Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Government Politics IT

Obama Says Offshoring Fears Are Unwarranted 763

Posted by samzenpus
from the don't-worry-citizen dept.
alphadogg writes "The perception that Indian call centers and back office operations cost US jobs is an old stereotype that ignores today's reality that two-way trade between the US and India is helping create jobs and raise the standard of living in both countries, US President Barack Obama told a gathering of business executives in Mumbai on Saturday. President Obama's remarks come after some moves in the US that had Indian outsourcers worried that the US may get protectionist in the wake of job losses in the country. The state of Ohio, for example, banned earlier this year the expenditure of public funds for offshore purposes. US exports to India have quadrupled in recent years, and currently support tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the US, he said in a speech that was also streamed live. In addition, there are jobs supported by exports to India of agriculture products, travel and education services. President Obama, who is in India on a three-day visit, said that more than 20 deals worth about $10 billion were announced on the first day of his visit."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama Says Offshoring Fears Are Unwarranted

Comments Filter:
  • by sethstorm (512897) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @01:41PM (#34155304) Homepage

    The H1-b fraud is what kills it for most Americans that stumble upon offshoring's negative qualities.

    You don't go to India for US jobs, especially when you're millions of US jobs in the hole.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ritchie70 (860516)

      Indeed. I work with a lot of people who I assume are here on H1-b, with Patni claiming they can't find qualified Americans to fill these positions.

      And yet the tiny US-based consulting firm we use doesn't seem to have any problem finding qualified Americans.

      Of course, their people are mostly 40 - 50+ Americans, who are no doubt more expensive than 20-something Indians. But they also know what they're doing.

      I'm pretty sure the billing rate to my company is about the same for both of them. So you apparently ca

      • The question is what happens if you had to hold the H1-b/etc. candidate to the same standards(and qualifications) as the US one? If firms like Patni can't prove that the foreign candidate can meet the same (impossible) standards, they haven't proven that a US citizen can't do it.

        Of course, that might mean that the qualifications get skewed to include language proficiencies and such things that US citizens obviously can't do. That could be addressed by having them act in good-faith towards the citizen, and

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Chaostrophy (925)

          Just make it so that if the H1B visa holder pays a reasonable fee, say, a prorated $20,000, they can leave the job and get another, keeping the visa. Then companies will have to pay US market rates for people.

          But frankly, they should be convertible to a green card (permanent resident), we want to steal all the smart people from other countries, not train them for a few years, then send them home.

          • That still doesn't fix the lack of jobs for US citizens. It only encourages more fraud, and the $20k becomes a hostage ransom.

            The only solutions that work are ones that put US citizens first and foremost, even at the expense of business.

      • by iluvcapra (782887) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @03:02PM (#34155978)

        Of course, their people are mostly 40 - 50+ Americans, who are no doubt more expensive than 20-something Indians. But they also know what they're doing.

        Knowing what you're doing is SO 20th century. Next you'll be telling us the 50-year-olds don't spend 70% of their day on AIM and Facebook...

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by ferrocene (203243)

          Of course, their people are mostly 40 - 50+ Americans, who are no doubt more expensive than 20-something Indians. But they also know what they're doing.

          Knowing what you're doing is SO 20th century. Next you'll be telling us the 50-year-olds don't spend 70% of their day on AIM and Facebook...

          You know how I know you're old?

      • by Antique Geekmeister (740220) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @04:28PM (#34156594)

        And then there is this video, documenting how a law firm _advised_ their clients on how to avoid the H1-B requirements to avoid finding a qualified US worker.

        You can make money providing Americans as consultants, but because our expenses are so much higher, we do tend to cost more. So a consulting agency can make a much higher margin of profit, and face far less stringent work safety or harassment policies.

