3 ms·

> The point is if you're outsourcing to India you want low cost and are not concerned with quality First part is a reasonable assumption, the second is not, an

> The point is if you're outsourcing to India you want low cost and are not concerned with quality First part is a reasonable assumption, the second is not, and this is what’s opening you up to allegations of xenophobia. The allure (and promise) of outsourcing is the idea that you can pay less for a comparable service due to the cost of living disparity between your location and the outsourcing provider. Whether any individual provider achieves that or not is another question, but saying “if your service is provided from India you are not concerned about quality”, or “if your service is provided from India you will have a constant cycle of low quality staff” does sound a lot like xenophobia. > No one there wants to work for those outsourcing chop shops This is simply not true. There are a lot of benefits to working for a company like this, although as with any company, it’s not all upside. Of course turnover is high because you have a lot of entry level folks. Regardless of where you are in the world, no-one wants to work a level one help desk until they retire. > We can all pick and choose good stories. What about Tata Steel's total mismanagement of Tata Steel Europe? And JLR isn't exactly in good shape as you say it is. You just picked some numbers that sound good. Yeah odd example, JLR is not doing great, and Tata Steel is also struggling, but overall the Tata Group are doing well.

neepi 1y ago
Have you considered that quality tends to cost the same everywhere as it is fairly rare? It’s not commoditised. The problem is crap people are cheaper in India than crap people elsewhere. And that looks good on the balance sheet. And as we’re about maximising shareholder value these days then that’s fine apparently.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- d1sxeyes 1y ago
  > Have you considered that quality tends to cost the same everywhere as it is fairly rare? It’s not commoditised. That's not really the case though. You can get access to very highly educated, talented folks in India for cheaper than you can get access to similar resources elsewhere because labour markets aren't equal and cost-of-living differences are a factor. > The problem is crap people are cheaper in India than crap people elsewhere. And that looks good on the balance sheet. True, I'm not arguing that India isn't cheaper, and it is true that if you want to hire crap people, you might as well hire cheap crap people compared to expensive crap people. I don't want to put the cart before the horse though: you're assuming that a company outsourcing to India prioritises cost over quality, which simply isn't true.

neepi 1y ago

Have you considered that quality tends to cost the same everywhere as it is fairly rare? It’s not commoditised. The problem is crap people are cheaper in India than crap people elsewhere. And that looks good on the balance sheet. And as we’re about maximising shareholder value these days then that’s fine apparently.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
d1sxeyes 1y ago
> Have you considered that quality tends to cost the same everywhere as it is fairly rare? It’s not commoditised. That's not really the case though. You can get access to very highly educated, talented folks in India for cheaper than you can get access to similar resources elsewhere because labour markets aren't equal and cost-of-living differences are a factor. > The problem is crap people are cheaper in India than crap people elsewhere. And that looks good on the balance sheet. True, I'm not arguing that India isn't cheaper, and it is true that if you want to hire crap people, you might as well hire cheap crap people compared to expensive crap people. I don't want to put the cart before the horse though: you're assuming that a company outsourcing to India prioritises cost over quality, which simply isn't true.