7 Articles About Job Destruction
7 Articles About Job Destruction
Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 2:43 AM
JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER
www.ZaZona.com
Article 1:
(Link not Available)
The loss of architecture and engineering jobs hasn't been quantified as
well as the loss of computer science jobs. A widely referenced 2003
Forrester Research report projected 473,000 computer science jobs will
leave the U.S. by 2015. However, sources say global competition is
increasing for architecture and engineering firms. Large, international
design/build contractors offshore the most work, architects and
engineers say, but small- and medium-sized firms also use lower-wage
workers to save time and cut costs. Engineers say firms most frequently
offshore engineering on power plants and industrial projects such as
automotive, pulp/paper, food/beverage and manufacturing facilities, but
there's also potential on conventional housing and office buildings.
Engineering and architecture work that commands $80 an hour in the U.S.
might cost $10 to $20 an hour overseas
Article 2:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/31/35084.html
'My job went to India...' t-shirt back in stock
We're pleased to announce to all those readers desperate to get their
hands on our instant classic My job went to India and all I got was
this lousy t-shirt, that said item is now back on the shelves and ready
for immediate dispatch. Which is all very timely, given that the
outsourcing of callcentre jobs to India continues unabated. Still,
you've got to laugh, haven't you? Or maybe not, according to Steve who
posed this email question:
er... where is your new pride and joy made exactly??
Harry Mantheakis thinks he can answer that one:
I suppose there's a fair chance your 'lost my job to India' t-shirts
are made in India :-)
Sorry, Harry, but you're way off the mark. In fact, all of our t-shirts
are made in Indonesia by eight-year-old children working 27-hour days
for a mere $10 per week. It's not much, but it's all they can afford,
as the old joke goes. Boom boom!
Upon arrival in the UK, our printers - highly-skilled Albanian gypsies
on day release from the local immigration centre - lovingly handpaint
each and every shirt using a single badger bristle. A single garment
can take up to eleven months to complete, and our enthusiastic artists
welcome the tin of powdered milk they receive for every 100 shirts
successfully bagged and boxed.
Article 3:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/01/19/no_jobs/index.html
The no jobs president
Don't believe the Bush administration's hand-wringing over its pathetic
record on employment. The president's backers want a stagnant job
market -- it keeps the help from getting uppity.
Here's the president's speech: "If an American employer is offering a
job that American citizens are not willing to take, we ought to welcome
into our country a person who will fill that job." This program will
permit any employer to admit any worker. From any country. At any time.
Article 4:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Veon/joan7.htm
THE YEAR OF THE MONKEY AND CHINA'S NEW ROLE IN THE WORLD ECONOMY
Now why is China so profitable? It is no secret that their people are
being paid slave labor wages to work in their factories. With 1.4B
people, their slave labor benefits all the countries of the world, thus
undermining economies with higher paid employees that are forced to
downsize, outsource, privatize and reduce wages. China's average wage
is 20% of what is being paid to workers in Malaysia and Taiwan and 10%
of what is being paid to workers in Singapore.
Currently there are 200 million Chinese who need to be absorbed into
the global workforce. This equates finding jobs for the entire U.S. or
European workforce!
Article 5:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/business/story/8164976p-9096517c.html
U.S. overseas payrolls grow
The accelerated trend in offshoring is also an indication of an
economic philosophy that's been developing for decades.
"In the last 20 years, we in the United States have accepted that the
most important job a corporation does is to satisfy its shareholders,"
said Martin Kenney, a professor of human and community development at
the University of California, Davis. Under that philosophy, a firm
would feel compelled to jettison a $75,000-a-year accountant in the
United States for an Indian with equivalent skills who would earn
$12,000 a year, especially when competitors are doing the same thing,
he said.
Article 6:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17601
The Dark Side of the Outsourcing Revolution
Just as the success of H-1B visa workers during the Internet boom led
to an anti-immigrant backlash, the outsourcing revolution faces its own
pushback. As anger builds over claims of lost jobs, American unions
have emerged as aggressive opponents of outsourcing, and their rhetoric
often displays thinly disguised xenophobia. From London, Theresa Law
wrote, "Give me an intelligent, well-educated, polite Indian on the end
of a telephone handling my customer queries, over an ignorant, rude,
unhelpful and unwilling British call handler any day!"
Article 7:
http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/story/0,4567,106065,00.html
Top White House aide defends outsourcing
Call against Bill to prohibit government jobs from being sent overseas.
Contracting jobs overseas is 'simply the latest manifestation of free
trade', a top White House economic aide said in defence of a practice
used by American companies.
January 14, 2004
Some firms seek A&E expertise offshore
By ARI KRAMER e-mail ari@djc.com
Journal Staff Reporter
Seattle engineer Jon Magnusson said his firm has projects in 35
countries. He consults with engineers in other countries -- but said
when he hires one, he pays a U.S. wage.
Structural engineer Richard Weingardt will have plenty of anecdotes to
offer when he speaks at a National Society of Professional Engineers
conference in Washington, D.C., this week.
Weingardt's topic -- rising global competition -- affects him
personally. He said clients often have him manage conceptual
engineering work but then they outsource detailing, drawings and
computer-aided design work to China, India, Pakistan or "any place
where they have low-cost engineers."
Weingardt said a Manila firm recently called him to see if he wanted to
outsource routine engineering work on a major Colorado public-works
project. Weingardt said using Filipino engineers could have cut his
costs by two-thirds. It was a tough decision, he said, but he turned
the offer down.
