Well, I'm on the outsourcing end of the equation (although I haven't had a hand in the actual outsourcing itself), and I can say from firsthand experience the '

Well, I'm on the outsourcing end of the equation (although I haven't had a hand in the actual outsourcing itself), and I can say from firsthand experience the 'cheap' meme is accurate. The reason given for removing existing personnel to replace them with outsourced people is twofold. One is cost, and it is the large majority of the sum total of the reasons. The other reason is the erroneous idea that the company can train up a bunch of outsourced people and have a flexible, dynamically sized, workforce. The justification is that "they're just as good". In the 10-12 or so years I have seen this tried, it has yet to even COME CLOSE to what was promised. The reason it keeps happening is the person in charge of the decision gets his bonus for cutting the costs, then moves on, long before the actual long-medium terms costs become known. By then that person is long gone and/or up the corporate ladder to where no one dare say "this sucked, he's the guy that caused it". My view is cynical and jaded, but it is from experience. And I say this not having ever lost my job over it, so that's not a factor.