RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing?

RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

SugarMyChurro -> RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing? (1/26/2008 8:57:42 AM)
Meatcleaver: I gain from an employee's exploitation every day - after all, their time is worth more to me than it is to them. That's how I make a profit on their labor. We all gain from the race to the bottom in terms of cheaper goods. For the moment we keep getting more stuff at disposable type prices. Need a new DVD player? You'd probably just buy one for between $50-300 USD without even barely thinking about it. And if you pay closer to sub $100 USD for it and it lasts even 1-2 years you will probably consider it money well spent. But that doesn't mean I am unable to see the longer term consequences of what is going on. The longer term consequences are disastrous to my country. We have traded away our nation's security on every level just so that a very few could enjoy a few dollars more. You know the country is doing poorly when someone will knife a man in the street for a tenner. And whereas I never heard gunfire before in the area in which I live, I feel very sure that in the last month I have heard gunfire twice in the wee hours of the night. The tensions are rising.

NorthernGent -> RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing? (1/26/2008 9:23:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver General point What we are seeing is capitalism at work and normal capitalist reaction. Capitalists always cry foul when they are losing out but happy with a situation when they are gaining. I could take capitalists more seriously if they were consistent and worried about the conditions of workers when they are the ones gaining from the exploitation. Capitalism isn't necessarily the problem; there's nothing wrong with investing to earn a return. The problem in my mind amounts to the government abdicating their duties, and workers increasingly aspiring to the celebrity lifestyle. Our government is increasingly stepping into the shadows and allowing big business to take over our country. The fall out is obvious; the most important one being that big business has the power to influence government, the media and the wider establishment, which has resulted in society being disenfranchised - your vote at the next election doesn't matter; you will get a country ran by big business with all and sundry continuing their position as mere subjects to the wealth creation doctrine. Wealth creation is vital for prosperity, but it's only one element of a much wider picture for society's well-being. The workers? Well, the workers have to take ownership of their situation. In the event their lives amount to branding, logos, and celebrity, it follows, thus, that they're there for the taking: let's face it, people are more concerned with David Beckham's life than they are the political framework under which we live. I believe market democracy is dangerous and absolutely limited as a form of democracy, but the "workers" need to take ownership. Blaming the likes of Rupert Murdoch and doing nothing about it is, ultimately, wasted energy because we can blame him and his ilk 'til the cows come home and they'll continue to milk us (in the absence of workers taking ownership of their current predicament).

SugarMyChurro -> RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing? (1/26/2008 9:41:09 AM)
Maybe I am being to cynical with this, but here is my assertion: Most people are sheep. It follows that they will not rise up unless led to do so. Then they will simply be under the thumb of yet another master. What of us that wish neither to lead nor be followed? I have my circle under my control, but I really don't have some sick messianic need to control absolutely everybody nor lead them to their political freedom. But I do wish the mass of people would wake the fuck up and take some control. You know, so we could have another go at this democratic republic thing...

Griswold -> RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing? (1/26/2008 12:54:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver General point What we are seeing is capitalism at work and normal capitalist reaction. Capitalists always cry foul when they are losing out but happy with a situation when they are gaining. I could take capitalists more seriously if they were consistent and worried about the conditions of workers when they are the ones gaining from the exploitation. Capitalism isn't necessarily the problem; there's nothing wrong with investing to earn a return. The problem in my mind amounts to the government abdicating their duties, and workers increasingly aspiring to the celebrity lifestyle. Our government is increasingly stepping into the shadows and allowing big business to take over our country. The fall out is obvious; the most important one being that big business has the power to influence government, the media and the wider establishment, which has resulted in society being disenfranchised - your vote at the next election doesn't matter; you will get a country ran by big business with all and sundry continuing their position as mere subjects to the wealth creation doctrine. Wealth creation is vital for prosperity, but it's only one element of a much wider picture for society's well-being. The workers? Well, the workers have to take ownership of their situation. In the event their lives amount to branding, logos, and celebrity, it follows, thus, that they're there for the taking: let's face it, people are more concerned with David Beckham's life than they are the political framework under which we live. I believe market democracy is dangerous and absolutely limited as a form of democracy, but the "workers" need to take ownership. Blaming the likes of Rupert Murdoch and doing nothing about it is, ultimately, wasted energy because we can blame him and his ilk 'til the cows come home and they'll continue to milk us (in the absence of workers taking ownership of their current predicament). Exceptionally well put.

