It's regression to the mean. We're not bringing them up to our standard of living, but bringing us down to theirs. India has been a major player in the IT services world for over 20 years now and they still shit in the streets there.Originally Posted by blues
Kind of like we're doing in San Fran...
Chris
Well, that paints a rosy picture. Sidewalk art taken to the extreme.
There's nothing civil about this war.
More thoughts on this - there is a carefully researched paper released in 2016 by economists at Notre Dame, the University of California, Berkeley, and the Office of Tax Analysis at the U.S. Department of Treasury. To quote EPI:
Their findings should put an end to the notion that H-1Bs are in any way good for U.S. workers. The research solves the problem of causality by employing a natural experiment. Two types of businesses were studied, those that applied for and received visas through the H-1B random “lottery” (because more employers want H-1Bs than are annually available, the government has to allocate them via lottery), and those that applied but failed in the lottery. If the H-1B visa raised wages, led to job creation, or spurred innovation, the companies that were awarded the visas should do better on each of those counts. In fact, they did not. On the contrary, over the eight years following the hiring of an H-1B worker, U.S. workers were displaced, wages were lowered, and there was no positive effect on innovation.
https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/upl...ch/pdf/h1b.pdf
Again, my position is not to suggest that high skilled immigration is wrong (it isn't!), but that large outsourcing firms like Infosys, Wipro and Tata (chart for FY2008) that are the leading users of the H1-B programs have a negative correlation for American workers vs. companies like Apple, and Google who largely have advanced degrees from US universities.
Me too. But we can't do it by resting on our laurels or continuing to do the same thing over and over. Transactional work can't be seen as a career any longer.
I've worked for companies doing on-shoring because the costs you mention ("rework, missed SLAs, etc") didn't get priced in. It doesn't really bother me that short-sighted decision makers get charged twice. Once "cheaply" to get it done, and again afterwards more expensively to get it right. That sort of pain is good and necessary.[/quote]
Problem is, the money comes from different buckets and customers buy on price more often than not. It's a rare customer at the corporate level that will sign the more expensive contract unless the less expensive option is obviously unsuited. We won a contract like that last year because the customer could tell from our conversations we knew what we were doing and had "been there, done that". I sat in a boardroom with those guys and walked them through our service, how we could provide them the personalized support they wanted, etc. Components of that service was based in the US too, but that customer was primarily a US-based one (HQ in US, but some manufacturing overseas).
Our competitor couldn't be bothered to visit in person and was providing a cookie cutter option.
We've never been busier ourselves.
Yup, agree completely.
Chris
I don't have any problems with protecting US workers from global market forces. I also don't believe that it can be done in an accurate and selective way; if anything, current H1B thing is an evidence to that. As long as we're ok with any unintended consequences, I am all good with whatever the plan is.
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
Reply With Quote