3 ms·
@ericseppanen, I agree, that there seem to be two distinct practices. I experienced the latter, where a company performed wholesale off-shoring of several thou
by Friedduck 10y ago
@ericseppanen,
I agree, that there seem to be two distinct practices. I experienced the latter, where a company performed wholesale off-shoring of several thousand jobs.
I don't understand how the stewards of that program approve such visas when they're clearly being used to replace existing workers (i.e., the argument that you can't find qualified locals is demonstrably false.)
My other hard-won conclusion: the companies that do this don't recognize the long-term impacts. They're less capable, less competitive, and their outsourcing partners can become their overlords. The outsourcers gain considerable negotiating leverage, and any attempt to unseat them becomes economically impossible.
What can we do about it? Look at the policies that make American employment unappetizing. The cost of benefits (principally health care.) Regulations that make it difficult to fire poor performers.
Finally, there's a feedback mechanism here. I saw many leave technology because they perceived that the opportunities were all moving off-shore.
- throwaway4job 10y agoThe primary cost difference is salary. They are outsourcing from a country where people are paid $100k to one where people are paid $10k. The health benefits are a tiny fraction of it. It's absurdly easy to fire poor performers. Anybody who complains otherwise is, honestly, a terrible employer and/or woefully uninformed.