      • by elrous0 (869638) * on Monday November 08, 2010 @10:19AM (#34160924)

        "Can't get qualified Americans to do the job" is business speak for "Can't get qualified Americans to do the job for minimum wage or some other joke salary." Imported labor artificially drives down wages, then hides behind the excuse that no American wants to do it. When I was in college, you could get $7 an hour cutting tobacco on local farms, and a lot of us did it during the summer. A few years later, the farmers started to bring in illegals and H1-B's from Mexico, and the pay suddenly dropped from $7/hour to $4-$5/hr., with the farmers complaining they just couldn't get us lazy Americans to do it.

    • by cob666 (656740) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:13PM (#34155586) Homepage
      I agree that H-1B seems to be more of an issue than outsourcing in general. There are a LOT of US citizens that are unemployed right now and there are many firms that are still hiring H-1B visa workers. The H-1B program should be cut back in areas where the US workforce has unemployed workers.
      • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @03:13PM (#34156076) Journal

        You don't understand.

        Limiting H-1B is logical if you desire to help unemployed americans, but President Obama wants to *redistribute* the wages away from the "rich" americans towards poorer india, china, et cetera workers. He's said as much in his old college & other lectures. So he probably thinks H-1B visas are a great way to accomplish the goal, as it hands the money to much poorer non-americans. It's a way to spread the wealth.

        "The message I take away from this election is very simple
        "The American people are still frustrated & still want change."
          - Obama, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DV4j2URWNo [youtube.com]

      • by Lobachevsky (465666) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @06:30PM (#34157296)

        The H1-B issue is somewhat moot because that visa transitions into a permanent residence and citizenship over the years. I've been reading Slashdot since 1998 and reading about those "evil H1-B workers" since the beginning -- guess what? Those very same H1-B workers from 1998 are now all citizens. So, at some point, the argument devolves into, "yeah those brown citizens are stealing our jobs!" Which, honestly, is a horrible racist argument.

        Criticism over L-1 visas (does not lead to citizenship) or outsourcing is more valid, because that is money exiting the country. However, we, the U.S., have balanced trade with India (equal money flows out to India as money flows in from India). The largest trade imbalance is what we have with China (for a variety of reasons, mostly due to the China suppressing the value of the Yuan/Renminbi). For that reason, our economists and think tanks prefer industry and trade to move to India from China, because it will greatly reduce the American trade deficit.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      The H-1Bs seem to me to be more of a distraction. However, I'm biased: I'm a Canadian in the US on an H-1B. But, as an H-1B holder, I know something of the process involved.

      There are annual limits on the number of H-1Bs that the US hands out. That number is 65k plus an additional 20k for people with masters degrees. I know in 2008, they got more than double the cap on the first day and instituted a lotter, but in 2009, there were very few applications because of the failing economy. I'm pretty sure that mos

      • by walterbyrd (182728) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @03:49PM (#34156340)

        There are annual limits on the number of H-1Bs that the US hands out. That number is 65k plus an additional 20k for people with masters degrees.

        Let's not forget that number was 195K, not long ago, and those workers are still here. Also, that 85K number does not include the unlimited OPT visas. That number also does not include the dozens of other visas such as L-1 and J-1.

        Anyway, H-1Bs are good for 3 years, extendable up to an additional 2. This means that the theoretical maximum number of legal H-1Bs in the US at any one time is 5 * 85k = 425k. That's less than 0.2% of the population and seems unlikely to me to significantly affect the unemployment rate.

        I think that's 3 years + an additional 3 years. Also, the cap used to be much higher. Also, don't forget about all the other visas. Also, don't forget that the H1B is hugely disproportionately targeted to US STEM jobs, especially IT. And let's not forget that in 2009, US IT jobs were absolutely slaughtered. Practically every major US IT employer announced major layoffs - i.e. 10,000 layoffs from IBM, 6,000 layoffs from MS, etc.

        Another point is that H-1B workers are required, by law, to be paid at least the "prevailing wage" based on their work and geographical location. While this is by no means perfect, it does provide some protection against wage depression.

