3 ms·

This outsourcing shit has to end. Americans are left fighting for scraps.

by biohax2015 4y ago

WheatMillington 4y ago
"We want remote work!" "Wait, not that kind of remote work"
beebmam 4y ago
There are tradeoffs for everything. Companies are more profitable when they cut labor costs through hiring people from countries that will work for less. Why should the owners of these companies (including everyone who owns stock in EA) pay above market value for this labor? There are consequences to this, of course. One big consequence that I can think of is that it evens out the inequalities among laborers across national labor markets. This has very serious consequences for lower skilled Americans/westerners who have relied on the wealth of their countries to trickle down to them. There are many ways to address this, like reducing labor market competition in the American labor market from less wealthy countries, increasing wealth redistribution, investing in the education/training of lesser skilled workers in the American labor market, and so on. Both left and right parties have solutions to this problem, and I personally don't really care about the chosen solution, but I hope our political parties stop forgetting about poor Americans who have been left behind for a long, long time. I hope we can all have a healthier discussion about this problem, too. We need less polarizing figures in politics and we should start treating each other in America respectfully, whether you're liberal, conservative, transgender, evangelical, poor, rich, whatever.
gwbas1c 4y ago
It's a global market. You just need to find a job where you being American and located in the US is an asset, not a liability.
- bruce511 4y ago
  Not to be snarky, but minimum-wage, service level jobs, fit that bill perfectly. For 20 years I've been "against" WFH (as an employer). Employees see commute time and cost. I see ancillary benefits like team-work, informal conversations, ability to read the room and so on. [1] Most of all I've been warning people that once you've proved the job can be done remotely, it can be done very remotely. With respect, there are smarter people than you in the world, willing to work for a lot less. In other words WFH is about proving that your US location is Not an asset at all. Covid has mellowed my views. We all got to WFH for years, and it mostly worked. We are now seeing issues though. Lots of misinformation, mental health issues, rumours, conflicts and so on. I don't think we can go back to 5 days a week in the office for everyone - that ship has sailed - but folk are needing more face-time with each other on a regular basis, and zoom isn't cutting it. [1] in our context, we have nice offices, everyone had their own space with a door etc. I get that the quality of your office space has an impact on this question as well, but I'm talking about "nice offices" here.
  - gwbas1c 4y ago
    > Most of all I've been warning people that once you've proved the job can be done remotely, it can be done very remotely. I disagree with that perspective. I've been remote since 2014. "Life happened" and I had to move. When I moved in 2014, I kept my job but became remote. It worked out great for the company, too. We hired overseas. The office was West Coast and I was East Coast. I had overlap with the overseas timezones, the office didn't. I bridged a lot of communication gaps and cultural issues. (It also helped that I had a lot of domain knowledge that was hard to replace.) Ultimately the product finished its market window. It's becoming obsolete. I could blame "outsourcing" for why I lost my job, but that's a cop-out. I saw what our competitors were doing, and where they were beating us. I don't think the owners wanted to "keep fighting." I'm glad I got out when I did. -- In my new role, we meet on camera everyday and have live communication. Our sales are in the US. It wouldn't work if we were outside the US. We need to set a wide net for talent, but we also need some on-site work because we have physical things that we need to be in a place in order to manipulate. Tech isn't just in cyberspace. So we have a mix of on-site and remote. It's great for me, because "life happened" and I'm married, have a family, and can't move whenever my employer changes. It's great for my employer because they can cast a wide net. And because we need to "have things" and "touch stuff," our jobs aren't about to be outsourced overnight. I also suspect that "life will happen" with everyone I work with, and our flexibility allows everyone to keep working together. > Most of all I've been warning people that once you've proved the job can be done remotely, it can be done very remotely. A lot of tech involves automating yourself out of a job. It's just frustrating when people don't understand that. It's hard to collect rent in technology development because someone will make you obsolete or undercut you.
kiratp 4y ago
I thought we all wanted WFH? Home can be anywhere in the world… So many on HN thought “WFH just means I can live in rural <state> and make bank”.

