now it is 10.5 percent for blacks 20 years of age or older.

The shift in fortunes is evident in a poll that David Bositis, a political scientist at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, conducts periodically among blacks, asking 850 people representing a cross section of the black population whether they consider themselves financially better off than a year before, worse off, or the same. In October 2000, the responses were quite positive: 45 percent better off, 10 percent worse off, 44 percent the same. But by October 2002, only 18.9 percent said they were better off than a year earlier, while 36.7 percent considered themselves worse off and 42.6 percent said their circumstances had not changed. "That is an enormous shift," Mr. Bositis said.

For all the setbacks, black Americans have not diminished their presence in the labor force. During the late 1990's, the percentage of black Americans who were in the labor force "” that is, either held jobs or were actively looking for them and therefore counted as unemployed "” rose by two percentage points to more than 68 percent, the highest level on record. Significantly, in the subsequent downturn that high participation rate has held.

That means that the number of black people looking for jobs is higher now than in previous eras "” a statistic that some analyst see as a reason for optimism. "People are coming out of a favorable labor market," said William Spriggs, executive director of the National League for Opportunity and Equality. "They are still optimistic, and they are more skilled, which means they are more willing to continue to look for work."

Others see suffering in the same data. Not since the Depression has the nation's work force contracted for so many months after a recession began. "Reluctance may be part of the reason blacks are not leaving the labor force," Mr. Bernstein said, acknowledging Mr. Spriggs's point. "But you leave a lousy labor market because you can afford to do so, and in a jobless recovery that has persisted for so long, many blacks don't have the savings to make a go of it without a paycheck."
As a Center for Outsourcing, India Could Be Losing Its Edge
By NOAM SCHEIBER

N early April, Infosys Technologies, an Indian outsourcing firm, had a party to celebrate reaching $1 billion in annual revenue. It gathered nearly 10,000 employees under a tent on its Bangalore campus and plied them with food and entertainment.

The company also distributed some $23 million in bonuses. "And we're doing a lot of other things to retain employees," said Stephen R. Pratt, chief executive of the Infosys consulting arm in the United States.

Infosys is hardly the only Indian company making a serious effort to attract and keep employees. Over all, according to a recent survey by Hewitt Associates, the consulting group, wages in the country's major outsourcing sectors have been rising by close to 15 percent a year.

The reason is increased competition for labor, thanks in large part to American companies' rush to outsource work offshore. In fact, the competition has become so fierce that typical Indian operations in business processing - including call centers and offices handling payroll, accounting and human-resources functions - can expect to lose 15 to 20 percent of their work forces each year, versus single-digit percentage losses in the late 1990's.

The surge in offshore outsourcing has attracted the attention of American politicians worried about the loss of jobs at home. In late April, the presidential campaign of Senator John Kerry announced its "Jobs First" tour and said, "While the president and his economic advisers have insisted that outsourcing benefits America, a record number of U.S. workers have lost their jobs to countries overseas."

But the data from India show that, to some extent, the offshore outsourcing phenomenon may be self-correcting. Though outsourcing shows no sign of fading, rising wages and rapid turnover in Indian hubs may reduce the savings American companies reap when they send work abroad.

The stiffest competition for offshore labor tends to occur in India's so-called first-tier cities: Bangalore, Mumbai, New Delhi and Hyderabad. In some sectors of the outsourcing market, attrition rates are 50 to 75 percent a year, according to Sunil Mehta, vice president of the National Association of Software and Service Companies, or Nasscom, an industry trade group in India.

Managers in the business-processing sector, in particular, have difficulties keeping workers. A typical outsourcing contract sends workers from an Indian company "onshore" - to the American company's headquarters - while the outsourcing project is starting. The problem is that the onshore experience becomes a valuable credential in the American or Indian labor markets.

"Many don't want to go back offshore," said William S. McCarter, chief operating officer and executive vice president of ePolicy Solutions, a company based in Torrance, Calif., that focuses on Web-based technology services. "Or if they do go back offshore, they have a marketable skill to churn in the Indian market."

The situation became so dire last spring that, according to a report in India in The Business Standard, the top outsourcing firms in business processing reached an informal agreement not to poach employees from one another. Other retention measures included clauses in employment contracts to require each new worker to observe a three-month cooling-off period after the hiring date before accepting another job offer.

Not surprisingly, wage increases have been the most common method of attracting and retaining employees. For example, Wipro, the big outsourcing company, gave its 24,000 employees in India an average raise of 10 percent last October; the increases were as high as 15 percent for managers. These costs have largely come out of its bottom line - denting its operating margin by 1 percentage point to 1.5 percentage points a quarter - rather than showing up as higher prices. (The leading Indian outsourcing companies have operating margins of 20 percent to 25 percent.)

But part of Wipro's higher costs have been passed along. "Certain customers got a price increase" last quarter, said Sridhar Ramasubbu, a company spokesman.

Indian executives like Jaithirth Rao, the chief executive of the MphasiS, an outsourcing company, and the current chairman of Nasscom, argue that the labor shortage, especially for middle managers, will be temporary. Local universities have already begun expanding the enrollment in two- and four-year business programs, according to outsourcing company executives.

There are, to be sure, pockets of the country where less-skilled technical workers have difficulty finding jobs. But there are reasons to believe that India's shortage of highly skilled labor could be stubborn. A recent Nasscom report projected that if India continued to produce college graduates at the current rate, demand would exceed supply by 20 percent in the main outsourcing markets by 2008.

"Candidly, we see a labor problem in India right now," said Dan Zadorozny, the vice president for applications delivery at Electronic Data Systems, the big seller of computer services that is based in the United States but has operations in India.

Even with wages rising 15 percent a year, the cost for a computer programmer or a middle manager in India remains a small fraction of that for a similar employee in the United States. A programmer with three to five years' experience makes about $25,000 in India but about $65,000 in the United States. But the wage savings from offshore outsourcing have never translated directly into overall savings; typically, an outsourcing contract between an American company and an Indian vendor saves less than half as much as the wage differences would imply.

Praba Manivasager, the chief executive of Renodis Global Outsourcing Solutions, a company based in Minneapolis that advises clients on outsourcing projects, sees two reasons for that. The first involves the costs of the transition from doing work in-house to offshore - usually a one- to two-year process. During the transition, employees of vendors based in India must work in the United States. The second involves the cost of maintaining the relationship. Employees of the American company must make frequent trips to India, and the vendor needs some continued American presence.