popeye1250 -> RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing? (1/26/2008 1:31:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver General point What we are seeing is capitalism at work and normal capitalist reaction. Capitalists always cry foul when they are losing out but happy with a situation when they are gaining. I could take capitalists more seriously if they were consistent and worried about the conditions of workers when they are the ones gaining from the exploitation. Capitalism isn't necessarily the problem; there's nothing wrong with investing to earn a return. The problem in my mind amounts to the government abdicating their duties, and workers increasingly aspiring to the celebrity lifestyle. Our government is increasingly stepping into the shadows and allowing big business to take over our country. The fall out is obvious; the most important one being that big business has the power to influence government, the media and the wider establishment, which has resulted in society being disenfranchised - your vote at the next election doesn't matter; you will get a country ran by big business with all and sundry continuing their position as mere subjects to the wealth creation doctrine. Wealth creation is vital for prosperity, but it's only one element of a much wider picture for society's well-being. The workers? Well, the workers have to take ownership of their situation. In the event their lives amount to branding, logos, and celebrity, it follows, thus, that they're there for the taking: let's face it, people are more concerned with David Beckham's life than they are the political framework under which we live. I believe market democracy is dangerous and absolutely limited as a form of democracy, but the "workers" need to take ownership. Blaming the likes of Rupert Murdoch and doing nothing about it is, ultimately, wasted energy because we can blame him and his ilk 'til the cows come home and they'll continue to milk us (in the absence of workers taking ownership of their current predicament). NG, well said. Churro too. People need to start realising that "govt" is the "servant" of the people not our boss. They're the hired help not the management. Presently because of all the money involved they are corrupt. There are a LOT of people in Washington,D.C. who need to go to jail.

meatcleaver -> RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing? (1/26/2008 2:29:30 PM)
I agree with NG to a point but I would say people have to take ownership as opposed to workers because it is as much one worker happy to see another worker exploited as long as they are doing all right themselves. We have all bought into the ersatz culture of consumerism and happy to blind ourselves to the consequences of our buying into it until it turns round a bites us. I guess that has me agreeing with Churro too, people are sheep. On another point, I was listening to a bunch of economists, historians and business men on the radio, discussing power moving to the east to which all thought was inevitable. Apparently the only time in history the west has had larger economies than China and India is since the 1820s, due to the industrial revolution and the real surprise is that it has taken the east so long to catch up. It is the inevitable consequence of the size of population and as one historian pointed out, the onset of fiscal decadence in the west. What fiscal decadence means exactly I don't know but I can take a good guess.

petdave -> RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing? (1/26/2008 3:05:20 PM)
Geez, five pages and i'm not sure i've seen one "good" post yet. Here's one: All the toxic lead-based paint that's left over after they're done painting children's toys gets dumped into their soil, not ours. And.... that's all i've got. Anyone that studies history should be scared. Just do a little research on the contributions of U.S. industry to the war effort during WWII, and ask yourself where we'd be today in a major global conflict.

domiguy -> RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing? (1/26/2008 6:12:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: petdave Geez, five pages and i'm not sure i've seen one "good" post yet. Here's one: All the toxic lead-based paint that's left over after they're done painting children's toys gets dumped into their soil, not ours. And.... that's all i've got. Anyone that studies history should be scared. Just do a little research on the contributions of U.S. industry to the war effort during WWII, and ask yourself where we'd be today in a major global conflict. What happened to our nuclear arsenal and other conventional weapons....Ya know like bombs and shit like that? Did some foriegn power develop a "ray" to neutralize their effect? I never trusted Eskimos...Always smiling. What in the fuck do you have to smile about? You live and fuck on a sheet of ice..For now....lol (little global warming joke for you a-holes) Eat blubber and other vile shit....While our eyes have been focused on those menacing Aaaayrabs we should have been paying attention to those frozen fuckers from the north! They built the "nuclear ray gun" right under our noses. God how I hate Eskimos. Anywhoooo, I imagine that we could have our enemies building our weaponry at less cost than we are currently paying. Now I'm sure you are asking yourself what kind of a company would sell sophisticated weaponry to countries that are direct enemies or have a political views and goals that are in contrast to that of their own country? We seem to be doing just fine. So I am not concerned at all.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing? (1/26/2008 8:23:18 PM)
In a major global conflict we always have resort to nuclear weapons as the final trump. Everyone knows this. We could vastly reduce our military spending and still have that awesome power at our beck and call. Some say that without the advances in military weaponry during WWII we may not have won the war. But where some would point to the achievements in industry, I would point to the achievements of Los Alamos - work bought and paid for by a government owned collective. In fact, it's often some one guy of true vision that alters the world. Often these guys are paid by the government. Take a bow J. Robert Oppenheimer (theoretical physicist and communist sympathizer). In Europe, major inroads into the technology of the future were pushed forward by people in the intelligence community. A major victory was the cracking of the Enigma Machine by people on the government's payroll. Who knows what might have happened without the desperately needed information that was gained by that achievement. Take a bow Alan Turing (mathematician, logician, cryptographer, and closet homosexual). Who needs industry and corporations when we have geniuses underfoot and the collective will to make things happen? [Edit: finished just as Domiguy's post became visible...!]