This outsourcing shit has to end. Americans are left fighting for scraps.

"We want remote work!" "Wait, not that kind of remote work"

There are tradeoffs for everything. Companies are more profitable when they cut labor costs through hiring people from countries that will work for less. Why should the owners of these companies (including everyone who owns stock in EA) pay above market value for this labor? There are consequences to this, of course. One big consequence that I can think of is that it evens out the inequalities among laborers across national labor markets. This has very serious consequences for lower skilled Americans/westerners who have relied on the wealth of their countries to trickle down to them. There are many ways to address this, like reducing labor market competition in the American labor market from less wealthy countries, increasing wealth redistribution, investing in the education/training of lesser skilled workers in the American labor market, and so on. Both left and right parties have solutions to this problem, and I personally don't really care about the chosen solution, but I hope our political parties stop forgetting about poor Americans who have been left behind for a long, long time. I hope we can all have a healthier discussion about this problem, too. We need less polarizing figures in politics and we should start treating each other in America respectfully, whether you're liberal, conservative, transgender, evangelical, poor, rich, whatever.

gwbas1c 4y ago

It's a global market. You just need to find a job where you being American and located in the US is an asset, not a liability.

bruce511 4y ago
Not to be snarky, but minimum-wage, service level jobs, fit that bill perfectly. For 20 years I've been "against" WFH (as an employer). Employees see commute time and cost. I see ancillary benefits like team-work, informal conversations, ability to read the room and so on. [1] Most of all I've been warning people that once you've proved the job can be done remotely, it can be done very remotely. With respect, there are smarter people than you in the world, willing to work for a lot less. In other words WFH is about proving that your US location is Not an asset at all. Covid has mellowed my views. We all got to WFH for years, and it mostly worked. We are now seeing issues though. Lots of misinformation, mental health issues, rumours, conflicts and so on. I don't think we can go back to 5 days a week in the office for everyone - that ship has sailed - but folk are needing more face-time with each other on a regular basis, and zoom isn't cutting it. [1] in our context, we have nice offices, everyone had their own space with a door etc. I get that the quality of your office space has an impact on this question as well, but I'm talking about "nice offices" here.
- gwbas1c 4y ago
  > Most of all I've been warning people that once you've proved the job can be done remotely, it can be done very remotely. I disagree with that perspective. I've been remote since 2014. "Life happened" and I had to move. When I moved in 2014, I kept my job but became remote. It worked out great for the company, too. We hired overseas. The office was West Coast and I was East Coast. I had overlap with the overseas timezones, the office didn't. I bridged a lot of communication gaps and cultural issues. (It also helped that I had a lot of domain knowledge that was hard to replace.) Ultimately the product finished its market window. It's becoming obsolete. I could blame "outsourcing" for why I lost my job, but that's a cop-out. I saw what our competitors were doing, and where they were beating us. I don't think the owners wanted to "keep fighting." I'm glad I got out when I did. -- In my new role, we meet on camera everyday and have live communication. Our sales are in the US. It wouldn't work if we were outside the US. We need to set a wide net for talent, but we also need some on-site work because we have physical things that we need to be in a place in order to manipulate. Tech isn't just in cyberspace. So we have a mix of on-site and remote. It's great for me, because "life happened" and I'm married, have a family, and can't move whenever my employer changes. It's great for my employer because they can cast a wide net. And because we need to "have things" and "touch stuff," our jobs aren't about to be outsourced overnight. I also suspect that "life will happen" with everyone I work with, and our flexibility allows everyone to keep working together. > Most of all I've been warning people that once you've proved the job can be done remotely, it can be done very remotely. A lot of tech involves automating yourself out of a job. It's just frustrating when people don't understand that. It's hard to collect rent in technology development because someone will make you obsolete or undercut you.

kiratp 4y ago

I thought we all wanted WFH? Home can be anywhere in the world… So many on HN thought “WFH just means I can live in rural <state> and make bank”.