"The vendor says, 'We'll save 40 to 60 percent; we'll give you such a great rate - $22 or whatever,' '' Mr. Manivasager said, referring to hourly wages. "But if the onshore rate is $50 to $55, and you have half the people onshore, the savings aren't going to be what are advertised."

IT is not as if offshore outsourcing is going away. Indian outsourcing companies may simply shift operations to cities like Nasik and Ponticherry, where wage inflation is relatively mild. Others may outsource work offshore themselves, to China, Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe. Still, most experts say India is years ahead of countries like China in its workers' facility with English, its telecommunications and the sophistication of its legal system

Another possibility is that American companies may turn increasingly to global companies based in the United States - like I.B.M. Business Consulting Services, E.D.S. and Hewlett-Packard. These companies have the advantage of locations in dozens of countries around the world - E.D.S. is in 57 - so they can constantly shift work to the most efficient destination.

That trend may bring a measure of relief to American workers. Of E.D.S.'s 135,000 global employees, nearly half are based in the United States. Wipro, by contrast, bases more than 80 percent of its 28,000 employees in India. (The difference is that E.D.S. uses American workers for the onshore component of its American contracts; Wipro uses Indian workers, dispatching them to the United States when necessary.)

If the increasing competitiveness of the Indian labor market begins to benefit companies like E.D.S. and I.B.M., outsourcing may one day no longer be a dirty word in a presidential election.
Keeping joba at home is probably a much better option for black people who are experiencing double-digit unemployment as opposed to waiting on some jobs to COME BACK.....that reminds me of a "trickle down" approach where the downtrodden is always told to WAIT....the US needs to learn to leverage its power in many other areas to keep jobs here......GOP pro big-business cronies do not want to pay the american worker anything worthwhile, but expects a consumer base to exist.....
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin41:
Keeping joba at home is probably a much better option for black people who are experiencing double-digit unemployment as opposed to waiting on some jobs to COME BACK.....that reminds me of a "trickle down" approach where the downtrodden is always told to WAIT....the US needs to learn to leverage its power in many other areas to keep jobs here......GOP pro big-business cronies do not want to pay the american worker anything worthwhile, but expects a consumer base to exist.....


Stifling free trade eliminates jobs in both the short run and the long run, while limiting competition, which leads to higher prices. Apparantly, you missed the Progressive Policy Instute's study on protectionism. I guess you'll settle for screwing the poorest people to "save their jobs"?

The choice isn't between free trade and "having a job", but it was very clever for you to avoid answering the question by framing the issue as such.
Right now free trade (outsourcing) is being conducted in the midst of awful unemployment numbers.....I showed how the job losses in many sectors coincided with outsourcing....you said they had nothing to do with each other without proving anything to the contrary (outsourced sectors that have job increases) but you say I did not answer the question.....i did..my answer was trade with an emphasis on keeping jobs here.....and that is what is going to happen....remember the proposal to give tax breaks to those who keep jobs here? Well that is where my answer is coming from......I still want to see where you get passt vague answers and provide some concrete job creation numbers that resulted in various sectors because of being outsourced......
Just as I suspected--you have no alternatives, only complaints about a process that may account for about 1% of job losses, probably lower.

Meanwhile, I cited a study that showed how outsourcing in the IT sector has actually led to the creation of more jobs. The study provides much more insight than your meaningless correlation. Further, that there are not currently any studies that I've found regarding the other sectors does not prove your point in any way, shape, or form.

And, again, you offer absolutely no solutions. This is not surprising, given that your solutions wouldn't be to cut the structural costs that make American workers less competitive--your solution would be more government in the form of protectionism, which screws everybody, especially the poor.

But I could be wrong. Maybe you do have a solution. What is it?
What study did you cite that showed an increase in jobs? The only report you pointed to expressed the POTENTIAL for job creation.

Why is it that you continue to argue for the cutting of structural costs that make American workers less competitive, yet avoid any discussion of costing executive compensation as unrelated.

Like Kevin41 said, this free trade thing is like trickle-down economics, whcih only works for those that get their buckets filled first.

The free trade solution is basically a reciprocal trade agreements. We trade freely with those that trade freely with us and that includes those nations that hold the values that are reflected in a national employment polciies, e.g., respect for the environment, respect for worker safety, respect for somewhat of a living wage. These are policy decisions that we as a nation have adopted and should be applied to our trade partners.

I see this free trade argument (i.e., allowing for unilateral benefits to accrue to our trade partners in exchange for cheap products) to be extremely myopic as well as unrealistic.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
What study did you cite that showed an increase in jobs? The only report you pointed to expressed the POTENTIAL for job creation.


Actually, it did show an increase in jobs and potential job creation in the future.

Do you really think that restricting this practice will help the economy? Please explain why. And again, less than 1% of job turnover is due to outsourcing. Please, keep that in mind.

quote:
Why is it that you continue to argue for the cutting of structural costs that make American workers less competitive, yet avoid any discussion of costing executive compensation as unrelated.


I'm speaking in terms of the government, which has absolutely nothing to do with executive compensation. What companies do - unless they're violating the rights of others - is the companies' business. Structural costs come from the government in the form of mandates, liscences etc.

quote:
Like Kevin41 said, this free trade thing is like trickle-down economics, whcih only works for those that get their buckets filled first.


Is this why trade liberalization has lifted millions out of poverty over the last 3 decades alone? That free trade "only" works for those that "ger their buckets filled first" is a proven falsehood.

And again, you ignore how protectionism hurts the poor more so than anyone else. I've cited PPI study twice already. Here is another study from OXFAM--another non-libertarian organization which shows protectionism's affect on the poor.

I guess no one wants to read about how they're screwing the poor regardless of how much good they think they're doing by "protecting jobs."

quote:
The free trade solution is basically a reciprocal trade agreements. We trade freely with those that trade freely with us and that includes those nations that hold the values that are reflected in a national employment polciies, e.g., respect for the environment, respect for worker safety, respect for somewhat of a living wage. These are policy decisions that we as a nation have adopted and should be applied to our trade partners.


We're screwing consumers here and poor people abroad with such policies. Issues such as environment, worker safety, and a "living wage" have very different meanings in America and the west than they do in poor countries. Many of these nations are going through the same economic stages the west went through at the beginning of the 20th century. By applying arbitrary, self-serving, and cost-increasing standards on these countries, we're making it even tougher for them to make progress -- all while forcing our own consumers to pay higher prices for goods. This is a stupid policy.

quote:
I see this free trade argument (i.e., allowing for unilateral benefits to accrue to our trade partners in exchange for cheap products) to be extremely myopic as well as unrealistic.


