> That doesn't make sense. If they can be easily replaced, then why aren't they? Wouldn't it directly benefit the company hiring them to not hire them? In our

> That doesn't make sense. If they can be easily replaced, then why aren't they? Wouldn't it directly benefit the company hiring them to not hire them? In our cloud service, these guys are the first-line of defense in troubleshooting customer issues. They're the guys customers talk to and they follow a standard troubleshooting guide before pinging one of the on-call engineers. So it can't exactly be automated. And trust me, if that were possible, it would've been done. In a way, that's also one of the reasons this stuff is outsourced, companies don't want to go through the trouble of doing the hiring themselves for these roles. > Also, I don't like your characterization of people based on where they work. A person may choose to work in BK/McDonalds but that doesn't imply anything (positive or negative) about their capability. Sorry, I probably wasn't clear. That absolutely wasn't the message I was trying to get across. I understand working there doesn't mean anything about their capability and often it is a stepping stone to something greater (ex: college/high-school students). What I meant to say was the skill level here is the same. In effect, they just need to know their way around a machine and speak good English. Heck, they'd do a better job at it considering how poor the outsourced folks are at it. They'd even have more fun because there's still room for the occasional intellectual stimulation and creativity within these roles. And they'd be better pay too. Overall, it will be a better use of their time and they'd have more job satisfaction.