6 ms·

Sad, but it's happening everywhere. I have nothing against the best people being employed irrespective of their country of origin. But I really feel ill at eas

Sad, but it's happening everywhere. I have nothing against the best people being employed irrespective of their country of origin. But I really feel ill at ease when companies like IBM say quality does not matter at all and let's just cut costs as recklessly as possible.

dimgl 11y ago
Why? You get what you pay for. Most of the stuff I've reviewed from outsourced companies is pure garbage. These companies are simply shooting themselves in the foot by doing this.
- planetjones 11y ago
  Some companies e.g. banks have no choice but to keep using IBM products as their whole infrastructure relies on IBM mainframes and tools. Companies like IBM just want to milk cash cows like this and 'maximise shareholder value'. So they try and get everything done as cheap as possible. On a PowerPoint and in an investment prospectus it looks great. Truly a race to the bottom.
- cobookman 11y ago
  Short term gains and long term destruction. And totally agree that most of it is garbage.
cortesoft 11y ago
If it is happening everywhere, then how come it is still so easy to get a tech job and why is it so hard to find good developers here in the United States?
EvanPlaice 11y ago
Corporations have to answer to the board. The board acts in the interests of investors/stakeholders and will eventually have to deal with 'extracting value' from the company to meet short-term investor demands at the expense of long-term sustainability. To make matters worse, the CEO/board can justify higher levels of compensation if they greatly expand the size/scope of the company. Whether or not the growth matches the market trends. Just look to all the comments of employees complaining how their job is to warm a seat and/or maintain excess/unnecessary administration overhead. The exception are companies like Facebook that refuse to cede decision making to the board. It pisses off investors when the company fails to extract value at a rate matching investor expectations but I bet FB will fare much better in the long-term. Unlike companies like Yahoo/IBM that morphed into pump-and-dump chop shops of underutilized talent.
- Fiahil 11y ago
  I bet it would be drastically different if the employees were the stakeholders.
  - EvanPlaice 11y ago
    Isn't that what venture capital supposedly promises. Workers who are vested in the company are hyper-motivated to see it succeed. In theory, it's a great idea. Who wouldn't love to be an early employee of the 'next Microsoft' and win the successful business lottery? In practice there are some very serious caveats: 1. Non-preferred stock may be rendered worthless after multiple rounds of seed funding. 2. Some stock come with additional restrictions. Such as requiring the person to maintain employment for an extended period of time. 3. Many can't afford the tax costs that come with exercising their options when they get the chance. 4. In some cases you may end up with a net negative of stock earnings after paying the taxes. 5. Exercising early can help avoid some of the tax pain but then you're essentially betting on the future success of a company with a high risk of failure. Basically, working for a startup at significantly below market salary is joining the game of high stakes poker for the rich. Except, unlike poker the game comes with a minefield of additional risks. If the employees were 'true' stakeholders working as a partnership then everybody wins. Unfortunately, that very rarely happens and sometimes relationships go sour during the death march to potential success. When money is involved, the only thing that guaranteed is that people will play fucky fuck games for an advantage if they think they can get away with it.
StringyBob 11y ago
This is the new reality - it's hard to argue against a >10x disparity in median salaries compared to your outsourced replacement, even if it might be a failure in the long term. Do you think you could you persuade IBM's board (a proxy for their shareholders) that as a US worker you really deserve >10x the pay of an 'equivalent' worker in some other countries? History will continue to repeat itself across corporate behemoths. The process is just too compelling with a short-term profit motive in a globalized economy. Xenophobia is a common reaction to this. It misses the point. There are great people amongst your 'replacements' who are hired. There will also be terrible people. The same would happen if the process was entirely contained within one country. Imagine trying to hire the bulk of a skilled companies' workforce in one go. It's a disaster. The kicker is that just like acquisition, outsourcing is rarely successful. The upfront financial benefits are clear. The true costs are from a change a workforce - lost knowledge, skills, quality and ethos (The things that really power a company to success). By the time they realize their mistake - it's too late, and a new management who haven't learnt the lessons will have already been rotated in. Companies die of old age. Big blue is playing chess with the reaper.