First, the benefits are not "unilateral" when we receive cheaper goods. Cheaper goods are a benefit as important - if not more so - than rises in wages.

The only way in which free trade may be unrealistic is politically, given that many have been sold on fallacies such as "protecting American jobs." But there is hope, as some of the industries that are harmed by sill protectionist schemes are starting to speak up. People are starting to realize that the cost of "protecting jobs" is the loss of other jobs. Tben there are others who will refuse to acknowledge this, despite the facts.

What is indeed unrealistic is the belief that protectionism will actually do any good for the economy.
In addition to the jobs thing.....providing opportunities for black people in a racist azz environment with a limited number of jobs is a challenge in itself. Read the Clinton Administration study that shows the disparities in hiring for blacks even when credentials and qualifications are the same....so if we are not going to be allowed to participate fully in something we DESERVE to participate in....I could give a damn less if america ever got back on its feet........because the only time there is a concern for the economy is when white unemployment gets to a certain level. As long as it is just black unemployment that is high....then it is no big deal to this country.....personally, I see this whole thing as big business screwing the average worker out of benefits, pay and job security in order to hold profits and executive compensation the same.....the class I taught, Compensation, Staffing and Appraisal shows the constantly growing chasm between executive and worker pay...just like trickle down economics...this free trade is another way to dupe the american worker while encouraging them to remain consumers...I really want to see someone work out the math where a job can be shipped away for half the wages and another job at the preivious rate before outsourcing will be created.....that is voodoo economics for real......but time will tell...to hell with this debate...let W get elected again....it will be hard times for real around here......
Once again your analysis is ridiculous and baseless. You, and some other folks, are starting from the false premise that production should be done for production's sake. Only then would it be true that our economy is made better off when production is not performed in the least costly environment.

Production's only purpose is consumption. Lower cost of production allows the cost to consumers to fall. This is how people groups, nations, whatever, become wealthier and are able to provide more for themselves and their families on the whole.
yeah real ridiculous toussaint....tell that to the MBA'S that are working for half of their original pay while jobs that they qualify for with similar pay to what they were used to making are sent overseas..........i'm through with it...maybe W will get re-elected and will let all of the jobs go overseas in cahoots with big business.....people will work to re-train themselves as a way to become competitive in a limited worker environment. I'll just sit at home and teach em online.......I hope all who support right-wing policies suffer as a result of them.....that is only fair to the everyday working-class person who this has happened to already.......I just smile when I see the anti-affirmative action, anti-anything black crowd go down as a result of voting with their racist hearts....like the people in appalachia who lost of the jobs to india....you and them both will be waiting for years before anyone brings anything back there to employ their azzes........so we have double-digit black unemployment at a time when jobs are being shipped out....toussaint...you let me know when the jobs get back so we can reduce our unemployment numbers.....be sure and don't let all the white folks call them "their" jobs like they have historically and take them all away for themselves...........
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
This just in ...

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0518-08.htm

I guess the poor just don't understand what's good for them, if only they'd just wait until the others finish feeding.


That people choose a more short sighted self-serving policy does not prove your point, and neither does economic ignorance. There are many people - including those on this forum - who think that "protecting" jobs actually results in jobs being protected and people being better off. This idea has been exposed as a farce long ago, but it still works in the world of politics -- people believe it.

I'd like to point out that India tried "protecting" jobs through import substitution and other forms of protectionism for about 4 decades and the result was a dismal failure. Only since they opened up their markets has their economy grown, lifting millions out of poverty.

But it seems that the politics of envy always wins out in the end. When one person sees another get rich faster than himself he says "that's not fair" or believes that the richer guy must be screwing him in some way. The support this belief for their own reasons, and they vote away the rich guy's paycheck. That is one of the many pitfalls of democracy.

Nevertheless, India's choosing a socialist government does not amount to evidence against libertarianism. People vote for all kinds of silly policies that are short-sighted and foolish from an economic standpoint. Look at France and their 35-Hour work week as one example.

But, if you're ready to offer a better alternative to free trade, be my guest. One still hasn't been offered, and I posed the question about a week ago.
Let's see, your defense of "free-trade" is that it makes poor people wealthier, but here we have those poor people saying, "we're not getting wealthier, only the wealthy are getting wealthier." (which BTW, goes along with the indictment of just about everyone, other than the those that are getting rich off this "free-trade" thing)

But wait, it's not a real life problem with the MODELS/THEORIES OF "FREE-TRADE", it's a problem with the short-sighted vision of those getting screwed. Right?

You probably should also point out that all of these "Globalized" nations that are receiving all these jobs, don't engage in "free-trade". Yes, they freely accept these jobs, but they do so with governmental policies that encourage multi-national corporations to send the jobs, like permitting sweatshops that amount to slave labor (Indonesia) and no environmental protections (Mexico).

You keep citing the millions that have been lifted out of poverty, as if wealth/poverty is measured exclusively in dollars and cents. That is the same mindset that promoted the raping of Africa and the Americas, and currently the Amazon regions. Because agrarian cultures/country have a lower per capita income than industrial, they must be living in poverty. The fact is, in agrarian cultures/countries money means much less to those working the land, than to those Business interests that can only see a market to be exploited.

Those that exercise the "politics of envy" are merely those that once they bought into the "lies of opportunity", realize that the only ones that benefit are those that already have. Unless you count those that trade in their relatively self-sufficient, though low earning, agrarian lifestyle, for the great opportunity of being a maid to middle management.

We, as an American society, have made the choice to value profit, but not at the expense of our society.

Yes, there have been suggestions regarding a "better way" than "free-trade." However, they are incapatible with your economic constructs.
The sweatshop argument loses its steam when you consider that the people in the "sweatshop" countries choose the sweatshop jobs at multinational corporations over the ones that would've had otherwise. The same "slave labor" that you speak of has allowed millions to lift themselves out of poverty -- Americans of 100 yrs ago included -- and it remains that such options are the only realistic way of doing so. Direct transfers of wealth --especially those between governments -- do not work to this end.

You said there is a "better way" than free trade, but they are "incompatiable" with my economic constructs. I have to ask you, what do you consider as "better"?

What force has brought about so many advancements that have helped so many people over time? What drives people to create cures for diseases, innovation in food production, and methods of purifying things we consume, among many other things that make our lives easier? Maybe it's that evil profit motive that you mentioned earlier in your post.