        "Less the perfect" hardly describes the situation. In some career fields, jobs are very well defined, in IT it is just the opposite, i.e. a sysadmin may also be the DBA and/or a developer; or a developer may work as an admin, or a network engineer. In IT, the phrase "prevailing wage" is completely meaningless.

        And there are more undocumented workers than H-1B holders, too. Lots more.

        It is a very different problem. Undocumented workers do hold jobs that US workers typically aspire to have. But, what happens to the US technological lead when Americans say themselves "why study for a STEM career, just to get replaced by an H1B worker?

        Therefore, my point is that while the H-1B program is not perfect and is certainly abused, I am dubious of kneejerk claims that it is this fraud that in any way hurts "most Americans". With millions of jobs being lost every year due to the economy, there simply aren't enough H-1B workers to account for very much of it.

        You are dead wrong. The number of H1Bs is extremely significant. In many IT departments, the H1Bs have completely taken over.

        • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @04:37PM (#34156666)

          Another point is that H-1B workers are required, by law, to be paid at least the "prevailing wage" based on their work and geographical location. While this is by no means perfect, it does provide some protection against wage depression.

          "Less the perfect" hardly describes the situation. In some career fields, jobs are very well defined, in IT it is just the opposite, i.e. a sysadmin may also be the DBA and/or a developer; or a developer may work as an admin, or a network engineer. In IT, the phrase "prevailing wage" is completely meaningless.

          Also, there is zero budget allocated for enforcement. Nobody in the government even bothers to check if employers are complying. But, the numbers that have been reported are indicative of massive violations: In 2007 the medium wage for new H1B hires was $50K, less than what new grads with zero experience make. Furthermore, 90% of H-1B employers' prevailing wage claims for programmers were below the median U.S. wage for that occupation and location, with 62% being in the bottom 25%.

          http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201000479&pgno=3&queryText=&isPrev= [informationweek.com]

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Pharmboy (216950)

          Another point he missed is by quoting the number as being .2% of Americans. Some Americans are 2 years old, or 80, want to stay home and raise the kids, or simply don't want to work. They also don't issue visas for all professions. It would be more accurate if you compared the number of visas to the number of job positions that they visas can fill (not sanitation workers, or fast food cooks). Still not a huge percentage, but not so misleading, however unintentional.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        > Anyway, H-1Bs are good for 3 years, extendable up to an additional 2. This means that the theoretical maximum number of
        > legal H-1Bs in the US at any one time is 5 * 85k = 425k. That's less than 0.2% of the population and seems unlikely to
        > me to significantly affect the unemployment rate.

        H1-Bs are good for 3+3=6 years. Also, once you have greencard pending the H1-B can be extended ad-infinitum. Which is why you
        sometimes see posts like this:
        http://forums.immigration.com/showthread.php?292018-Hel [immigration.com]

      • by Lord Kano (13027) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @10:03PM (#34158378) Homepage Journal

        Anyway, H-1Bs are good for 3 years, extendable up to an additional 2. This means that the theoretical maximum number of legal H-1Bs in the US at any one time is 5 * 85k = 425k. That's less than 0.2% of the population and seems unlikely to me to significantly affect the unemployment rate.

        You, sir, have forgotten anchor babies and arranged marriages.

        The problem that I have with H1Bs is that they drive down wages. Many employers quote industry average wages when posting for a job. That would be all well and good, but a few H1Bs earning $30k/yr will drive down the average.

        LK

    • by TheEyes (1686556) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @03:18PM (#34156100)

      The H1-b fraud is what kills it for most Americans that stumble upon offshoring's negative qualities.

      You don't go to India for US jobs, especially when you're millions of US jobs in the hole.

      Yeah, you might think that, but you'd be completely wrong.

      The unemployment rate for college graduates is 4.7 percent [bls.gov] this year. That essentially means that, for college graduates, there is no recession: 5 percent unemployment is the national rate you see during boom years.

      What's more, three years ago the unemployment rate for college graduates was two percent, which is far too low to be sustainable. In other words, the lack of college graduates--people with the qualifications to work the jobs this country was producing--was stifling growth in those areas.