"I'm not concerned, and I certainly don't feel threatened by it. If
someone wants to do it, more power to them."
-- Jon Magnusson,
Magnusson Klemencic Associates
"It's a big temptation," said Weingardt, of Englewood, Colo.-based
Richard Weingardt Consultants, which focuses on structural and civil
engineering. But he said he has good employees he wants to keep busy
and is worried about the precedent it would set.
Information-technology and accounting firms are sending more
white-collar jobs from the United States to India, Pakistan, China and
other low-wage countries, and many firms and trade groups see similar
moves in America's architecture and engineering industries.
Weingardt said he's getting more offers to "offshore" engineering work
and hears other engineers are doing it to save money. He said agents in
the U.S. and overseas contact him, offering to hook him up with
offshore firms. "You get it from all avenues," he said.
The loss of architecture and engineering jobs hasn't been quantified as
well as the loss of computer science jobs. A widely referenced 2003
Forrester Research report projected 473,000 computer science jobs will
leave the U.S. by 2015.
However, sources say global competition is increasing for architecture
and engineering firms. Large, international design/build contractors
offshore the most work, architects and engineers say, but small- and
medium-sized firms also use lower-wage workers to save time and cut
costs.
Round the clock
Many firms have offices overseas or work with architects or engineers
in other countries. A U.S. firm may offshore individual projects or
ally with firms in one or more foreign countries.
"In the early 1970s, we were the world experts. There are experienced
firms all over the world now."
-- Richard Weingardt,
Richard Weingardt Consultants
Architects and engineers say it's also becoming common to save time and
money by using information technology to work around the clock. Working
20 hours a day, a six-month project could take three months.
The Internet makes it easy. Engineers and architects may e-mail large
files to offshore firms, who download the files and e-mail back their
work, sources say.
In some cases, architects and engineers post drawings on a secure Web
site, where others can also work on them.
U.S. architects and engineers check the work, which may have been
supervised by a U.S. firm's overseas office or by a representative of
the U.S. firm working in the offshore firm's office.
However, sources say, supervision can also happen mostly online or by
phone.
In Seattle, city law requires a licensed architect or engineer of
record to stamp plans for standard buildings and additions worth more
than $30,000, said Jon Siu, principal engineer in Seattle's Design and
Planning Department.
Siu said Washington state law requires direct supervision by a
structural engineer. But he said city and state laws vary, and
jurisdictions generally don't investigate whether contractors hire
out-of-state or offshore firms for routine architectural or engineering
work.
Siu said direct supervision could take place over the phone and online.
"All we're looking at is the stamp on the drawings," Siu said.
$80 an hour vs. $20
Engineers say firms most frequently offshore engineering on power
plants and industrial projects such as automotive, pulp/paper,
food/beverage and manufacturing facilities, but there's also potential
on conventional housing and office buildings.
Engineering and architecture work that commands $80 an hour in the U.S.
might cost $10 to $20 an hour overseas, and the savings can add up,
sources say. For example, a $500 million project might have a $10
million to $12 million design fee. Design drawings might cost $6
million to $8 million in the U.S. -- or about $2 million offshore.
"It happens all the time," Weingardt said. "Any place you've got a
major structural steel order, I'm sure it's happened."
Friedl Bohm, market mentor for NBBJ's international office in Columbus,
Ohio, said NBBJ offshores routine work on projects in other countries
but not in the U.S.
"They understand the construction practices of the country better than
we do, and it's less expensive," Bohm said of offshoring on overseas
projects. Bohm said NBBJ has considered offshoring on U.S. projects
"but it doesn't seem to work well for us."
"There's a lack of understanding of the construction methods and
processes in the U.S., and it's difficult to communicate," he said. "It
might be our own oversight. ...We haven't been willing to take the
risks associated with it."
However, as information technology and international expertise
improves, Bohm said he won't be surprised if NBBJ offshores parts of
U.S.-based projects in the future -- maybe not a complex bridge across
a convention hall, but possibly a large, relatively simple housing
project.
"You can save as much as half of your fee," Bohm said. "If you can
manage it, it makes sense."
An executive on a team competing for the Seattle Monorail Project's
Green Line contract said he's seen U.S. firms offshore hundreds of
engineering jobs.
The executive, who works for a large international firm and has
training in architecture and engineering, said he doesn't anticipate
offshoring on the Green Line, because the project has a short schedule
and requires a lot of collaboration.
But generally, sources say, offshoring can create a competitive
advantage. "Engineering is considered a commodity today," said the
executive, who asked not to be identified. "It's sort of an
undercurrent. It's not something you put on your marquee."
Resisting the trend
Some firms appear to be resisting the offshoring trend.
The closest Weber + Thompson has come to offshoring is buying
architectural models from Canada, where they can cost 50 percent less,
said Kristen Scott, a partner with the Seattle-based firm.
"Every once in a while (the idea) gets tossed around," said Scott, who
also is board president of the American Institute of Architects
Seattle.
Structural engineer Jon Magnusson of Seattle's Magnusson Klemencic
Associates said he uses technology to link engineers around the country
and overseas, but he doesn't offshore any work. He said he consults
with engineers in other countries -- but when he hires one, he pays a
U.S. wage.
"I'm not concerned, and I certainly don't feel threatened by it. If
someone wants to do it, more power to them," Magnusson said of using
offshoring to cut costs. He said his firm has projects in 43 states and
35 countries. "We believe the best way to do (a project) is to have
everyone at one location."