You said:
quote:
We, as an American society, have made the choice to value profit, but not at the expense of our society.


Some people may value profit at some times, other times they might value something else. If people choose to value certain things over others with their own property, neither you nor I have the moral authority to coerce them into a different course of action.

You said:
quote:
You keep citing the millions that have been lifted out of poverty, as if wealth/poverty is measured exclusively in dollars and cents. That is the same mindset that promoted the raping of Africa and the Americas, and currently the Amazon regions.


Nonsense. The mindset of free trade has nothing to do with "raping." It has everything to do with leaving people the hell alone.

Meanwhile, dollars and cents to happen to matter, especially for those in poverty. We take it for granted hear, and much of your post proves that point. You seek to diminish the fact that millions have been lifted out of poverty by citing a situation that is in no way related to their rise. These people being lifted out of povert did not require "rape" of any kind. It did, however, require more freedom through which they could utilize their property to advance.

Again, I never said that the effects of freer trade were perfect, but it is by far the best, most effective method of lifting people out of utter squalor. If you really cared about the poor, I'd think that you might support something that has such an effect, especially given the lack of better options.
so in other words, the sweatshop labor system is justified....do you really think those people lift themselves out of poverty? puleeze...it only gives them a little above what everyone else is making.....enough to get by...but not lifted out of poverty per se....you know...like sharecropping did us.


I find it funny that one would support business that has never been a friend of black people, from a hiring and promotional standpoint, to do anything fair from a unregulated standpoint where jobs are being sent out solely to retain executive compensation..........the whole concept of believing that job creation theory is ridiculous....what makes anyone logically think that actions taken by corporations to reduce and eliminate costs will be reciprocated by actions that will replace those costs.....especially at the expense of excutive compensation.....that and the argument that vouchers are the solution instead of public school accountability really intrigues me....adoption of right-wing arguments by black people is an enigma in itself......they formulate policy for their primary benefit and do not even think of black people when they do so...unless it is a way to take a punitive stance against us......when will we ever learn.......
Kevin, you got my point regarding the "globalization lifts millions out of poverty" myth. I guess (like you said) free marketers would argue that sharecropping lifted millions of Blacks out of poverty because at least with sharecropping they got to keep a bit of what the grew. BS.

Those people in third world nations that whose labor is being exploited abandoned their subsistence lifestyle in exchange for working in sweatshops for subsistence wages and get a whole host of other indignities, e.g., abusive management, abhorrent safety conditions, and in the case of Indonesia, the threat of imprisonment, and in California, death, if they attempt to leave. But hey, the free marketeers argue that it was their choice to take the job in the first place.

The free marketeers also neglect to tell the whole story regarding "globalization lifting millions out of poverty." The third worlders believe the myth of opportunity and take the jobs. The free marketeers calculate the wages and pronouce a redistribution of wealth. That's where they end their examination. The India article shows that while wealth has flowed East to a few, and remained in the West for those that already have, but very little of it flows down to the workers.

Free marketeers gloss over the impact to the Western economy, i.e., earnings gap, as individuals lose jobs, while executive compensation skyrockets. Free marketeers don't look at the impact on the local economies that get the jobs, as they move from a relatively moneyless economy, and where money is used, prices are relatively cheap, to an economy flush with cash. Inflation hits and the bantering system dies.

But that's the free market. BS.

I'll say it again, this economic darwinism works fine on paper, where the losses are abstract numbers with no human faces.
So, the dramatic drop in the poverty rates in places like China and India were brought about by what? Osmosis? Roll Eyes

Not even China's communist government disputes the reason for their growth and poverty reduction -- yet you and Kevin stick to your anti-free market arguments with no evidence.

Maybe it was just a coincidence that their people were lifted out of absolute poverty as they began to liberalize markets. Is this what you think?

And by the way, threat of imprisonment and abuse (coercion) are independent of and directly contradictory to a free market. Because people take actions that are unlawful (or would be in a society that truly protects persons and property) does not constitute an argument against free markets.
Question: If you have 100 people in a country. 99 are farmers and 1 is an entrepeneur. The entrepeneur sets up a factory and courts a multi-national to let him build their widgets there. His contract is for $100,000,000. (And for the simplicity of this scenario, the multi-national picks up all of his expenses other than labor.)

The entrepeneur, then, convinces 90 of the farmers to come work in his factory , with the promises of western capitalism (you know, the SUV, the beach houses, TV and everything). He pays the former farmers $1.00 a day.

What is the per capita income of this nation? Has the nation grown economically? Has the factory lifted the nation and/or its people out of poverty?

And, BTW, regarding your threat of imprisonment being independent of and contradictory to a free market argument, here again reality flies in the face of your theory. Face it. There is no such thing as a (large scale or global) free market. So everything you're arguing is an "If only" scenario. And that has nothing to do with real life.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Question: If you have 100 people in a country. 99 are farmers and 1 is an entrepeneur. The entrepeneur sets up a factory and courts a multi-national to let him build their widgets there. His contract is for $100,000,000. (And for the simplicity of this scenario, the multi-national picks up all of his expenses other than labor.)

The entrepeneur, then, convinces 90 of the farmers to come work in his factory , with the promises of western capitalism (you know, the SUV, the beach houses, TV and everything). He pays the former farmers $1.00 a day.


He "convinces" them to come work in his factory? Does this mean that $1/day would provide them with more than they would've been able to earn otherwise?

quote:
What is the per capita income of this nation? Has the nation grown economically? Has the factory lifted the nation and/or its people out of poverty?


This scenario suffers from lack of information regarding all of the questions you're asking.

quote:
And, BTW, regarding your threat of imprisonment being independent of and contradictory to a free market argument, here again reality flies in the face of your theory. Face it. There is no such thing as a (large scale or global) free market. So everything you're arguing is an "If only" scenario. And that has nothing to do with real life.


Aside from the fact that none of this contests the fact that market liberalization is the best anti-poverty program the world has ever known, free markets have everything to do with real life.

Believe it or not, we practice free trade every day. There are numerous exchanges of goods and services between people that are not interfered with by third parties. The scope in which we may do so, however, is limited by external force, which is usually administered by government. This use of force is harmful to freedom, economic advancement, and human dignity.