      The conclusion is clear: we need more highly educated college graduates in this country, and we need them three years ago. Long term that means education reform, which the President got done by putting it on a rider on the healthcare bill, but short term what it means is importing qualified workers from overseas, until we can legitimately produce them here. The idea that H-1B is robbing Americans of jobs is a myth: the data-driven facts say that we don't have enough highly educated Americans to do the jobs our economy is currently producing, and until we can legitimately make up the gap the H-1B visa program is a barely passable stopgap.

    • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @06:17PM (#34157198) Journal

      No it doesn't but your worry DOES show the real problem the US has.

      There is some believe working in the US that makes it value to top. The interesting jobs, the well paying jobs. But that is not what the economy, the boring local economy, runs on. It runs on truck drivers, factory workers, construction, repair. This is what keeps that majority of the population employed. Silicon Valley, Redmon, Wall Street do not.

      Obama, and he is hardly the first, seems so pleased with 10 billion in orders. But how much of that money flows straight back out again because to produce those orders the US needs foreign goods? And those 10 billion are petty cash for the US. Meanwhile far more money is lost with outsourced call centers year in year out.

      And no, outsourcing a call center will NOT cost the country a fortune, just a local community. A local community that can't then tax the local salaries and use those taxes to fund local education, local road maintenance etc etc. Outsourcing is not about a cripling injury that instantly kills the economy. This is a slow bleed that isn't stopped.

      The call center goes, the local catering van can't break even anymore. The locals find far lower paying jobs and make ends meet by buying cheap Chinese imports instead of higher quality American goods. More and more American business got to cut costs to be able to meet the lower prices. They do so by outsourcing production to China and yet more Americans have just a bit less to spend.

      It ain't complex to see, but if you believe in Wall Street as a religion then this can't be. This is not how the market, the magic fairy market, is supposed to work. Obama, and democrats and republicans with him, is saying "let them eat cake". The famous saying that started the revolution showing that the ruling elite didn't have a clue about what was really happening. It is after all not in Washington or Redmond or Wall Street that the job cuts are hurting the most. Oh, they might have a bad year, but not decade after decade in which a factory town turns into a ghost town. How many of the powers that be come from Detroit?

      Yet the simple people, like the poster above think H1-b is the issue. Yeah right. The US has 300+ million citizens, and how many immigrants on these things? They are irrelevant. This is just the Redmond, Silicon Valley etc job. The get a lot of attention, but they don't keep the heartland working. Producing.

      Scream at the immigrant worker while another factory is shipped lock stock and barrel abroad including every single job. SethStorm is like a frenchmen who reacts to "let them eat cake" with: "But I don't like cake."

      But you don't have bread let alone cake.

      IT has done this a lot. Thinking that they would be save from the export of jobs and then it turned out those dirty filthy foreigners could not just knock out cheap goods but cheap code. Boohoo, now our jobs are going...

      Well, you didn't protest when every item in Walmart came from China, who is now supposed to care the next version of Windows comes from China?

      And don't you worry, the decline will be so slow and the average American so attached to his large house and larger car that he will bend over backwards to keep up with payments rather then protest. Because if you strike or protest, you miss a payment and then that SUV is gone.

      American citizens have managed to enslave themselves to Wall Street thoroughly. Willing slaves with guns. If you wrote this down in a book of fiction, nobody would believe it.

  • by sethstorm (512897) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @01:47PM (#34155374) Homepage

    The state of Ohio, for example, banned earlier this year the expenditure of public funds for offshore purposes.

    One of the many things that was possible with Governor Strickland, and not Head Banker-elect Kasich.

    The only shame is that Kasich got elected as Head Banker, instead of the state retaining Governor Strickland. Now we get a Wall Street banker that compares himself to an East Coast thug. By how he's talking to the media, he's not going to step aside; the Head Banker's simply going to exact revenge.