Griswold -> RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing? (1/26/2008 8:39:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver What fiscal decadence means exactly I don't know but I can take a good guess. See Northern Gents' post above....he summed it up better than I've heard it put in decades... I'll paraphrase...but effectively what he said was....we've been living on this singular (if it could be put in financial terms) premise: "But enough about you...let's talk about me".

SugarMyChurro -> RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing? (1/26/2008 8:51:40 PM)
I disagree entirely. The real problem is actually a lack of spirited and intelligent self-interest, and not the absence of it. By "celebrity lifestyle" I assumed NG meant drugged, drunken foolishness and an overt obsession with fly by nights that don't mean shit at the end of the day. Now, I am not sure what he meant.

FangsNfeet -> RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing? (1/26/2008 10:15:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Fangs From my perspective- your viewpoint is a sop to your conscience- you're contorting into a pretzel to try and justify buying the products of sweatshop labor when the reality is that there is no moral justification for doing so. Sam Sam, slavery is a different issue. Outsourcing is having the right to put your business where you can get the most work done at the lowest cost. This includs having the fewest restrictions and the cheapest labor to get more work done and keep the product more affordable for the consumer. It does not matter where the manufacturing company is. In Assembly Line work, Sweat Shop labor is the only way to get the job done. I'm not going to justify slavery but I will support a person to put there business where they want it and abide by the laws of that providence/country. If you want to talk about China, China can change if it wants to. Adults and parents can make a stand. As for myself, I mannage to accept and tolerate most of other peoples beliefs and values. In which case, I'm not about to force China to practice my beliefs. If the majority wants to change, the China will change.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing? (1/26/2008 11:54:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet In Assembly Line work, Sweat Shop labor is the only way to get the job done. Does a certain manual dexterity have anything to do with this, or is the willingness to lose digits and limbs enough? [8\|] I don't believe that even you believe such nonsense.

NorthernGent -> RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing? (1/27/2008 2:42:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Maybe I am being to cynical with this, but here is my assertion: Most people are sheep. It follows that they will not rise up unless led to do so. Then they will simply be under the thumb of yet another master. Personally, I wouldn't bank on a rising of any description. We're a very political lot over here, but the English dream amounts to a home with a garden accompanied by privacy; people here finish work and, by and large, we go home and shut the world out, except for those invited for a glass of wine in the back garden. So, most of us aren't that interested in what the bloke is doing down the street; the public space is of limited importance, so there's not going to be a rising driven by a perceived lack of well being within society (you have a different scenario, perhaps). This sentiment is reflected in today's politics; the big issues are devolved power, the role of the state, crime and anti-social behaviour, the National Health Service (which is symbolic of the wider welfare issue). Our 3 main parties are to all intents and purposes liberal parties, who disagree on the scope of interventionism - as soon as we get on our feet again after bankrupting ourselves in two world wars, people are dreaming of a return to small government. Ultimately, extrapolate the line and we're returning to the England of the 3 centuries prior to the two world wars - a country dominated by market politics with a small state and reduced public services. The big issues here are big issues precisely because they impact on people's privacy, not because of a concern for wider society's well being. Personally, I don't think the power of advertising and propaganda is fully understood (by many). Where you have the same messages day in day out bombarding your brain, it's difficult to not be influenced. Pick up any magazine, watch any television programme etc and the message will be a tacit and explicit approval of the consumer lifestyle. This message is beamed into people's homes every hour of every day, with very little in the way of an alternative message. I think we're probably talking of an enlightenment, because, quite frankly, it's not going to happen by coercion in England. I quite like what your man Chomsky has to say. His knowledge is indisputable; his solution could be said to be idealistic, or maybe he's simply ahead of his time. quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro What of us that wish neither to lead nor be followed? I have my circle under my control, but I really don't have some sick messianic need to control absolutely everybody nor lead them to their political freedom. I think you have that choice. Whatever the faults of market democracy, you're free to do as you please providing you can see through the facade. I don't know a great deal of the US, but I'm fairly sure there's anarchist groups in places like Seattle which form groups based on voluntary association and reject the current predicament. That option is open to people. quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro But I do wish the mass of people would wake the fuck up and take some control. You know, so we could have another go at this democratic republic thing... Have you read Alexis de Tocqueville's summation of the United States in the early 1800s (Democracy in America)? It's interesting; while admiring the favourable extent of political power and standard of living of the average American (compared with the average European), he predicted that the system was doomed to failure because in such a society, the middle classes would inevitably be bound by conformity and average leaders would be elected. I'm not saying this is the case, but it's an interesting read, and calls into question whether democracy in any nation can ever provide anything more than the freedom of choice. Edited for spelling.