Having some elitist politician dictate to people--people who are his equals in every way-- what is good for them and what isn't, with whom they may or may not trade their own property, what they may or may not consume, is an afront to human dignity regardless of their intentions.
too bad outsourcing has not helped the white MBA who paid 100k for his education not have to apply for a 30k a year job...let alone the black double digit unemployment rate that has coincided with the last THREE republican presidencies....maybe W will get elected again and then the white MBA's will protest outsourcing....and at that point black folks will really see it wasn't for them based on the pecking order with which jobs are filled.......then that will alleviate me having to say anything on the topic....because at that point the results will be obvious........
Outsourcing Ax Falls Hard on Tech Workers
As the slump persists, some train their low-cost replacements before being shown the door.
By Warren Vieth
Times Staff Writer

May 30, 2004

SANTA CLARA, Calif. "” The global economy finally caught up with Cliff Cotterill.

On Friday, the software engineer drove his pickup truck to Building 54 at Agilent Technologies Inc. in Santa Clara. He made his way through the warren of partitions to his cubicle. Then he turned in his laptop computer and employee badge and said goodbye to 25 years of his life.

There were no parting ceremonies, no official farewells. His department had held a big lunch in August, when he and others were scheduled for termination. Cotterill was given a brief extension.

But this weekend, when he was only 11 weeks away from being eligible for early retirement, the ax finally fell. Cotterill, 54, joined the growing ranks of computer professionals who so recently occupied a prized position in the U.S. economy but are now seeing their jobs disappear "” many outsourced to foreigners.

In the months leading up to his layoff, Cotterill was assigned to work alongside programmers from India who are taking over tasks formerly done by Americans, a process his company calls Knowledge Transfer, or KT.

Just a few years ago, his profession was at its peak in this country. An increasing reliance on computers, the takeoff of the Internet and the Y2K reprogramming boom put U.S. software specialists such as Cotterill in high demand. Their pay and prestige rose commensurately.

His fate is emblematic of what has happened to many in his profession. With the crash of the technology sector and overseas outsourcing, thousands of U.S. jobs are disappearing and salaries are under pressure. The late-'90s sense of well-being is diminished.

Experts disagree over how much of the job loss and salary slippage can be attributed to outsourcing, but most say it has clearly been a factor.

"It is unprecedented, the turn of fortune that has occurred in the high-tech industry," said Marcus Courtney, president of the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers in Seattle. "Less than five years ago, we were talking of adding hundreds of thousands of new employees every year in this industry.... We've gone from that to widespread job losses and stagnant wages and benefits.

"The reason it's happening is companes are exporting jobs overseas to increase their profits and not creating jobs here in the U.S."

This growing class of dispossessed and demoralized tech workers is creating new economic and political fault lines. For the first time, large numbers of technical professionals are losing their jobs to lower-paid counterparts in other countries, a phenomenon once associated mainly with blue-collar factory work. Some remain unemployed or underemployed for long periods, and some are beginning to challenge policies that give rein to globalization.

The practice of requiring U.S. workers to train their replacements has become a flashpoint in the intensifying debate over "offshoring" jobs to other countries and the use of temporary visas by foreign nationals who come here to learn their employers' systems.

Critics have denounced the process as inhumane, and some members of Congress are trying to curtail it.

Agilent executives declined to discuss the specifics of Cotterill's termination. They sympathize with employees who lose their jobs, they said, and do their best to ease the transition by providing competitive severance packages.

"It's been very, very difficult for everyone at Agilent to see friends and colleagues leave the company," said Jan Copes, spokeswoman for the company's information technology, or IT, department, where Cotterill worked on in-house projects to support Agilent's infrastructure.

Outsourcing is one element of a broad transformation undertaken to return the company to profitability and position it for growth, Copes said, and the training of replacements is a necessary part of the process.

For Cotterill, who worked as an art critic and aerial photographer before getting in on the ground floor of the technology boom, the politics of globalization have become personal.

"I guess I wasn't paying attention when it was affecting other trades or professions," he said. "It's probably been going on for manufacturing and electronics and cars and steel all along. But it's not until it hits home that you really pay attention."

Growing up in the East Bay suburb of Castro Valley, Cotterill felt torn between art and science. In high school, he considered becoming an astronomer. At UC Davis, he majored in fine arts.

His early jobs were editing at Artweek magazine, production hand for Rolling Stone, disc jockey for a San Mateo soul station and sole proprietor of Cliff Cotterill Photography, for which he used his pilot's license to produce aerial landscapes to sell at art galleries and craft shows.

That was a tough way to make a living, so he entered an electronics training program that got him a job testing "Tank," "Breakout" and other pioneering arcade video games made by Atari. In 1979, he got a better offer from Hewlett-Packard Corp.: testing circuit boards for an early generation of HP computer terminals.

Over two decades, he bootstrapped his way into HP's information technology operations, signing up for a series of classes and certifications that taught him how to develop software and do a variety of IT jobs.

Several past and present associates said they regard Cotterill as an exemplary IT professional who devotes time and energy to making sure his "skill set" stays current.

"Cliff does that religiously," said Jay Spencer, an independent software consultant who occasionally turns to Cotterill for help. "He is really at the top of his field. For Web-type applications, he's top-notch."

A lifelong bachelor, Cotterill "is married to his job," said Pat Moberly, a former HP co-worker who remains a close friend. "He uses a lot of his spare time taking courses, usually on his own. He attends every class and does the homework and really learns the stuff."

In 1999, HP spun off part of its business into a new company called Agilent Technologies, which makes scientific instruments and analytical equipment such as spectrometers and oscilloscopes. Cotterill was offered the chance to work at either company. He chose Agilent, where he specialized in designing and implementing Internet-based applications.

But the company started posting big losses when the tech bubble burst. It began aggressively reducing its workforce and outsourcing many functions, some to U.S.-based contractors, some to foreign providers whose employees could do the same work for much less pay. Since 2001, it has shrunk its worldwide workforce by more than a third, from 44,000 to 28,000.

Cotterill dodged several initial rounds of outsourcing, but his luck began to run out last year. He was called into his manager's office, handed a folder full of termination documents and told that his employment would end on Aug. 15.

"They tell you you're a participant in the Workforce Management Program," he said. "That means you're laid off."

The material included suggestions for dealing with the trauma of termination. Among them: "Don't say or do things you might regret later" and "Maintain emotional control through exercise "” walking, jogging, bicycling, swimming or striking a pillow with a tennis racket."

