Outsourcing - another problem and solution - but still one that costs Americans jobs.
My sister made a service call the other day about her computer. She noticed the answerer had an Indian accent, and asked if she knew of a good Indian restaurant (my sister is in Philadelphia). She got an adress - in Bombay. For some reason, the one answering thought she was calling from India, even though they're trained to respond as though they were in the United States.
And I agree with you, au. This is a problem that has been sneaking up on us. In insidious ways. I remember years ago when top designers in this country, who were still paying attention to things that have disappeared (like fine pleating and beadwork) took that work overseas - outsourcing - because it was cheaper. They claimed they got better workmanship overseas, but basically it was because it was cheaper. This was true in other industries too - and many times screws didn't fit, bars were too short - but it was cheaper. The unions tried to fight this, but they lost.
And as we went more and more into the service industry, we stopped a lot of the manufacturing. Used to be shop classes, vocational training schools - but then we all got a little snobby about education, too.
There are many factors that have led to this, but........how can this administration have come into office two and a half years ago to a budget SURPLUS (unheard of), and depleted it before there was an Iraqi war; before a lot of things they're blaming it on?
Paul O'Neill tried to say some things, but they booted him out fast. Clinton's people understood money, and the economy - remember the inelegant slogan they came in on - and it showed. This administaration seems to have no plan for anything, and it shows.
mamajuana
The last thing in the world I would do is to defend the Bush economic theories. He makes voodoo economics look like a panacea. However, the blame for the outflow of jobs and industries from this nation cannot in all honesty be placed on his plate.
As for the surplus which he squandered much of it was garnered thru empty industries. Those which were supported by a promise and nothing more. Much of what could be termed real industry and manufacturing had already flown the coop.
As for India. They have become the back office for many computer operations. That reminds me when last I discussed this subject someone told me not to worry our industry would be replenished with new ideas and industries. Example given was computers and data processing. By the way call AOL for technical assistance and check out the accents.
(India is not just the back office, it's right here, front and center! Some of the best, most innovative computer people in the US are post-grad Indian residents. They teach at universities, they set up their own firms, they have become key managers and techies at existing tech firms... Some university/tech communities like Austin now have significant Indian communities.)...
The argument against what we call socialism (support for necessary goods and services coming from a fair tax on profits and gains) is emotional, not rational, in the US. The best economies are a well regulated mixture of capitalism and "socialism," a natural balance. Read on:
Tartarin
When I said back office. I was reflecting on the operations being performed off shore. Not those residing and working in the states. They of course work in and contribute to the American economy.
Scrat, I leave the interpretation to the way you desire to see it - I care not how you work with facts!
A vast number of those Indians onshore are green card holders. They were brought in during the booming ninties to help with the "lack" of labor in the USA, to be diminished if more US help becomes available. Of course, that hasn't happened - I know not the current status of "new imports".
By the way, I am reporting the facts as I see it here - not taking a position. I know and am friends with a number of these green card Indians.
Here's some interesting numbers in today's San Jose Mercury News on the jobless. Santa Clara County has 5.2% of California's labor force. 10.5% applied for extended unemployment benefits in the first quarter of 2003. 196,200 jobs were lost from December 2000 to May 2003. Nationwide unemployment for more than six months is 2 million. The unemployment rate in the county is 8 percent vs 6.4 percent for the country. c.i.
Me too, Bill. They have tended to wind up on the leading edge of the tech fields -- university professorships, innovative firms...
We do have the tools to stop or moderate out-sourcing, but being the greedy consumers that we are, we out-source rather than junk the piece of tech we enjoy. No, Mr. Dell and Mr. Gates? we won't deal with you anymore? Hmmm, guess we wouldn't go THAT far for the sake of American workers...!
BillW
The offshore operations are those being performed by Indians in India. Not those here in the US with green cards.
Yes, I understand that au. I was just addressing the Indians in America situation. The area you talk of is of equal or maybe even more concern - here is an article I found that addresses this issue from many angles - (didn't mean to confuse the issue
)
Quote:Analysis: Globalisation of services: the backlash begins
26 June 2003
EC Newsdesk
Large companies are increasingly shifting service functions to developing countries and are insufficiently prepared for the likely political and reputational fall-out, argues Paul Morrison.
http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=773
BTW, both onshore and offshore use of foreign labor is where a lot of the Bush and Reagan "Economic Stimulation" package has gone to advance!!!!!!!!!! Trickle down economics at work.
There is no American loyalty and patriotism amongst large Corporations, and therefore, IMHO, the CEO, Directors and top executives!
Bill
There is no loyalty because that which is worshipped is the almighty buck. In addition most large corporations are multinational. You would be surprised how many so called American corporations have foreign ownership with the reverse being equally true.
I've notice the trend of late - yes!
Still doesn't dim this point one iota in my view "There is no American loyalty and patriotism amongst large Corporations, and therefore, IMHO, the CEO, Directors and top executives!" - Which extends to most of the Bush Regime!
Yes, I'd go along with that, Bill. Also, the larger the flag the less loyal... (You shoulda seen the American flags painted on the sides of cars by local dealers just after 9/11 -- and the cars sold -- of course -- that's the point, isn't it?)
(No, no, it's a public service we're doing...)
Don't buy their stuff...
au - Read again. I'm not laying this on Bush's head alone. This all started quite a while ago. One of my bigger problems with Bush is him trying to blame Clinton, while not explaining what happened to his legacy of a budget surplus.
A lot of what we have is a matter of attitude - and it's not simple. In a social crowd, if you say you are an automechanic, you are greeted pleasantly, but looked down upon somewhat, because you lack the prestige of being a doctor. Now, a lot of us can't get along without automechanics (many of whom make better money than we do), but it doesn't make them social equals. Gradually, in this country, there's been a decline in the perception of what an acceptable job is. And that, coupled with greed and outsized expectations of what a decent salary would be, has made us into almost a cariacature of a capitalist country.
Joblessness is an extremely serious issue. Under Bush, corporations and companies have downsized in record numbers, streamlining their companies and increasing profits for shareholders - but at what cost? And the wrongdoings by all these companies have had a slap on the wrist. Which is one reason why the Martha Stewart case seems almost vindictive.
I think we are in a disastrous time in our economic history - not only the figures, but the thinking. And I don't think it will end anytime soon.
The Martha Stewart case does seem stage-managed because she's a media figure, a perfect symbol -- a symbol substituted for the reality. The reality is we need a bottom-down shake-up (not a typo!) of corporations and, face it, it ain't gonna happen. Instead we get Martha. I don't really feel sorry for her, but I do feel sorry for America. We get "male model" (Mailer's phrase) Bush instead of a corporate cartel as head of government, too (though the reality is...)
Martha and George (!) are patsies, the pair of them, just venal enough to deserve what they get. What WE get is capitalism run rampant, serving only those who bypass humanity and community. And it's constructed in such a way is that it's not likely that the buyers -- that's us -- will give up supporting them by continuing to buy and use their goods and services...
Tartar, We're kind of in a rock and a hard place. We gotta buy them goods and services, because we ain't got any choices. c.i.
Tartarin, Martha is also Democrat, hmmmmmmmmmmmm!
Which maybe is a hidden reason, Bill?