How to compete
Engineer David Ruby of Farmington, Mich.-based Ruby &Associates said
offshore outsourcing has become a reality in the engineering world --
particularly on projects with longer lead times. "I don't see any
engineering that couldn't be put overseas," Ruby said.
And that disturbs him.
"I've got 25 people here I need to keep busy," Ruby said. Engineers in
other countries "are doing work for roughly 10 percent of what it costs
to do it in the U.S. ... for $7 or $8 an hour. Once you get past the
concept of a structure, the physical modeling is just geometry."
"It doesn't necessarily have to be done here. It can be done anywhere,"
Ruby said. "...The whole world has opened up. I don't think you can
fight it but I think you need to recognize it's there."
Weingardt said offshoring is lifting the economies of developing
countries but hurting the U.S.
"We used to do all the design work and prepare the construction
documents," Weingardt said. "In the early 1970s, we were the world
experts. There are experienced firms all over the world now."
Engineer Howard Schirmer, a former executive of CH2M Hill
International, owns an Englewood, Colo., consulting firm that links
U.S. engineers to offshore expertise.
To compete globally, Schirmer said U.S. engineers need to focus more on
innovation and less on routine engineering work.
"The world is changing, and you have to adapt," said Schirmer of
Transnational Associates, who sits on an advisory committee to U.S.
Secretary of Commerce. "There's quite a strong interest in doing this."
Ari Kramer can be reached by email or by phone at (206) 622-8272.
Copyright )2002 Seattle Daily Journal and djc.com.
Comments? Questions? Contact us.
E--MAIL ari@djc.com
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/31/35084.html
'My job went to India...' t-shirt back in stock
By CashnCarrion
Posted: 23/01/2004 at 12:50 GMT
Get The Reg wherever you are, with The Mobile Register
We're pleased to announce to all those readers desperate to get their
hands on our instant classic My job went to India and all I got was
this lousy t-shirt, that said item is now back on the shelves and ready
for immediate dispatch.
Which is all very timely, given that the outsourcing of callcentre jobs
to India continues unabated.
Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you? Or maybe not, according to
Steve who posed this email question:
er... where is your new pride and joy made exactly??
Harry Mantheakis thinks he can answer that one:
I suppose there's a fair chance your 'lost my job to India' t-shirts
are made in India :-)
Sorry, Harry, but you're way off the mark. In fact, all of our t-shirts
are made in Indonesia by eight-year-old children working 27-hour days
for a mere $10 per week. It's not much, but it's all they can afford,
as the old joke goes. Boom boom!
Upon arrival in the UK, our printers - highly-skilled Albanian gypsies
on day release from the local immigration centre - lovingly handpaint
each and every shirt using a single badger bristle. A single garment
can take up to eleven months to complete, and our enthusiastic artists
welcome the tin of powdered milk they receive for every 100 shirts
successfully bagged and boxed.
Finally, crates packed to bursting with top-quality apparel are carried
across country by unemployed, barefoot Liverpudlians who work for no
more than a can of strong lager, a packet of fags and a Lotto
scratchcard a day.
Which is why we can offer you our shirts at an unbeatable #14.99
rather than the #437 they would cost were they manufactured in the UK
by British workers. You see, if you add up the cost of premises, wages,
benefits, taxes, etc, etc, you will see that is is simply not
economically viable to keep these jobs in the UK. Nothing to do with
profit. No, really. .
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/01/19/no_jobs/index.html
The no jobs president
Don't believe the Bush administration's hand-wringing over its pathetic
record on employment. The president's backers want a stagnant job
market -- it keeps the help from getting uppity.
By James K. Galbraith
Jan. 19, 2004 | On Tuesday night, President Bush will use his State
of the Union to claim that tax cuts have restored economic growth, and
he may mention the stock market's rise last year. But the transcendent
economic issue this election year isn't the growth rate. It isn't the
stock market. It also isn't the budget deficit the tax cuts caused. And
it isn't even the rate of unemployment. It's the number of people in
this country who have decent work -- and the number who don't.
Here's a chart, taken almost directly from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. It shows the month-to-month change in total employment, and
how it fell from an average gain of 236,000 during the Clinton
presidency to an average loss of 66,000 per month under George Bush.
(The chart shows payroll jobs, averaged over three months.) The arrow,
which I added, shows when
Bush took office.
Economic numbers don't get more clear than this:
Next, notice when the deep dive ends. That's right: It was just after
Sept. 11, 2001. It's true that President Bush ought not to be blamed
for the job losses of the Internet bust. But neither can he properly
blame his troubles on Osama bin Laden: Job losses slowed down when the
war on terror began.
Bush should be judged on the record after that -- on the creation of
jobs in 2002 and 2003. After all, the recession officially ended in
November 2001. How many new jobs did we get since then? An average loss
of 22,000 jobs every month.
There are no new jobs. Total job growth in the Clinton years: 23
million. Total job losses so far in the Bush years: over 2 million.
Total gains in the last six months, since the so-called recovery
supposedly accelerated in the third quarter? Just 221,000. That's less
than a single month's average under Clinton. And last month? One
thousand new jobs.
How many jobs should there have been? Crudely, the Clinton pace over
three years would have yielded about 8.5 million. Allowing Bush a pass
for 2001, matching Clinton in just two years would have meant 5.6
million new jobs, not the loss of another half a million. Want more?