  • by larry bagina (561269) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @01:50PM (#34155386) Journal
    Harley Davidson is building an assembly plant [cnn.com] in India to assemble American parts. Why not ship the entire (pre-built) motorcycle to India? Well, because India has tariffs that essentially double the price
    • by DCstewieG (824956) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:23PM (#34155662)

      And Toyota and Honda assemble cars in the U.S. Sometimes you just gotta do stuff locally.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Tailhook (98486)

        And Toyota and Honda assemble cars in the U.S

        That happens because there are tariffs on assembled cars that are avoided by assembling cars in the US. One of the few places that the US has chosen to protect its labor force is auto manufacturing. Without those tariffs the foreign auto manufacturers would fill cargo ships with completed cars and pay no one in the US for labor.

        The result is a large number of foreign assembly plants here in the US. Those workers have health plans, they have not collected 99 weeks of unemployment, had their houses foreclo

    • by kimvette (919543) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:49PM (#34155880) Homepage Journal

      Solution: Why not raise our import tariff rates to match that of our so-called trading partners?

      • by FauxPasIII (75900) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @03:11PM (#34156062)

        Solution: Why not raise our import tariff rates to match that of our so-called trading partners?

        Because, obviously, that would be Communism.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Wrong.

          Because it would start a trade war and kill the global free market. Better to pressure India to remove their tariffs. And speaking of tariffs, maybe we ought to drop OUR tariffs that inflate American sugar prices, so that we can replace High fructose corn syrup in food with cheap sugar

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TheEyes (1686556)

        I think the strategy we're working on now is to lower tarrifs to nothing and wait for transportation costs to skyrocket.

        There's a new push to have international cargo screened as thoroughly (and expensively) as humans, as a result of two lettterbombs from Lebanon. This'll make shipping to/from China and India horrifically more expensive, which'll be great for the insourcing crowd..

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Koby77 (992785)

        Solution: Why not raise our import tariff rates to match that of our so-called trading partners?

        Because the politicians (and make no mistake, I'm talking both major parties in the U.S.) are bought and paid for by the multinational corporations. They have absolutely no consideration for the trade deficit, or the standard of living for citizens, as long as they can profit from the situation.

        Unfortunately, meaningful economic changes will not occur in the U.S. until there is a large shift in the way voters choose elected officials which allows outside independent candidates without connections to lobbyi

        • by falconwolf (725481) <falconsoaring_2000@NOSPaM.yahoo.com> on Sunday November 07, 2010 @05:16PM (#34156854)

          Solution: Why not raise our import tariff rates to match that of our so-called trading partners?

          Because the politicians (and make no mistake, I'm talking both major parties in the U.S.) are bought and paid for by the multinational corporations.

          That's a great idea, if you want to start another Great Deprerssion [wikipedia.org]. Protectionist laws like the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act [state.gov] virtually shutdown international trade causing the world's economy to collapse. US exports themselves declined by 61% [wikipedia.org], falling from "US$5.4 billion to US$2.1 billion". Before Pres Herbert Hoover signed it more than a 1000 [answers.com] economists warned him not to, but of course he did. In retaliation other national governments passed their own protectionist laws.

          Falcon

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MachDelta (704883)

      It works the other way too. Ever hear of the Chicken Tax? It annihilated the light truck industry. People like to bitch about how many large trucks and SUVs are on the road (and how fuel inefficient they are), but the reality is your own government is almost entirely responsible for that. Manufacturers (even "domestic" ones who were supposed to benefit from the tax) have to do stupid things like assemble trucks and vans overseas, then partially disassemble it, ship it to the US, and then reassemble it again

  • yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bartok (111886) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @01:50PM (#34155392)

    "Create job abd raise the standard of living in both countries".

    This statement is only true if you count the rich getting richer in the US. I fail to see how losing your middle class income job to outsourcing raises your stadard of living.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Skapare (16644)

      The correct figured to determine overall national prosperity is to take the median income (not the average), and divide that by the Gini coefficient [wikipedia.org].

