5 ms·

Don’t outsource. If you outsource, have boots on the ground ensuring working conditions and no re outsourcing. Pick one. Pretty straightforward.

constantcrying 2y ago
Boots on the ground isn't enough. Even in a company where everyone is physically at the same location overseeing who does what work is near impossible for any large scale projects. But yes, please let management know that outsource is only attractive on paper. Every experience I have had with it is has been bad. The communication gap is just so much larger and your ability to oversee what gets done and how it gets done just evaporates. The ethical/legal problem is just one result of that, but even without it outsourcing often just costs far more in hidden expenses.
godelski 2y ago
> Don’t outsource. If this were codified into law I would suspect that it would quickly lead to monopolization. I can't imagine how the world would work without contractors. Imagine if Apple had to operate the mines, build the machines to mine the materials, to build the machines to build those machines, build the silicon foundry, and all the things along from dirt in the ground to the iPhone. Boy, you'd get nothing done. Because that's the world with no "outsourcing." It is too broad of a word.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  Sure, having suppliers is completely inevitable for any company. "We only do X" is one of the best tools to manage complexity. I think what the other poster is referring to is specifically the practice of companies to have work done by workers in areas of the world where labor is cheap. That particular practice is something very different than e.g. buying chips from a foundry. Specifically buying parts from q supplier involves very little management, outsourcing work means you have to actively involved in the management of the offshore labor.
  - godelski 2y ago
    > I think what the other poster is referring to is specifically the practice of companies to have work done by workers in areas of the world where labor is cheap. Sure, but part of what I wanted to (albeit indirectly) convey is the difficulty of creating a meaningful rule about this. Even if you locked work within a country's borders (I imagine this would have terrible consequences too), this concept scales. I understand the complaint, but I think we need to also recognize the complexity of the issue if we're to do anything meaningful about it. Trivializing it will get us nowhere and often leads to bad laws that get more abused than the original ones.
    - constantcrying 2y ago
      I agree, you actually always have to work with other companies. The alternative is not possible. In general it is very easy and safe to work with companies in the same country as you, as they are bound by identical laws to you and litigation and control is relatively easy. They also can't legally re-outsource to companies you can't outsource to. Similar things are true if the company is in a broadly aligned country. E.g. the US and Germany. The further away, physically, ideologically, linguistically and legally away the country of the other company is the worse it becomes and the harder it is to effectively control them.
      - godelski 2y ago
        > The further away Yeah, I agree that this is definitely a weighting factor. But neither do I think it is good to return to isolationism. Globalism, despite its many flaws, has clearly contributed to the long peace. Encourages negotiations at the table rather than on the battlefield given that in the end, wars are primarily economically driven. Better to destroy economies than people, even if the former can indirectly result in the latter. (wish there were better solutions and a larger gain, but that's a whole other conversation fraught with far more complexity)
        CaptainOfCoit 2y ago
        What direct evidence exists to say that globalism clearly contribute to long peace? As far as I know, there is only proof of globalism failing to contribute to peace, where invading nations continue their invasions even after heavy sanctions.

constantcrying 2y ago

Boots on the ground isn't enough. Even in a company where everyone is physically at the same location overseeing who does what work is near impossible for any large scale projects. But yes, please let management know that outsource is only attractive on paper. Every experience I have had with it is has been bad. The communication gap is just so much larger and your ability to oversee what gets done and how it gets done just evaporates. The ethical/legal problem is just one result of that, but even without it outsourcing often just costs far more in hidden expenses.

godelski 2y ago

> Don’t outsource. If this were codified into law I would suspect that it would quickly lead to monopolization. I can't imagine how the world would work without contractors. Imagine if Apple had to operate the mines, build the machines to mine the materials, to build the machines to build those machines, build the silicon foundry, and all the things along from dirt in the ground to the iPhone. Boy, you'd get nothing done. Because that's the world with no "outsourcing." It is too broad of a word.

constantcrying 2y ago
Sure, having suppliers is completely inevitable for any company. "We only do X" is one of the best tools to manage complexity. I think what the other poster is referring to is specifically the practice of companies to have work done by workers in areas of the world where labor is cheap. That particular practice is something very different than e.g. buying chips from a foundry. Specifically buying parts from q supplier involves very little management, outsourcing work means you have to actively involved in the management of the offshore labor.
- godelski 2y ago
  > I think what the other poster is referring to is specifically the practice of companies to have work done by workers in areas of the world where labor is cheap. Sure, but part of what I wanted to (albeit indirectly) convey is the difficulty of creating a meaningful rule about this. Even if you locked work within a country's borders (I imagine this would have terrible consequences too), this concept scales. I understand the complaint, but I think we need to also recognize the complexity of the issue if we're to do anything meaningful about it. Trivializing it will get us nowhere and often leads to bad laws that get more abused than the original ones.
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    I agree, you actually always have to work with other companies. The alternative is not possible. In general it is very easy and safe to work with companies in the same country as you, as they are bound by identical laws to you and litigation and control is relatively easy. They also can't legally re-outsource to companies you can't outsource to. Similar things are true if the company is in a broadly aligned country. E.g. the US and Germany. The further away, physically, ideologically, linguistically and legally away the country of the other company is the worse it becomes and the harder it is to effectively control them.
    - godelski 2y ago
      > The further away Yeah, I agree that this is definitely a weighting factor. But neither do I think it is good to return to isolationism. Globalism, despite its many flaws, has clearly contributed to the long peace. Encourages negotiations at the table rather than on the battlefield given that in the end, wars are primarily economically driven. Better to destroy economies than people, even if the former can indirectly result in the latter. (wish there were better solutions and a larger gain, but that's a whole other conversation fraught with far more complexity)
      - CaptainOfCoit 2y ago
        What direct evidence exists to say that globalism clearly contribute to long peace? As far as I know, there is only proof of globalism failing to contribute to peace, where invading nations continue their invasions even after heavy sanctions.