Lee Price of the Economic Policy Institute has a very useful study
here.
Bush's minions whitewash these figures by pointing to the household
employment survey, which shows more (though not great) job growth.
Here's the main difference: The household survey covers 60,000
households. The payroll survey covers 400,000
businesses (and millions of workers). The payroll survey measures real
jobs. Most agree that the payroll survey, while not perfect (it misses
some new jobs in the upswing), is the better of the two reports.
The household survey does pick up many people who call themselves
self-employed, independent contractors and the like. (When academics do
this, we call it "consulting.") Some would have you believe that this
is the future of the economy, but let's hope not. Most such work is
stopgap, a way to scrape by when regular work is hard to find. Most
people doing it would
abandon it for a real job, if they could, in a minute. Real jobs --
with benefits and a semblance of security -- are better.
True, the unemployment rate doesn't look so bad. But why not? Partly
because many people who can't get unemployment insurance now get
themselves on the disabled rolls if they can. (Disability, the refuge
of the desperate, has been growing very fast.) And the jobless rate did
fall in December. But why? Because many thousands of people stopped
looking for work.
Some retired; a few went back to school; most just went home to wait it
out. Very sensible of them, under these conditions.
The Bush years are a study in deliberately wasted effort: Repeal of the
estate tax. Tax exemption for stock dividends. Ballistic Missile
Defense. The USA PATRIOT Act. The war on Iraq. Each of these
initiatives has a clientele. None of them seriously aims to achieve its
stated goal, be that economic recovery or homeland security or national
security writ large.
The method is clear to any who choose to study closely: It is a method
of subterfuge and deception. It is the systematic and relentless
pursuit of partly hidden agendas, sold to the public with slogans. The
tax cuts were not aimed to produce recovery and jobs; they were a
reward to the rich. The war on Iraq was not waged to help the war on
terror; it was about
getting Saddam, as we have now had confirmed by Paul O'Neill's report
on the Iraq agenda Bush carried from the beginning. Missile defense is
not about North Korea, and still less about Iran or any other "rogue
state"; it's about the contracts. In all these cases, the decision on
what to do came first -- then the circumstances of the day were
arranged to suit.
So it is today on the economy. What does Bush want? He wants a growth
rate high enough to get him through the election. That's obvious. After
that, he doesn't care. His clientele -- the military contractors, oil
companies, pharmaceutical firms and big media that control this
government -- make their money on patents, contracts and the exercise
of monopoly power.
(Case in point: Bush is pressuring impoverished Central Americans, in
trade negotiations, to add 10 years to the length of drug patents.)
These people have no interest in full employment. They like
unemployment, weak labor, low wages and a government that bullies on
their behalf. And after the election, if Bush wins, that is what they
will get for four more
years.
Bush has levers to keep the economy warm through the 2004 vote. Child
credits kicked in during the third quarter of 2003. Households spent
them at once, hence the 8 percent annualized growth rate that
mesmerized the country for a moment. Tax refunds are due in the next
few months; that should give spending another kick. The cost of war was
the first big push that the economy got last year. Now much military
equipment needs replacing; spending on that may be felt soon.
Most important, monetary policy is toeing Bush's line. Alan Greenspan
and his deputies were all over the economists' meetings in San Diego
this month, promising that interest rates will stay down. Don't
misunderstand me: This is the right policy. But for how long will it
last? Low interest rates imperil the global dollar. The pressure to
defend the dollar is
out there. Will it prevail once the election is past? Remember: After
November, George Bush will not care.
And after the election, the stagnation his backers want will not be
hard to achieve. Our economy still faces major barriers to sustained
growth. Capacity utilization in industry is low: a barrier to sustained
growth of investment. Household debt burdens are high: a barrier to
accelerating consumer spending, which will be aggravated when the
housing bubble eventually
pops. Federal, state and local budgets are riddled with structural
deficits; these will not go away with growth. In the states and
localities, spending cuts and tax increases are the only agenda. At the
federal level, the deficit hawks -- a well-meaning group, but prone to
obsess on the wrong issue -- will be on the march next year.
In short, the most likely outlook is for strong growth in the first
half of the year, and stagnation thereafter. Businesses know this. So
they will ramp up production to meet demand, but remain resolutely
reluctant to hire new workers for the long term.
The bad jobs picture is more than just a sign of the failure of
trickle-down. It is a measure of the lack of confidence that ordinary
American business has in the long-term future. Businesses in America
are hard to fool, and they are not expecting another long boom.
The election, in short, will be a race between the campaign propaganda
of growth rates and the realities of scarce jobs, low pay and stagnant
living standards. But reality has a way of holding its own in people's
minds. It's not yet clear, by any means, that truth won't prevail.
And so now comes George Bush, with two more great proposals to get the
country moving again.
The first is immigration "reform," ginned up just before a big summit
in Monterrey, Mexico, to play to the Hispanic vote. The proposal
promises minor conveniences to the estimated 8 million undocumented
workers in this country. But at what price?
The new class of migrants would have to leave when their permits are
up, unless renewed. They would have to leave if fired from their jobs.
In a word, employers would judge who stays in the country and who is
kicked out. Forget labor rights. Forget unions. Also forget family,
home, neighborhood, things like that. Anyone wanting to protect those
things will stay
out of sight.