dimgl 11y ago

Why? You get what you pay for. Most of the stuff I've reviewed from outsourced companies is pure garbage. These companies are simply shooting themselves in the foot by doing this.

planetjones 11y ago
Some companies e.g. banks have no choice but to keep using IBM products as their whole infrastructure relies on IBM mainframes and tools. Companies like IBM just want to milk cash cows like this and 'maximise shareholder value'. So they try and get everything done as cheap as possible. On a PowerPoint and in an investment prospectus it looks great. Truly a race to the bottom.
cobookman 11y ago
Short term gains and long term destruction. And totally agree that most of it is garbage.

cortesoft 11y ago

If it is happening everywhere, then how come it is still so easy to get a tech job and why is it so hard to find good developers here in the United States?

EvanPlaice 11y ago

Corporations have to answer to the board. The board acts in the interests of investors/stakeholders and will eventually have to deal with 'extracting value' from the company to meet short-term investor demands at the expense of long-term sustainability. To make matters worse, the CEO/board can justify higher levels of compensation if they greatly expand the size/scope of the company. Whether or not the growth matches the market trends. Just look to all the comments of employees complaining how their job is to warm a seat and/or maintain excess/unnecessary administration overhead. The exception are companies like Facebook that refuse to cede decision making to the board. It pisses off investors when the company fails to extract value at a rate matching investor expectations but I bet FB will fare much better in the long-term. Unlike companies like Yahoo/IBM that morphed into pump-and-dump chop shops of underutilized talent.

Fiahil 11y ago
I bet it would be drastically different if the employees were the stakeholders.
- EvanPlaice 11y ago
  Isn't that what venture capital supposedly promises. Workers who are vested in the company are hyper-motivated to see it succeed. In theory, it's a great idea. Who wouldn't love to be an early employee of the 'next Microsoft' and win the successful business lottery? In practice there are some very serious caveats: 1. Non-preferred stock may be rendered worthless after multiple rounds of seed funding. 2. Some stock come with additional restrictions. Such as requiring the person to maintain employment for an extended period of time. 3. Many can't afford the tax costs that come with exercising their options when they get the chance. 4. In some cases you may end up with a net negative of stock earnings after paying the taxes. 5. Exercising early can help avoid some of the tax pain but then you're essentially betting on the future success of a company with a high risk of failure. Basically, working for a startup at significantly below market salary is joining the game of high stakes poker for the rich. Except, unlike poker the game comes with a minefield of additional risks. If the employees were 'true' stakeholders working as a partnership then everybody wins. Unfortunately, that very rarely happens and sometimes relationships go sour during the death march to potential success. When money is involved, the only thing that guaranteed is that people will play fucky fuck games for an advantage if they think they can get away with it.

StringyBob 11y ago

This is the new reality - it's hard to argue against a >10x disparity in median salaries compared to your outsourced replacement, even if it might be a failure in the long term. Do you think you could you persuade IBM's board (a proxy for their shareholders) that as a US worker you really deserve >10x the pay of an 'equivalent' worker in some other countries? History will continue to repeat itself across corporate behemoths. The process is just too compelling with a short-term profit motive in a globalized economy. Xenophobia is a common reaction to this. It misses the point. There are great people amongst your 'replacements' who are hired. There will also be terrible people. The same would happen if the process was entirely contained within one country. Imagine trying to hire the bulk of a skilled companies' workforce in one go. It's a disaster. The kicker is that just like acquisition, outsourcing is rarely successful. The upfront financial benefits are clear. The true costs are from a change a workforce - lost knowledge, skills, quality and ethos (The things that really power a company to success). By the time they realize their mistake - it's too late, and a new management who haven't learnt the lessons will have already been rotated in. Companies die of old age. Big blue is playing chess with the reaper.