The going-away party was arranged. "Four or five other people were being laid off then," he recalled. "The manager posed for the picture with all of us. Everybody came. They said, 'Thank you for your hard work, goodbye, it was nice knowing you.' "

Only two days before his scheduled departure, Cotterill's sentence was commuted by a sympathetic executive who arranged to have him assigned to a new project. Cotterill thought he would be able to keep working at Agilent until his 55th birthday in August of this year, when he would qualify for early retirement.

His elation didn't last. Earlier this year, Cotterill was called back to the manager's office and told his last day would be May 28. "They didn't have to explain it again," he said. "They just gave me the papers and said, 'Thanks for understanding.' "

He received the standard package for long-term HP/Agilent employees: six months' severance pay plus another two months' wages if he signed an agreement to not sue the company. He would not participate in the early-retirement program, which would have provided slightly better benefits.

For months, Cotterill had watched as foreign IT personnel began occupying cubicles in his work area. They were employees of Satyam Computer Services Ltd., the Indian firm hired to take over most of Agilent's IT operations. Some stayed in Santa Clara, and some went back to India to oversee the work of other programmers. A Satyam executive declined to discuss the firm's work at Agilent.

Last month, Cotterill received a memo informing him he would be taking part in the Knowledge Transfer process. "Hello All," it began. "Attached is the first draft of the training calendar for the KT. If you are being sent this message, you are one of the trainers."

His role involved preparing material for presentation to the replacements. For the most part, he avoided contact with them.

"They're all glad to be here making money," he said. "I don't know if they're aware they're taking our jobs or they don't care."

Cotterill said he blames Agilent's U.S. managers, not the Indian programmers, for what he regards as the betrayal of American workers.

"Twenty years ago, they said there were all these white-collar jobs and that if you got your training, you'd be OK. Then they outsourced that," he said. "It's not good for the country. I've occasionally thought they should reopen the House Un-American Activities Committee and bring all the CEOs up to Congress."

Cotterill tried to find another position inside Agilent, without success. He applied for a tech job in the marketing department. As part of the process, he was asked to write a 500-word article presenting Agilent's perspective on outsourcing.

The story he turned in probably took his interviewers aback. "Agilent CEO Ned Barnholt attacked over eight quarters of consecutive losses with all the tools at his disposal," he wrote. "Across-the-board layoffs, downsizing and outsourcing were the implements of choice in his management arsenal for guiding the company back to profitability, if only for the short term."

He decided not to pursue the job, which would have involved a pay cut.

Only days before his scheduled departure last week, another Agilent executive helped him lodge a last-ditch appeal to extend his employment for at least 12 weeks so he could qualify for early retirement. It was not until late Thursday that he learned the request had been rejected.

"The difficult reality is that your situation is one of many where someone has a very real reason for requesting a WFM [Workforce Management] termination delay," the memo stated.

"However, it is imperative that we consistently set termination dates based on business need. So while we certainly understand your reasons for wanting a delay, we must maintain adherence to the WFM policy and with the business decision that has been made by IT management."

Although Cotterill has lost faith in Agilent, he hasn't given up on the computer industry. He has lined up a two-week contract with a small consulting company, and a manager at Agilent wants him to do several months of consulting on an unfinished project. The catch: He would receive less pay and no benefits.

Meanwhile, he has been applying for jobs online and received callbacks from four IT recruiters. Three of them had Indian accents, he said. Among the first questions they asked: "Can you work in the U.S.?"

Friday afternoon, Cotterill cleared his desk and turned in his computer gear. His manager approached him and apologized for not arranging a department luncheon. They talked for a few minutes, then the manager began preparing a Functional Exit Interview Memo he wanted Cotterill to sign.

"When he started filling it out, he asked me how to spell my name," Cotterill said. "I've been working for him three years, and he still didn't know how to spell my name."
'Offshoring' Trend Casting a Wider Net
The outsourcing movement is defying conventional wisdom about what positions are immune from export
By Marla Dickerson
Times Staff Writer

January 4, 2004

Recent economic data show the technology sector is perking up, with U.S. firms posting their first profits in years. Vicki Nelson wishes she could say the same of her finances.

The Sacramento-area software engineer has drained her daughter's college fund and sold off furniture to pay bills since she was sacked in 2001. Still unemployed, she doubts her fortunes will rebound along with those of high-tech companies, which through the years dumped tens of thousands of U.S. workers in favor of cheaper hands overseas.

"The jobs have gone to Bangalore," said Nelson, 46, speaking of the city in south India hailed as the new Silicon Valley. American companies "are selling us out to save a couple of bucks. I'm worried about the future of our economy."

As the U.S. struggles with the longest jobless recovery in recent memory, white-collar workers are facing a harsh reality. Just as highways paved the way for migration from America's cities, the information superhighway has given rise to a new set of economic road rules: If it can be digitized, it can be moved.

Retailers, banks, airlines, hotels and hospitals are sending work offshore, from back-office accounting to front-desk customer service. Ditto for government agencies. Today, a laid-off Californian with questions about food stamps can get answers from a telephone hot line staffed in part by workers in India. The state of California two years ago outsourced the delivery of some welfare benefits to Citicorp Electronic Financial Services Inc., which uses English-speaking workers in Bangalore and Pune to assist the down-and-out in Bakersfield and Pacoima.

Powered by high-speed global communications and educated foreign workers, the so-called offshoring trend is rapidly moving beyond call centers and data processing. And it's defying conventional wisdom about what jobs are immune from export.

Indian radiologists contracted by Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston are processing X-ray images of U.S. patients. Foreign legal eagles are writing patents for U.S. firms. Tax clients of Newport Beach-based SurePrep can thank Indian accountants for that fat refund from Uncle Sam. And far from Wall Street, equity analysts from developing nations are crunching numbers once reserved for six-figure American MBAs. Even foreign economists are willing to prognosticate on the cheap.

"There's a guy in India who has been contacting me" about a job, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com in West Chester, Pa. "My immediate reaction is that he couldn't possibly do it from there. But when you start to think about it, why not?"

Economy.com in October estimated that nearly 1 million U.S. jobs had been lost to offshoring since early 2001, with 1 in 6 of those in information technology, financial services or business and professional services "” the bedrock of the "new economy." Forrester Research Inc. projects that 3.3 million service and professional jobs will flee the country by 2015. Researchers at UC Berkeley figure that at least 14 million U.S. service jobs are vulnerable.

Despite all the angst about foreign defections, economists say the collapse in business spending is the principal culprit behind U.S. employment declines. And the focus has been on the manufacturing sector, which has shed nearly 2.7 million net jobs in the last three years. Still, analysts say offshoring has been a factor and will continue to be a drag on U.S. job creation and wages.