Worse, workers coming into the program would in practice be giving up
their path to political rights. They would, for the most part, never
become citizens. They would never get to vote. No one will represent
their interests. No one will speak for their schools, their clinics,
their wages. No one will stand in their defense when they are abused on
the job, hurt, sacked,
blacklisted, and sent home.
There is worse still. Bush made clear that this program is not just for
workers presently in the country, as the press has mostly been
reporting. It is not just for those who may soon arrive. No, it is far
broader than that. Here's the president's speech: "If an American
employer is offering a job that American citizens are not willing to
take, we ought to welcome
into our country a person who will fill that job."
This program will permit any employer to admit any worker. From any
country. At any time. The only requirement is that it be for a job
Americans are not willing to take. But it is easy to create such jobs:
Cut wages. Terminate the unions. Lengthen the hours. Speed up the
lines. Chicken farmers have known this for years. Bush's plan is a
blank check for every bad
boss this country has.
There is no reason why principal recruitment of new workers would be
from Mexico. It might be, very massively, from China. Or perhaps from
India, with its large English-speaking population. Temp agencies would
go out on recruiting missions. Some of this competition may displace
Mexican and Central American nationals presently working illegally in
the United States (and hoping to stay). That would only drive them even
further underground.
And for those who take up the program, register as temporary workers,
and then see their permits expire? Bush is at pains to say that he
expects this group to go home. But who will make them? Will the
government organize a mass campaign of roundups and deportations? Or
will the workers just quietly disappear back into the sub-underground
of the truly illegal?
And for those who do go home, who will replace them? Another cohort of
strangers? This is a program to create a rotating underclass of foreign
workers, who never assimilate to American ways or adopt American
values. It's hard to imagine anything worse for our social life -- more
productive of petty crime -- or for that matter, riskier for our
national security.
For millions of citizen workers, what would happen? The answer is
clear: Bad bosses drive out the good. Good bosses will turn bad under
pressure. The terms of our jobs would get worse and worse. Who would
want a citizen worker? A bracero will be so much cheaper, more loyal,
and under control. And who among us, in our right mind, would want to
look for work? Unless,
of course, we needed to eat. Or pay the mortgage. I am not
exaggerating: This is a threat to us all.
What indeed, would be left for citizens to do? Perhaps they will get
first call on that other great Bush idea, the moon base and mission to
Mars. Here we see the hand of Bush's space science advisor, Karl
("Spirit") Rove(r). NASA, you may have noticed, has just sent a mission
to Mars. It was cheap as these things go, safe -- and spectacular. Rove
would take
that money and put it into sending up a human: dumb, dangerous, and
expensive. But I'd be for it, if we could send him on the mission. And
his boss.
Happy New Year. We'll know in November if it really is.
About the writer
James K. Galbraith is a professor at the Lyndon B.
Johnson School of Public Affairs, the University of
Texas at Austin, and Senior Scholar with the Levy
Economics Institute.
Sound Off
Send us a Letter to the Editor
http://www.newswithviews.com/Veon/joan7.htm
THE YEAR OF THE MONKEY AND CHINA'S NEW ROLE IN THE WORLD ECONOMY
By Joan Veon
January 23, 2004
NewsWithViews.com
DAVOS, SWITZERLAND -- Over the last several years, I have noticed and
talked to a number of Chinese reporters at numerous global meetings. I
have been impressed with their knowledge and ability to rapidly switch
from their mother tongue to English, German, French or Italian. Some
might even speak two or three additional languages. At the September
2003 World Trade Organization in Cancun, China along with Brazil and
India helped to form a counter group to the developed countries. Here
at the World Economic Forum, the word "China" evokes dollar signs. As
one Asian businessman said, "Chinese assets in 2004 is good monkey
business" (this is the year of the monkey).
The following is about some very serious monkey business. At a workshop
devoted to China, Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans pointed out
President Bush has been to China twice and he fully supports China's
integration into the global market. China has an average household
savings rate between 30% to 40%. The total amount of household savings
equals 100% of GDP. Our savings rate is between 8% to10% of GDP. It is
true that without American spending, the rest of the world would not
have jobs. The fact that Americans love to consume and that the
multinational corporations have slick marketing ads to tell us what we
should look like, how to dress, where to live and what to drive, says
it all. Furthermore, Americans no longer keep the bulk of their savings
in banks but use the stock market. In another workshop, MorganStanley
economist Stephen Roach bashed Americans for not saving in the bank.
When I asked him about the fact that there has been a very strong
commodification of assets into the stock market and that most American
have been told to invest in the market using mutual funds, he debunked
them using the stock market because of the Nasdaq crash.
The truth of the matter is Americans don't invest in banks any longer
because in 1980 the government passed a law that took away the limit as
to what a bank had to pay. Instead, they allowed banks to pay what the
"market" would bear. Banks tell us that the market will now bear =%
to 2% on savings and certificates of deposit and charges 9.99% to
21.99% on credit cards. Mr. Roach should know that without these
foolish Americans, he would not have a job.
However there is another point to be made with regard to consumers
using the bank to save. When the government needs funds, they borrow
from the banks (your savings and mine). Because Americans don't save
there anymore, it creates a problem for our government to bridge the
gap between income and expenses. Instead, they now have to rely on the
Japanese and Chinese to buy our Treasury bonds and mortgage backed
securities in order to help fund the more than $150B a day the
government needs which acts as a line of credit between our income and
our expenses.
