IT IS GOOD OR BAD IS NOT THE QUESTION. IT IS ALL ABOUT FINDING SOME TO ACCEPT . THE WORLD SCENARIO IS THAT A COUNTRY CANNOT JUST SURVIVE WITHOUT THE CONCEPT OF SHARING.LEAVE ALONE OTHER ECONOMIC FACTORS LIKE CHEAP LAB OUR, OTHER ECONOMIC SCALES ETC.THE BEST THING ABOUT IT IS OUR PERCAPITA INCOME PARTICULARLY AMONG IT WORKERS HAVE TREMENDOUSLY IMPROVED WHICH Y AND ME CANNOT DENY.
By
sudhakar , BUSINESS CONSULTANT
| 05 30 2011 16:25:09 +0000
No one likes the idea of American jobs moving overseas. But in recent years, the U.S. has accepted the outsourcing of tens of thousands of jobs, in everything from technology support to Wall Street research. Many prominent corporate executives, politicians, and academics have argued that we have no choice, that with globalization it’s critical to tap the lower costs and unique skills of labor abroad to remain competitive. Samuel Palmisano, the chief executive of IBM (IBM), made this point last year when he hosted IBM’s investor conference in Bangalore, India, the first ever held outside the U.S. He pointed out that IBM now has 43,000 people working in India who are part of "a new kind of organization," one that’s designed not around a single country, "but on a truly planet-wide model."Yet a critical point has been lost in the debate: The interests of U.S. corporations are often not the same as those of the country and its citizens. Hiring staff in India may help companies like IBM, Dell (DELL), Microsoft (MSFT), Accenture (ACN), and others lower their costs and boost their profits, but it hurts the workers who lose jobs and those who lose the prospect of jobs. Economist Paul Samuelson, a Nobel Prize winner, wrote in a 2004 paper that the economic effect of outsourcing is similar to allowing mass immigration of workers willing to compete for service jobs at extremely low wages. They can drive down the income for huge swaths of the middle class, even if they benefit their employers. "Mainstream trade economists have insufficiently noticed the drastic change in mean U.S. incomes and in inequalities among different U.S. classes," he wrote.There’s no question that the American people would like their government to take a stand against companies that send jobs overseas. A Zogby International poll found that 71% of Americans believe that outsourcing jobs overseas hurts the U.S. economy, and 62% say the U.S. government should tax or legislate to try to stop the job loss.Yet virtually nothing has been done. "We need some creative solutions here," says Ron Hira, a public policy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology who is now on leave at the progressive Economic Policy Institute. While some outsourcing opponents advocate taxes on companies that send jobs overseas, that’s controversial because it could end up handicapping U.S. companies and becoming counterproductive.Still, there are other steps that government officials could take. Hira points out that decoupling health-care plans from the employer and making the plans more portable would be an important step, since U.S. companies now bear the costs of health care while rivals in countries with government-sponsored care don’t. U.S. visa programs could be modified too. He says that some of the most active users of visas for visiting workers are Indian outsourcing firms, which appear to be training workers in the U.S. and then sending them home to be more effective at taking U.S. jobs. The most important point perhaps is to reexamine the costs of letting American jobs go abroad. "The CEOs of international companies have been dominating the debate and the current situation serves their interests," Hiren says.
By
Hiren Sheth, Cust. Service Manager, ICICI Bank
| 05 29 2011 16:00:25 +0000
|
A World in Which the U.S. Bans Outsourcing: A Case Study The current picture: Almost all electronic appliances, toys, tools, and other essentials sold in the U.S. are manufactured outside the U.S. Many companies have their projects, call centers, and research facilities outside the U.S. Scenario: 1. Let us say the U.S. passes a law asking companies to stop outsourcing. U.S.-based manufacturers raise the price of basic notebooks to $2,000 against the competition's (Lenovo, Toshiba, etc.), under $1,000. Cars from Ford and GM are priced $30,000 against competition (Toyota and Honda) priced $20,000. When the shakeup is through, the forecast says the only commercially viable U.S. industries are banking, finance, and arms, unless the U.S. government helps. 2. Government's options: Either subsidize all businesses or impose heavy duty on all imports. U.S. Government opts for the second. 3. International reaction All countries in Asia or Europe Ban U.S. imports. They have freed trade within themselves but oust the U.S. from the group. 4. Within the U.S.: The marketplace has suddenly shrunk. All industries scale down production. Automate heavily to remain somewhat competitive. Lay off many employees. 5. After a couple of years the U.S. options: Kick-start World War III or go back to World Trade Organization now as the outsider and get back into the game as an also-ran and not the leader. I am not an analyst, but my opinion is that what the U.S. needs now is not cancelling outsourcing but subsidizing education for U.S. citizens. Have $500 billion of Bush's proposed $3 trillion budget routed to subsidizing education, revamp the education system. Make schools places of learning instead of places for social get-togethers. That is going to level the field for U.S. workers; banning outsourcing won't. Note: What this debate against outsourcing reminds me of is a strike/march in the early 1990s in my home state in India. The strike was organized by students against a government directive to computerize all government establishments. The reason given was that computerization will cause unemployment. It is ironic that more than 50% who participated in that strike, including me, are now employed in the Banking field.