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Rockoon (1252108)
        If given the choice to trade places with a completely random person selected from the population of all the other countries on the planet, even the poorest Americans (for that matter, the poorest from any 1st world nation) would be well served by turning down the option to do so.

        This fact highlights a severe problem with your rationalization. You dont seem to have a real grasp of how bad it is in most places around the world.

        Literally billions of people around the world worry about where and when they a
    • Re:yeah right (Score:5, Informative)

      by Charliemopps (1157495) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:54PM (#34155922)
      Because, while some jobs leave our country, goods made in their country are cheaper. If shipping a job to India lowers the average wage here by 10% but the price of goods goes down by 20%, that's a net gain.
      • Re:yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rakarra (112805) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @04:07PM (#34156466)

        Because, while some jobs leave our country, goods made in their country are cheaper. If shipping a job to India lowers the average wage here by 10% but the price of goods goes down by 20%, that's a net gain.

        Only past a certain level. If someone is right on the line and the wage lowering pushes them below the poverty line, it's a great blow to standard of living, as they can't afford those goods anymore, even at a low price.

        Basic expenses, food, electricity, gas, even rents in most areas have not, and do not, as a trend, go down. There is a certain minimum that is required, and if wages go below that point, then that person is screwed. Oh, a new TV or a new car cost 20% less now? That's great, except they can barely make rent.

        So you have an expanding upper class, an expanding lower class, and a contracting middle class.

  • by Nerdfest (867930) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @01:59PM (#34155456)
    His job will not likely be outsourced to India for quite some time.
  • IBM & company (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:03PM (#34155486)

    Obama should gather a little bit of data on the tech sector. IBM alone has hired 80,000 people in India in the last 8 years. Meanwhile, my colleagues and I have not had raises in the last 5 years. We aren't a group of chump manufacturing people putting tops on bottoms either. We develop a lot of the firmware in the high end systems, and do high level hardware design. We've been told no back fills in the US. The only new people are in cheaper regions.

    I'm sure our friends at HP, Oracle, Dell, etc are up to the same nonsense.

    • Re:IBM & company (Score:5, Interesting)

      by roman_mir (125474) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:50PM (#34155888) Homepage Journal

      If I were IBM top brass, I'd do the same thing exactly.

      Why hire and keep people in USA rather than anywhere in Asia, now in India, later in China, the in Mongolia, I don't care?

      The USA has stupid income taxes, it has stupid payroll taxes, it has regulations that would force me to overpay the employees. The stupid regulations that would make me responsible for employees' healthcare! All the unions, etc.etc.

      Of-course I'd get rid of as many people as possible in the shortest time frame and hire people all over the world where I wouldn't be faced with the same regulations and rules.

      That's just pure common sense and pure liquidity.

      --

      Now, of-course everybody is aware that large corporations have always enjoyed disproportionate access to gov't officials by buying politicians through campaign donations, fundraisers, lobbying, etc. IBM has gained plenty through all of this, so IBM is in a cushy place compared to any new start up that would aim at any part of IBM's business.

      But now realize, that while IBM is a massive company, like most companies that are backed by gov't, protected by gov't from any new competition, and at the same time the same rules apply to small start ups, where they are in disproportionate disadvantage to the existing company because to an existing large compnay/monopoly, the rules and regulations are trivial cost of business, since they are established and have solid cash flow.

      A start up does not have a cash flow. A start up would have to comply with rules and regulations that would make it impossible for a startup really to take off.

      IBM is not even an interesting example of this, if you want to start your own hedge fund, you are screwed. You have to be a millionaire already to be able to pay all the compliance costs for all the new regulations that are constantly coming out.

      Bills that force you to collect data about the customers, effectively turning you int an IRS and a CIA agent, an unpaid agent, an agent that has to pay out of his own pocket to set up all the system necessary to keep track of all transactions and report them to IRS and the rest of the gov't.

      The Patriot act alone probably made start ups in hedge funding impossible.