Another question that this workshop asked was, "Can you make money in
China?" The answer is "Lots." The CEO of Nissan, Carlos Ghosn, said
that operations needed to be managed very well but it can be very
profitable. Furthermore, he said China was second to the U.S. markets
in terms of profitability and that profits are also higher than Japan
or Europe. Another businessman, Ulrich Schumacher, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Infineon Technologies in Germany said that there
was not a problem to making money in China and that the timing was
right to do it now. He said China has a high level of technical
response and their skills are extraordinary. Furthermore, they work
three-12 hour shifts, seven days a week boosting productivity over the
average German worker who wants the weekends off.
Now why is China so profitable? It is no secret that their people are
being paid slave labor wages to work in their factories. With 1.4B
people, their slave labor benefits all the countries of the world, thus
undermining economies with higher paid employees that are forced to
downsize, outsource, privatize and reduce wages. China's average wage
is 20% of what is being paid to workers in Malaysia and Taiwan and 10%
of what is being paid to workers in Singapore.
Currently there are 200 million Chinese who need to be absorbed into
the global workforce. This equates finding jobs for the entire U.S. or
European workforce! Think of the kind of consumer spending that will
have to be generated by the new emerging market countries like India in
order to provide jobs for 200 million people! Think of the imbalances
that will create in the U.S.! At every turn, more U.S. plants are
moving overseas. As this year opened, Levi Strauss, after 150 years of
doing business in America, moved its last U.S. plant to China. It use
to be that the troubled high schooler or less than college material kid
found a job in the factory and was able to make some kind of life for
himself. That is no longer an option. Working at McDonald's is about
it.
There are those who say the East is going to invade. I am not sure it
is going to be a physical invasion as much as an economical and
psychological invasion. While our high school students can't read,
Chinese students have learned English and are becoming very IT savvy.
Currently, there are 60,000 Chinese students in America. One CEO said
that employees in China are fast, adapt well, are innovative and are
like sponges when it comes to learning.
Are there downside risks to investing in China? Yes, they like to copy
and aren't concerned with intellectual property rights. Furthermore,
there are a lot of layers. One CEO said that it is possible for your
Human Resources Manager to be a member of the Communist party and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
With great excitement, Secretary Evans pointed out that the "U.S. is
simply trying to create conditions for long term monetary growth. Those
conditions that have made the U.S. most important economic engine in
the world-that is the key focus in China." My question is, "At what
price? Sovereignty? Jobs in America?" Just who will be the monkey in
the future?
) 2004 Joan Veon - All Rights Reserved
http://www.sacbee.com/content/business/story/8164976p-9096517c.html
U.S. overseas payrolls grow
The practice sparks protest, but firms call it cost-effective and good
for business.
By Clint Swett -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 a.m. PST Monday, January 26, 2004
Get weekday updates of Sacramento Bee headlines and breaking news. Sign
up here.
It's an unrelenting parade.
Oracle plans to shift 175 jobs from Rocklin to India. EarthLink is
closing a 450-person call center in Roseville, with some of those jobs
reportedly heading overseas.
IBM expects to send 3,000 jobs from the United States to other
countries this year.
Nearly weekly comes news of large corporations -- ranging from Intel to
Delta Air Lines to Google shifting services jobs from the United States
to emerging nations, such as India, China and the Philippines.
A globalized economy fueled by tech-savvy workers in low-wage
countries and a telecommunications system that makes instant
communication cheap and easy are fueling the trend.
But it is also sparking anger in this country as the economy musters
only anemic job growth while emerging from a three-year recession.
The tension was apparent at a meeting in Washington, D.C., earlier this
month when technology executives gathered to defend sending jobs
offshore.
"There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore," Carly
Fiorina, chairman and CEO of Hewlett-Packard, said according to
published reports.
The company, which has shipped a number of jobs overseas, recently
decided to move about 100 contract tech support jobs from Roseville to
Canada and India beginning in April.
Intel Chairman Craig Barrett also argued that such "offshoring"
strengthens the company overall, allowing it to add more jobs in the
United States.
He pointed out that workers in China, India and Russia "can do just
about any job in the world, adding: "The U.S. has a very simple choice
to make. We have to decide if we're going to be competitive in those
markets."
The current wave of offshoring, most agree, continues a pattern
established decades ago when jobs in textiles, clothing manufacturing
and electronics assembly were shipped overseas. What's different today,
experts say, is that service jobs are now moving out because there's a
well-educated and low-wage work force on the other side of the world
linked to U.S.-headquartered companies via a sophisticated
telecommunications network.
In addition, most software development is done on common systems such
as SAP or Microsoft, making it easier to hand off jobs from one country
to another.
Much of the recent attention goes to the large number of computer
programming and call-center jobs that have been shipped offshore.
But American companies are making use of other specialists, too.
Radiologists in India, for instance, read X-rays and other scans for
U.S. hospitals. Even some companies that prepare U.S. income tax
returns use Indian accountants to crunch the numbers.
For companies like Intel and HP, the potential savings are compelling.
The Wall Street Journal reported recently that internal IBM documents
show that a Chinese programmer would cost $12.50 an hour, compared with
$56 an hour for a U.S. programmer.
With that kind of wage differential, Forrester Research analysts
estimate that 600,000 service jobs -- ranging from software development
to phone sales -- will have been shipped overseas by 2005. That number
could hit 3.3 million by 2015, Forrester says.
Coming as it does as the economy is struggling to recover from a loss
of more than 2 million jobs over the past three years, the trend
appears alarming.
