3 ms·
I've heard some B-school grads refer to this as some "inflection point". They were talking about more overseas workers for IBM in 2006 or so. The more important
by sriram_sun 9y ago
I've heard some B-school grads refer to this as some "inflection point". They were talking about more overseas workers for IBM in 2006 or so. The more important question is in which direction does the money flow?
It has to be net positive for the US albeit not to US upper middle class programmers. My simple rule of thumb is if the move is not filling up CxO level coffers, it won't happen.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- timthelion 9y agoWhy would it have to be net positive for the US? If $100 million flows from AT&T to IBM. And IBM pockets $10 million and sends $90 million to India, that would be a net -$90 million for the US economy.
- sriram_sun 9y agoGood point. I hadn't thought of that.
- fixermark 9y agoThat's assuming the $100 million flow in question can happen at all without the India piece of the puzzle. Another way to think about it might be "$100 million wealth flowed (and taxes paid on it, and salaries paid, &c), $90 million of which goes to India, vs. $0 wealth flowed (and so no taxes, no paychecks, etc.)" A lot depends on the accounting of where AT&T got the $100 million at the start of this story, and what spending that $100 million enables AT&T to do, whether this flow turns out to benefit both the US and India, mostly the US, mostly India, or neither.
- njarboe 9y agoOne would hope that AT&T gets and IBM get something for their money. If the flow is $100 million to IBM, and AT&T nets a $200 million value from workers in India, maybe it is still a net flow to the US. If the US can trade a simple change in a computer record (a US dollar transfer) for stuff it wants, seems like a net positive. Economics is a complicated system with lots of feedback where the actors in the system can change the system itself.