By
Hiren Sheth, Cust. Service Manager, ICICI Bank
| 05 30 2011 16:15:01 +0000
Its' the need of the Hour. Economic crisis forced down many a companies to look for alternative means whereby, its stability can be restored. Out-sourcing is thought of, as a viable solution. Developing / under-developing countries' resources can best be utilized, not only to achieve the Financial crisis overcome but also , to make an inclusive growth worldwide as IMF evinced. Moreover, it helps Globalization of business & mutual exchange of currency to ensure that, there is always a flow of economy among the Nations. Otherwise finds stagnant & prevalent in few Nations only. Thus, altogether, it is not only helping American but also the companies which were in the death throes all over the World.
By
KALIYAMOORTHY , Oil & Gas Area Coordinator, Undisclosed
| 05 30 2011 15:03:13 +0000
they entered and earning money in all divisions ,Agricultural products , even they are claiming rights for agricultural crops (turmeric),pesticides,numerous consumer products,etc;now only we are employing and with knowledge and talent only ,we are earning not like them they are trading in the name of globalization.
By
pandianarjunan , project manager
| 05 30 2011 14:55:43 +0000
Each country tries to protect it's own interests but free trade has to prevail.If India cannot prepare Boeing and Airbus and pays millions of dollars to have technology it has full right to ask for the IT jobs which are best managed economically.Same is true if tommorow philipines is competing for same jobs with India. In nutshell free trade will prevail.
By
Shailesh Vadalkar, Business Analyst, Al Rostamani Pegel LLC
| 05 30 2011 10:21:37 +0000
The debate over outsourcing is full of misnomers, miscommunications, and misleading assertions. Government should stay out of the way and let markets determine where companies hire their employees. If politicians preening for the public try to make public policy around outsourcing, they’re likely to make things worse instead of better. Start with the central idea of the controversy, that U.S. companies are "sending jobs overseas." The phrase itself is almost meaningless. Companies hire abroad and fire in the U.S. for a variety of constantly changing reasons; jobs are almost never moved from one location in the U.S. to India or China or the Czech Republic. Taxing IBM, Microsoft, or Dell because they hire people in India or in other countries is one way to ensure they’ll stumble in foreign markets. Increasingly, the reason companies are hiring overseas is because of the talent they find there. In a joint study last year from Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, the number of companies that said they were hiring overseas because of "access to qualified personnel" increased 75% over the previous two years. "The business case for offshoring is evolving beyond a pure cost play," the authors wrote. "Companies are leveraging offshoring strategically to create competitive advantage." Plus, there is no way to reverse the laws of economics. Free trade benefits countries, whether that trade is in goods or services. Almost 200 years ago, David Ricardo established the case for free trade by laying out the idea of comparative advantage. If one country is better at making wine and the other bread, both countries come out ahead if they specialize their skills and then trade with each other. Outsourcing is nothing more than trading services, instead of goods, across international borders. Countries that embrace global workforces will benefit economically. Those that try to block international trade in services will suffer serious consequences. "If a society attempts…to shut down economic changes, like those from outsourcing, international trade, and new technology, it can avoid some economic disruption in the short run, but at a cost of blocking overall economic gains," wrote Timothy Taylor, managing editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives, in an article in the Cato Journal, entitled "In Defense of Outsourcing."
By
Hiren Sheth, Cust. Service Manager, ICICI Bank
| 05 29 2011 16:03:08 +0000
|