But experts, while not discounting the individual pain workers feel
from the offshoring, say it's inevitable and ultimately beneficial to
the economy because it strengthens U.S. companies.
"It's a powerful trend and can't be stopped," said Mark Zandi, the
chief economist at Economy.com, which estimates some 300,000 jobs were
shipped offshore in 2003. But he also said offshoring is playing a role
in the current jobless economic recovery.
"It's one reason why we haven't seen more job creation," he said. "It's
not the only factor, but it's a significant factor."
Experts, however, say offshoring has little to do with the technology
slump that has plagued Silicon Valley since the beginning of the
decade.
"Silicon Valley lives and dies on innovation and the next round of
startups," said Steven Levy, an economist with the Center for the
Continuing Study of the California Economy in Palo Alto. "The really
major event of the past three years was that startups plummeted when
venture capital plummeted. The formation of new firms essentially
ceased."
The accelerated trend in offshoring is also an indication of an
economic philosophy that's been developing for decades.
"In the last 20 years, we in the United States have accepted that the
most important job a corporation does is to satisfy its shareholders,"
said Martin Kenney, a professor of human and community development at
the University of California, Davis.
Under that philosophy, a firm would feel compelled to jettison a
$75,000-a-year accountant in the United States for an Indian with
equivalent skills who would earn $12,000 a year, especially when
competitors are doing the same thing, he said.
Such logic does little to comfort Vicki Nelson, an Elk Grove software
engineer who was laid off from her job with the Alldata division of
auto parts supplier AutoZone in 2001.
Since then she's plundered her savings while scraping by on a series of
part-time and temp jobs. And despite numerous attempts, she has been
unable to land another position in the computer industry.
"All the work is being done in India and other countries," she said. "I
have a B.S. in computer science and now it's worthless."
Others are equally dismayed.
Scott Kirwin, founder of the Delaware-based IT Professionals
Association of America, said he lost his job as a programmer for
financial services giant JP Morgan Chase in March when his position was
outsourced to India.
He said sending jobs offshore is a false economy because foreign
programmers are generally less experienced and not as well versed in
the business processes as their American counterparts.
"The programmer who replaced me made one-eighth of what I did, but
after you add in the infrastructure, it might have been a 30 percent
savings," he said.
"When you factor in the intangibles, those savings evaporate."
The fear and anger over the lost jobs is heightened by the fact that
for more than a decade, so-called knowledge-based skills such as
computer programming were seen as the key to job security.
"Instead of just manufacturing, these jobs (going offshore) have come
from the service sector, and we're not used to that," said Fariborz
Ghadar, who heads the Center for Global Business Studies at Penn State
University.
The pace of the change also is coming as a shock, because the economy
has less time to generate new jobs to replace the ones sent overseas.
While it might take a year or more to set up a manufacturing operation,
all software writers need is a computer and a high-speed Internet
connection.
"The speed at which this is happening may make it tough for the economy
to absorb seamlessly," said Kenney.
The savings ultimately benefit Americans, Kenney said. An insurance
company, for example, can afford to hire more Indian claims auditors,
who in turn can more thoroughly scrutinize claims. That could reduce
insurance fraud and perhaps lower premiums.
Using less-expensive radiologists or other medical experts might put a
dent in health care costs, he said.
In addition, wage earners in foreign countries are likely consumers of
American goods, which could boost the U.S. economy.
But such arguments haven't dampened a backlash aimed at stemming the
offshoring tide. A conference last week in New York City drew more than
150 executives interested in learning about offshore opportunities and
about 20 demonstrators protesting the exodus of jobs.
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said he would require
overseas call centers to disclose their locations to callers.
The state of Indiana recently canceled a $15 million computer
consulting contract with an Indian company, even though it reportedly
was $8 million cheaper than the next-lowest bid.
And lawmakers in 14 states, though not California, have introduced
bills to restrict offshoring jobs, though none has yet passed,
according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Kirwin of the IT Professionals group said his organization and others
plan to make offshoring a major election issue.
"It's an important issue and draws people to the polls," he said.
"Politicians haven't outsourced the vote."
About the Writer
The Bee's Clint Swett can be reached at (916) 321-1976 or
cswett@sacbee.com.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17601
The Dark Side of the Outsourcing Revolution
Naeem Mohaiemen, AlterNet
January 20, 2004
Viewed on January 26, 2004
Two years ago, I lost my credit card on a trip. Dialing the American
Express 800 number, I asked the polite customer rep to read the list of
recent charges. As she went through each charge, I noticed something
familiar about the way she said words like "Duane Reade" and
"Blockbuster."
"Excuse me," I interrupted. "Where are you?"
"Oh, we're the American Express Call Center in Bangalore, India," she
replied.
Over the coming months, I started noticing this phenomenon more often.
When I called AOL trying to cancel my account for the fifth time, the
helpful woman giving instructions was in India. Palm Pilot's "Level 1"
help desk seemed to be in America, but when they were stymied and
bumped me to "Level 2," an unmistakably Indian voice came on. Recently,
I even started getting sales calls hawking credit cards from India.
A few months back, a new pattern began to emerge. Suddenly, the
customer service reps weren't eager to divulge where they were from.
"Oh, we're not allowed to disclose location," said one nervous voice.
It was very cloak and dagger. Maybe it's some new security measure, I
thought to myself.