"There is no shortage of smart, qualified people overseas who are willing to do this work for a lot less," said Kim Berry, 45, a programmer who develops software for a small firm in Citrus Heights, Calif., and makes $42,000 a year. That's only about half what he made working for Hewlett-Packard Co. at the peak of the economic boom, but he figures he's lucky considering that so many of his former colleagues aren't working at all and foreign programmers are lined up just waiting for their chance.

Offshoring has touched a chord with middle-class Americans who thought workers in coveralls, not cubicles, were the ones at risk. Jobless white-collar workers have picketed outsourcing conferences and created websites, organized petition drives and sent e-mails to lawmakers. A Florida tech worker outraged at having to train his foreign replacement is running for Congress.

Indiana Gov. Joseph Kernan in November ordered a state agency to cancel a $15.2-million contract with an outsourcing firm after citizens went ballistic at the notion of workers in India upgrading their state's computers to, of all things, process unemployment claims of laid-off Hoosiers.

Bills introduced in Congress and at least four state legislatures would preserve U.S. service jobs by slapping restrictions on foreign call centers or giving Americans preference in government contracts. The issue could figure prominently in the 2004 presidential election if the nation's job engine continues to sputter.

"U.S. workers were told that the right thing to do was to become a professional and the winds of globalization wouldn't hurt you," said Jared Bernstein, senior economist with the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. "What we're learning is that virtually no occupation or skill level is insulated. That's causing a lot of rancor among those who thought this only happened in old and dirty industries."

Bernstein says the U.S. would do well to take a hard look at its trade agreements and craft public policy to keep jobs in crucial sectors such as technology at home. Others say protectionism will prove as futile as it did with manufacturing and will harm the U.S. economy in the process.

Stuart Anderson, author of a recent study critical of legislative attempts to restrict offshoring, noted that for the Indiana computer upgrade contract, the bid by an American subsidiary of Bombay-based Tata Consultancy Services was $8.2 million below the next lowest. Indiana taxpayers would be ill served, he said, if they end up paying more to upgrade state computers just to ensure that people who live in the United States get the work. It would be far better, he said, for Americans to grab the savings and use them to make purchases and investments that would create additional jobs and wealth elsewhere in the economy.

"There's this growing perception that somehow free trade in services is bad," Anderson said. "That if people in other countries land better jobs, that means we won't have good jobs here. But it's not a zero sum game."

Take call centers, for example. While many Americans are shocked that foreigners with nearly flawless English are the ones booking their flights and finding their lost welfare checks, few would swap places with them. In the United States, telemarketers rank somewhere near repo man in prestige, with lousy pay to match.

But in the developing world, a job with a headset is desirable, said Lance Rosenzweig, chief executive of Los Angeles-based PeopleSupport. Launched three years ago with 10 workers in the Philippines, the firm employs 2,000 there handling customer calls for firms such as Expedia Inc. and Earthlink Inc.

Business is so brisk, Rosenzweig said, that his workforce probably will double in 2004. He said the firm last year received more than 100,000 resumes from the Philippines, where many students are taught in English. Most of the company's hires are college graduates eager to chatter away in the middle of the night for starting pay of about $4 an hour, good money in a country where the average family income is $2,600 a year. Rosenzweig said turnover was one-fifth that of U.S calls centers.

"It's a career in the Philippines," Rosenzweig said. "In the U.S., it's a little money until you find something else."

Call centers are one thing. What really has Americans spooked is the export of well-paying professional positions. Dave Wyle, founder of tax preparer SurePrep, said some potential customers had accused him of undermining the U.S. economy by hiring Indian accountants to process tax returns for $400 a month, one-tenth what an accountant in the United States would command.

Wyle's response is that advances such as spreadsheets and software wiped out thousands of paper-pushing jobs in accounting offices while improving accuracy and efficiency, "and nobody thought that was a bad thing."

After processing 7,000 U.S. returns in its first tax season in 2003, SurePrep is projected to handle 35,000 next year and more than 85,000 in 2005.

"It's growing like crazy," Wyle said. "We do the work more efficiently. Companies make more profit. Everybody benefits."

A lot of people in California would disagree.

On a percentage basis, the Golden State's job losses have been on par with those nationwide, about 1.9% of nonfarm payroll since employment began sliding in March 2001. The state's outsize fiscal pain stems from the type of jobs it has lost "” tens of thousands of lucrative high-tech positions and the fat bonuses and stock options that went with them.

When adjusted for inflation, personal income in California plunged 3.4% from January 2001 through July 2003, compared with a decline of 0.1% nationwide, according to estimates from the state Department of Finance. By its count, no other state did worse.

A lot is riding on California's ability to regenerate similar high-paying positions. Optimists are banking on biotech, nanotechnology and other emerging fields over the long haul. In the meantime, the traditional technology sector has shown signs of life. But, so far, it hasn't translated into job growth in California, and some industry veterans are blaming offshoring.

Cici Mattiuzzi, director of the career services office for the College of Engineering & Computer Science at Cal State Sacramento, said she had never seen job prospects for tech grads so dismal in her 25-year career.

"The people I talk with at the huge companies here "” Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle "” all indicate that they are hiring. But they are not hiring in the United States," said Mattiuzzi, who said small firms were telling her the same thing. "My hope has been that the market would turn around this spring, but with the amount of outsourcing, I'm not real optimistic."
Damn you and your inquisitive ways Kweli...........remember...conservatives talk to people based on a implied amount of ignorance on their part......and with them in power...it just shows what the intellect level of this country is....notice how conservs hate academia? I wonder why.....because that is where facts and truth reign supreme......
Selling Workers on Bush Policies Is Hard Job
Slow recovery in key states, and pro-business stands on overtime and jobless benefits, alienate some otherwise friendly voters he's targeting.
By Peter Wallsten
Times Staff Writer

June 13, 2004

WASHINGTON "” Osvaldo Millet makes a good living "” $43 an hour plus overtime "” as a hospital pharmacist in Miami. The overtime pays for vacations and other extras for his family of five, but that money might disappear under a Bush administration initiative.

Jeff Deckard is a member of the National Rifle Assn. who voted for Ronald Reagan and isn't fond of the Democratic Party's more liberal views. But the Reynoldsburg, Ohio, electrician has soured on President Bush. Deckard is out of work and his unemployment checks will soon end if the Republican-led Congress doesn't extend benefits.