      --

      So honestly, USA is not a country that is conducive to new business and that's exactly what it needs - new business. But it's overloaded with bills and rules and laws and regulations and various expectations and lawsuits, it's just too much red tape.

      Obviously it makes much more sense to start a business in Asia.

      Today, ironically, China is a much more free place to start your own business and succeed than USA. People used to come to US to be more Free and to try and achieve something because the system was created to allow people to achieve success, now it's nowhere near anything like that. China now is more Free in an economic sense than the US.

      Oh oh, and all this inflation, all this money printing, it's not helping at all. Inflation and eventual destruction of USD and US consumer, why start a business in US unless you are masochistic?

    • Re:IBM & company (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SashaMan (263632) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @03:36PM (#34156222)

      While I understand your position, the statement "We aren't a group of chump manufacturing people" highlights the problems with many people's thinking. For decades we off-shored manufacturing jobs, and the general sentiment from college educated white collar workers was "Sorry, that's the way a dynamic economy works, you need to upgrade your skills." Thus, given that this way of doing business is now biting you in the ass, I'm surprised that you still think you are so different from "chump manufacturing people".

      The problem with our economy is that we are growing the classes of people who are fundamentally unemployable. While it's nice to say you need more training, the fact is that many people will never have the skills to be a software architect or a Hollywood director or a Wall Street banker. For millions of minimum wage people, blue collar workers, and growing number of white collar workers like paralegals, programmers, etc., capitalism is not working (and that doesn't mean I think any of the other ...ism bugaboos are the answer)

  • by mim (535591) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:05PM (#34155498)
    Is President Obama taking into account MY personal costs when I require internet tech support and have to use my cell phone minutes? Not to mention the difficulties of the language barrier when you can hardly understand what they're saying due to their thick accents that further complicates matters and takes up yet more of my valuable time? Does he understand that they can hardly understand me either, so we go back & forth repeating ourselves trying to resolve the issue, taking up yet more time and costing ME more money?? I think not.
  • Historic reality (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hackingbear (988354) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:05PM (#34155504)
    What he said about India could have well applied to China more, as the US exports more products to China than to India. But he, and the other politicians, did not say the same things to China. The only reason being that China is now the main competitor and so we have to demonize it and please countries like India and Vietnam, exactly like how we pleased China 30 years ago -- opened up our market without asked for the equivalent level of opening up, established relation with Mao's regime which was a million times more suppressive than the current one, and kicked out Taiwan from th UN, in order to fight against the then biggest competitor -- the Soviet Union. The problem with this strategy is that while we may constraint one competitor, we are creating another new major one for ourselves down the road. And we the common people pay the costs. History repeats itself again and again.
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:11PM (#34155566) Homepage Journal

    The US trade deficit with India [census.gov] is already over $7B this year through August; heading to top $10B this year. That will be among the highest annual deficits, though Bush/Cheney got deficits as high as $12B+. August 2009 saw the only monthly trade surplus with India in well over 20 years, $34 million; the rest of the months total to something like a quarter $TRILLION more spent on India than India spent on the US. It's obvious that the parallel growth in the US and India leaves the US with less money from our jobs and more money in India for its jobs.

    Of course, the corporate profits on all those jobs are not counted in trade stats. The real competition isn't between US labor vs Indian labor. It's between labor in either country, and the corporate owners who run the system, keeping the profits among themselves and their banker partners.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by orphiuchus (1146483)
      The US trade deficit is about 4%, just like China, India, and Germany's surplus is about 4%. Its significant, but its being horribly miss-represented by our politicians. If we actually closed the trade deficit(and specifically went after China for currency devaluation which is what Geithner is doing now) we would lose the low cost of living we all enjoy(no more $.75 stacks lined paper at Walmart) and we would make it impossible for foreign creditors to buy any more of our debt. It sounds like a good thing t
  • by dave562 (969951) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:12PM (#34155578) Journal

    It is getting to the point where outsourcing will start costing US companies money. In my current employment situation, we outsource the management of the network infrastructure to AT&T. They manage the firewalls, load balancers and switches. However everything is managed from Singapore. Whenever I need to discuss network design decisions or changes with a real Cisco certified engineer, I have to do it on Singapore time. They don't have any engineers in America anymore. All of their project managers seem to be in India. They must be a getting a great discount, because my PM doesn't know jack. Every time I need a question answered, he has to ask someone else.