Justme696 -> RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing? (1/27/2008 3:02:30 AM)
Good day I can't talk about overseas outsourcing, because I did it only from West to east Europe myself. I am an engineer and I had outsource our main production line. We did this for dual sourcing. Our costumers demanded to spread risk. IF our main location would burn down, we will be able to keep producing in the other locations. Well of course this is part of. Cost reduction, labour costs in Eastern Europe 80 euro's a month!! a person. I think a hired partimer costs 17euro a hour in West Europe. So that is an easy cost reduction. What irritates me is every new manger has X+1 goals. Mostly cost reduction, the easiest ways is to outsource. Watch the news..if there is a new CEO, they first close factories. They don't think anymore how to better their products...no, they close factories and then outsource. That is nice for short term....but mostly when they are done, they jump to an other company..and all starts again. Damian

NorthernGent -> RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing? (1/27/2008 4:12:05 AM)
Right, outsourcing.... Cost reduction is not the motivation behind outsourcing. The idea is to sub-contract elements of your business that are not key to its success - payroll, IT (in a non-IT intensive environment), customer service etc are not usually core parts of the business. It follows, thus, that the idea is to free up management time and the organisation's resources in order to concentrate on those areas of your business that really matter to its success. In terms of cost reduction, it is not necessarily cheaper to outsource. Here's why: a) You could be a small player in comparison with other clients of your sub-contractor, which means you'll be down the list in terms of priority, and it follows, thus, you will be open to a reduced level of service by comparison (thus, increasing your cost because you'll neeed more in-house management to recover the situation). b) You're locked into a contract, which means you can't grow areas of your business unless they grow with you. This could hold back your development and there are obvious associated costs. c) You still have to manage your sub contractor, and depending on their quality, it could take a lot of management and a significant associated cost. d) There's a risk in terms of availability of information from which to make management decisions. They may be under no obligation to provide information that you decide you need 6 months post contract signature; without this information, this could lead to poor decision making and a significant impact on business performance. e) Corporate reputation. Outsourcing can be a disaster for your reputation and will result in associated costs. For example, HSBC are recalling their customer service from India. Through no fault of the Indians, they provide a service which follows a procedure dictated by HSBC; they can't deal with the way we do things and phone calls invariably lead to "right, fuck this, get the manager on the phone". There are other advantages of outsourcing, e.g. easier budgeting and planning In sum, there is far, far more to outsourcing than cost reduction, and no business owner in his right mind is going to place strategic parts of the business in the hands of outsiders; he would only do this as a last resort of some description. Ultimately there are inherent risks associated with outsourcing, and managers recognise this, but they'll take the cost risk when balanced with the opportunity to free up time and resource to develop the key areas of the business

meatcleaver -> RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing? (1/27/2008 6:29:39 AM)
Outsourcing can have its advantages and though I'm no world player I have had stuff made in China in one of my previous lives. Having designed some stainless steel products and wanting to market them, I found that I could get the same product manufactured in China for a fraction of the price as I could locally. Of course I had to get 1,000 made where I only wanted 100 but the difference in the cost made it worth the gamble of ordering 1,000. It meant I could offer the product to a retailer at a price the retailer thought they would be able to sell them for. It paid off, I eventually sold about 400 of the product in a relatively short time to make an overall profit in the time I felt I needed to get my investment back. I am still selling the other 600 in dribs and drabs but each one is a profit on top of what I expected. The quality was more than acceptable, not as good as my original products but then, they were made by a skilled craftsman and very few people were willing to pay for the extra quality and the uniqueness of the product. If I could have had them all made locally I would have, as I believe in using local labour but no one wants to pay the price local skilled labour entails so it was China or nothing. I still sell products I design made by craftsmen but the price is so high and the market so small, the market is big enough for me to make a living for myself but not for a viable business where I could employ people. I ended up choosing just to make a living myself rather than have all the hassle of managing manufacture and gambling with an investment. It's just an easier life, my customers find me, I don't have to go out and find hundreds of customers.