The worries of Millet and Deckard reflect a political challenge for Bush as he increasingly pins his reelection hopes on the fruits of a recovering economy that has posted nine consecutive months of job gains.

Bush is an unabashedly pro-business president. But he is also working to forge an image as a friend of the American worker, part of his effort to win such battleground states as Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

However, some of his policies "” including new overtime regulations and his push to eliminate rules designed to reduce repetitive-stress injuries "” carry a risk of alienating voters who otherwise would lean toward supporting him.

"It doesn't seem to me that he looks out for the working person," said Millet, 43, a Cuban-born Republican who has never voted for a Democratic candidate for president but is now considering doing so.

And Deckard already has begun voting for Democratic candidates because he is unhappy with how GOP workplace policies are affecting him.

On the campaign trail, the president has cited recent job gains, tax cuts and his support for worker retraining programs. Administration officials have said that workers are safer and more financially secure than before Bush took office, with workplace injuries at an all-time low and back wages collected on behalf of workers at an 11-year high.

But even some supporters of the administration said that Bush has often favored the interests of business over those of labor "” a fact that they like.

"When it comes to business-versus-labor issues," said Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth, an advocacy group that favors low taxes and limited government, "Bush has been down the line pro-business in a way that we think is praiseworthy."

Bush's workplace policies have drawn criticism almost from the beginning of his administration, when he took aim at one of worker advocates' most treasured achievements: sweeping new ergonomics rules.

The regulations, which had been under development for years, were issued in the Clinton administration's final days; Bush backed a measure in Congress to repeal them.

The rules required businesses to adopt new equipment and training to help workers avoid repetitive stress and related conditions that are common in industrial plants and white-collar offices alike.

The vote to repeal them ran largely along partisan lines, with Republicans and the White House heeding warnings from business groups that the rules would cost at least $7 billion in the first year alone. When the repeal became law, a National Assn. of Manufacturers spokesman called it a "high-water mark" of its lobbying efforts.

Bush has proposed new immigration laws, new overtime rules and new ways for employers to offer medical benefits that critics say would erode the clout and security of workers. They also say that the White House has failed to use its muscle in Congress to raise the minimum wage or to renew a program that gave benefits to the long-term unemployed.

"The issue is not their stand on any one topic at any one point in time, because there are always pros and cons," said Rebecca M. Blank, dean of the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan who was a member of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. "The issue is that on a whole series of policy decisions, the administration has consistently come down on one side as opposed to the other."

Often, there is disagreement on what the impact of the decisions will be.

The administration's proposed guest worker program for undocumented immigrants, for example, was hailed by the White House as a boost for undocumented workers who are forced to toil in secret. But some labor activists said they feared that an influx of guest workers would flood the labor market, stripping many workers of the power to obtain pay raises.

New overtime policies would make more people eligible to receive overtime pay, according to Bush administration labor officials. But unions said that the new rules would allow businesses to reclassify millions of other workers into job categories that are ineligible. The new rules take effect in August unless Congress overturns them.

And the administration said workers would benefit under its proposal for "health savings accounts," whereas labor activists said they saw the plan as an incentive for employers to scale back health benefits and shift costs to employees.

The accounts, which Bush signed into law last year, allow workers to save money tax-free to spend on medical expenses. To qualify, workers or their employers must buy low-cost, high-deductible health insurance, intended to cover catastrophic medical expenses. The result, the administration said, would be that more businesses offer health insurance.

But labor unions and some economists have argued that the accounts will prompt businesses to eliminate traditional health plans and offer only policies that cover catastrophic expenses. To pay for routine expenses that insurers now cover, critics fear, employers will tell workers to open health savings accounts and pay the costs themselves.

Though none of these issues on its own carries the political heft of the war in Iraq or the rise or fall in unemployment, Democrats said they add up to an effective narrative that can help them portray the president as out of touch with workers' needs.

One AFL-CIO ad currently airing in 13 battleground states contrasts video of Bush proposing manned missions to the moon and Mars with images of parents holding babies and seniors worrying about medical care and benefits. "Tell President Bush our priorities are a lot closer to home," says a narrator as a baby coos in the background.

Recent surveys suggested the image problem is persistent.

A survey conducted last month by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that just one in three registered voters believed Bush "cares about people like me." Just 38% said Bush would do better at improving economic conditions than his presumed Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.

Administration officials and Bush campaign aides said the president gets a bum rap from unions, and both have started a push of their own to offer an alternative view.

Labor Department officials said their watchdog agency for workers, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, had maintained an assertive posture, conducting more inspections under the Bush administration than under Clinton's.

To showcase their aggressiveness, officials point to OSHA's 2002 settlement with Arkansas-based Beverly Enterprises Inc., a major nursing home operator. The company agreed to provide training and equipment to help employees avoid back injuries.

Later that year, the Labor Department announced that Perdue Farms Inc. of Pennsylvania would pay $10 million in back wages to poultry plant workers for the time they spent donning and removing gear required for their jobs. A similar lawsuit was filed against Tyson Foods Inc. of Arkansas.

"These are two of the largest wage-and-hour cases in the department's history, ground-breaking cases on behalf of low-wage workers," said Deputy Labor Secretary Steven J. Law.

Bush campaign strategists have launched an initiative to sign up 10,000 union members to help make a case in union halls for backing Bush. Aides said workers should be enticed by the tax cuts, but also noted that Bush would benefit from a culturally conservative philosophy that predominates in many industrial unions.

An estimated 40% of union members backed Bush in 2000, and strategists think they can match or beat that this year.

"Rank-and-file union members support the war on terror, and President Bush shares their values as well," said campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel. "Union members care about the sanctity of marriage, many care about their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms."

Deckard, the Ohio electrician, said his family of four would soon feel the consequences of the lawmakers' decision not to renew a benefits program for the long-term unemployed. The program gave workers three months of federal jobless benefits after their state benefits ran out, typically after 26 weeks.

The federal program had been paying out nearly $1 billion a month before it expired in December. Many Republicans say renewing it would violate a budget deal.

Millet, the Miami pharmacist, said the new overtime rules were a big topic of conversation around his office. He is paid an hourly wage, but worries that the new rules would allow his boss to ask for overtime work without offering overtime pay.

In Millet's case, that could mean a lost vote for Bush.

"The main salary is to cover the basics "” food, clothing, school and the homestead, and now for gasoline," he said. "To lose the overtime, that'd definitely be a big deal."

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×