    Anyone who has dealt with AT&T knows that getting change orders processed is a complete PITA. When you add a 12 hour time difference on top of it, it is amazing that anything gets done at all.

    Our solution is that we are going to hire a network engineer here in America. AT&T can bugger off. We are an American company. We are hosting our servers in an American data center on US soil. Our vendor should have people who can work with us during our regular business hours. I'm all for having people on the other side of the world who can do things during a midnight (local time) maintenance window. I'm not all for having to wait until 9pm to have a conference call to discuss things. I'm even more put off by dealing with people who barely speak my language and don't have the technical competence to keep up.

  • 25% US Unemployment (Score:4, Informative)

    by beaker8000 (1815376) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:20PM (#34155640)
    Yes, thats the actual US unemployment rate when you take into account those who gave up looking. And in return for outsourcing jobs he cites $10B in export deals. Really? That's 1/8 of AAPL's yearly revenue. That's 1/60 of what the Fed just printed to buy Treasury bonds.
  • by dkleinsc (563838) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:29PM (#34155712) Homepage

    The primary source of this entire argument that outsourcing everything to India or China is good for America is Larry Summers. Mr Summers served as Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton, where he orchestrated NAFTA and the continued opening of the US market to China with the exact same arguments as now. During the Bush years, he served as the president of Harvard, where he supervised a massive drop in the endowment and massive annoyance to everybody who had to work with him, until he was booted out over some foolish remarks about the capabilities of women in science. And more recently under Obama, he served as the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, which I'm positive is where Obama got the ideas that he's spewing here.

    He's been wrong throughout his entire career, but because his mistakes make a small group of people very rich, he manages to get more and more power. Compare that to someone like Paul Krugman, who regularly gets his forecasts correct but is ignored because his policy responses would involve giving ordinary people a helping hand.

  • by drgregoryhouse (1909704) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:33PM (#34155738)
    they deserve jobs India can do for a cheaper price?
    • by mrnobo1024 (464702) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @03:10PM (#34156054)

      Why do companies think they deserve to sell the same product to Americans for 10 times the price it sells for in the third world? Once you start talking about products rather than jobs, suddenly all the bullshit rhetoric about "free trade" disappears. It's obvious that the purpose of "free trade" is to screw over the average American for the benefit of the few rich - we're forced to compete with third-world wages, but don't have the option of paying third-world prices.

      Besides, the whole concept of "deserving" a certain standard of living is bogus. A medieval peasant had a shitty standard of living. How do we "deserve" a standard of living so much higher, just for being born a few centuries later? We don't "deserve" it, but we take it anyway, because we can. The rich are already taking this line of thinking to its logical conclusion... the working class would do well to do the same.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TheSync (5291)

        Why do companies think they deserve to sell the same product to Americans for 10 times the price it sells for in the third world?

        If you could sell it for 9 times, you'd win the market, so go do it if you are so smart!

        The truth is that most imports are incredibly cheaper than the cost of the same goods produced in the US. They have enabled us to live with a far higher quality at the same income level.

  • by houghi (78078) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @03:00PM (#34155954)

    He is in India. So he talks nice to India. WOW! Welcome to politics 101.
    I am sure he will say the opposite when he is somewhere else. That is what politicians do.

    A president is still a politician. Do not think he is above any other politician, even if you might want or expect it.

  • by Dan667 (564390) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @05:00PM (#34156760)
    It encourages companies to move U.S. jobs overseas. I have seen first hand the decisions being made due to this terrible law.

You will be successful in your work.

Working...