samboct -> RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing? (1/27/2008 7:27:59 AM)
NG I think you give the heads of business way too much credit. In the electronics arena- look at the rise of the Korean firms such as LG. These firms got their start by idiot US and European CEOs deciding that they could save money by outsourcing various components of their electronic products- i.e. contract mfg. The contract mfg firms kept taking on responsibility and eventually discovered that they were largely doing the design and manufacture of a product- they just didn't have a brand. So they're building brands- rather successfully I might add, because the established brands have thrown away their company. GE learned this one the hard way back in the '60s (70s- 80s? not sure when) that they licensed their brand to another mfg for appliances. Who in an effort to cut costs, produced an inferior product- with GEs name on it. Hence, for many years, the association was that GEs white goods were crap. (I am no admirer of GE by the way- its history has been despicable in many instances.) It was an expensive lesson- GE had to buy their brand back and it took a major hit. I think what's going on with outsourcing is that CEOs have drunk their own Kool-Aid- they've begun believing their own advertising and their own idiotic decisions as being justified by outlandish salaries. Their assumption is that people will buy a more expensive brand for the cachet of the label is pretty silly- it certainly doesn't last that long, since history is littered with brands now defunct. Thus there is far too much emphasis on advertising, and not enough emphasis on actually building a solid company. I will point to the cell phone companies as an example- they all have abysmal customer service- yet are spending tens of millions (probably hundreds of millions collectively) on trying to woo each others customers. If they'd spend a fraction of that on actually having good customer service, they might succeed. Companies at the end of the day consist of three things, IP, physical plant, and labor. A whizzbang CEO doesn't count for all that much, yet given the salaries these folks are getting, they've begun believing that it does. There's no relationship between CEO pay and performance, so why do we expect good decisions from these people? Outsourcing is just the stupidity of the 80s-exemplified by "Chainsaw Al" Dunlap whose brilliant idea was to slash headcount to raise stock prices. Getting rid of labor to another country is reducing the value of your company- branding and market share are temporary, as are quarterly results. Actually assembling a trained and motivated workforce is hard work and takes time, effort and diligence. As a CEO that should be your job, not passing the buck to someone else. And destroying a company by getting rid of a trained workforce is just idiotic and it shows that CEOs haven't learned the lessons of the 80s, because we're repeating them, with equally predictable and disastrous results. It's also one of the major problems with outsourcing. Companies have broken the implied contract between labor and management with their readiness to fire workers once they attain seniority, hence there is very little loyalty left between employees and their employers. There's even less in India. Since wages are rising rapidly, a young worker in a hot company such as Infosys can bounce around from job to job within 6 months, bumping up his/her salary quickly. Well, if you're the employer and you realize that it takes a lot of training to actually get somebody to be able to do a job, then watching them go out the door after a few months is a real problem. Its why outsourcing often winds up costing far more than originally projected, and often delivers a shoddy product at the end. In many cases, one well trained US or European worker is worth 3 to 5 people in India or China. Summary- in my book, anybody that gives companies credit for knowing what they're doing by outsourcing has far too much faith in overpaid CEOs. Sam

samboct -> RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing? (1/27/2008 7:31:37 AM)
Fangs Money talks, bullshit walks. In my book saying you don't support slavery, but buying products assembled with slave labor- well, you do the math. One of the major driving forces destroying apartheid South Africa was the pressure on the boards of companies doing business there, as well as consumers boycotting products from those firms. It's an effective weapon, and should be utilized against China. Of course, with the current administration running deeply in the red, and with China holding our markers, it's a bit tough now, isn't it? Sam

meatcleaver -> RE: What's good about overseas outsourcing? (1/27/2008 11:42:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Fangs Money talks, bullshit walks. In my book saying you don't support slavery, but buying products assembled with slave labor- well, you do the math. One of the major driving forces destroying apartheid South Africa was the pressure on the boards of companies doing business there, as well as consumers boycotting products from those firms. It's an effective weapon, and should be utilized against China. Of course, with the current administration running deeply in the red, and with China holding our markers, it's a bit tough now, isn't it? Sam Even if all Chinese companies paid a living wage to its workers and many Chinese companies do, as well as many Chinese companies don't, the local living costs there are so much below the west, they would still be able to undercut western labour manufacturing costs. However, I think this concern about Chinese labour is rather disingenous as no one was concerned before Chinese manufacturing started to have an impact on western labour.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125