Then the New York Times article, titled "We're From Bangalore (But
We're Not Allowed To Tell You)" revealed all. Indian call centers now
had to acquire American accents and generic Anglo names, displaying a
new-found nervousness in the face of an incipient backlash: Dell was
closing its Indian call center in the face of protests; New Jersey was
trying to pass a bill blocking outsourcing to India; and an angry
Indiana politician huffed, "I represent Indiana, not India!"
All Roads Lead to India
India is at the red-hot center of the Outsourcing Revolution. Thirty
percent of all new Information Technology (IT) work for U.S. companies
is now done abroad, mostly in India. McKinsey Consulting estimated that
three countries received $20 billion in outsourcing revenue from the
U.S. in 2002: Ireland ($8.3 billion), India ($7.7 billion) and Canada
($3.7 billion). Analysts forecast that by 2008 Indian IT services and
back-office support will grow to a $57 billion a year industry with
four million workers.
International multinationals have had offices in India for almost a
decade, and they include Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Intel, IBM, Cisco,
Motorola, HP, Oracle, Yahoo, Ernst & Young, HSBC, and, of course, the
trailblazer in "discovering" India, Microsoft. But Indian offices whose
main business is outsourced work from the U.S. are a relatively new
phenomenon. Recent high profile firms include MphasiS, which processed
tax returns of 20,000 Americans this year (analysts predict that
200,000 U.S. tax returns will be processed in India next year). Then
there is OfficeTiger, which employs 1,200 people to do research and
analysis for eight Wall Street firms. Finally, GE Capital's four Indian
centers design statistical models, prepare data for GE annual reports,
write software, and process $35 billion of global invoices
India dominates outsourced IT, accounting and financial services.
Ambitious firms have now expanded to food-stamp paperwork, auto
engineering, drug research, airline industry and work for the U.S.
Postal Service. India has two key strengths: hundreds of thousands of
technology graduates each year and the use of English at all stages of
education. Armed with this combination, India's potential is huge as
knowledge-based service work expands. China dominates in manufacturing,
which is only 14 percent of the U.S. economy. By contrast, the service
industry, where India has laid its stake, makes up 60 percent of the
U.S. economy.
White Collar Labor Wars
Of course U.S. firms are not outsourcing work out of benevolent desire
to help Indian workers. These new moves come in an ever-expanding
desire to cut costs and increase profit margins. The stage is set for a
struggle between western and Asian white-collar labor. Just as the
success of H-1B visa workers during the Internet boom led to an
anti-immigrant backlash, the outsourcing revolution faces its own
pushback.
Critics argue that every time a project is outsourced, jobs are lost in
the United States. Estimates vary from a projected loss of 600,000 jobs
by 2005 (Forrester Research) to 2 million by 2008 (Deloitte). But it is
also impossible to calculate how much of these job losses are also an
effect of the overall recession.
As anger builds over claims of lost jobs, American unions have emerged
as aggressive opponents of outsourcing, and their rhetoric often
displays thinly disguised xenophobia. Even inside the U.S., unions
create their own hegemonies, often leaving immigrant-dominated
industries out in the cold. When it comes to a globalized labor market,
"workers of the world unite" is not their motto. TechsUnite.org (CA),
Alliance of Technology Workers (WA) and Rescue American Jobs have all
been pushing politicians to pass "Buy American" legislation to limit
federal agencies from sending jobs overseas. In New Jersey and Indiana,
bills to outlaw shifting state jobs overseas were narrowly defeated.
Maryland, Michigan and North Carolina are planning similar legal
battles in the future. Incessant complaints about "bad service" and
"strange accents" forced Dell Computers to shut down one of its call
centers in India, representing a major victory for the "America First"
lobby.
A Dilemma for the Left
The traditional left has been caught off-guard by the outsourcing
debate. It is very hard to make the argument that Indians are being
exploited. Studies show that jobs in outsourcing firms are some of the
most highly sought-after, and often pay much more than jobs servicing
the local economy. There is still a knee-jerk reaction among Indians,
reflected in editorials that deride these workers as "cyber-coolies."
But does that jargon apply everywhere? As hordes of freshly minted IIT
graduates put on their starched white shirts, or crisp salwar-kameez,
and march into brand-new "cyberpark" offices in Bangalore, are they
really anybody's "coolies?"
Not everyone accepts the unions' arguments. In England, George Monbiot
in the Guardian applauded the irony of the new power structure:
"Britain's empire is striking back. Former colonies have found a silver
lining in the bitter legacy of conquest: English, the language of
former masters, is a competitive advantage in the global economy."
After Norwich Union sent one of their centers overseas, a spirited
debate erupted on the BBC website. From London, Theresa Law wrote,
"Give me an intelligent, well-educated, polite Indian on the end of a
telephone handling my customer queries, over an ignorant, rude,
unhelpful and unwilling British call handler any day!" In reply to
numerous e-mails about "stolen jobs," Henry wrote, "What a breathtaking
display of economic illiteracy and downright racism. Why shouldn't
people in India have a crack at earning a decent living if they can do
it more effectively than can be done in the UK?"
Outsourcing is an incredibly complex economic and ethical issue, with
winners and losers on both sides. Yes, why shouldn't Indians (and by
extension, my native Bangladesh) have a chance to improve their living
standards through hard work? On the other hand, as thousands of jobs
are lost in the West during the present recession, much of the blame
will fall on outsourcing. But free trade means the flow goes both ways.
If the West demands open access to global markets for its exports,
doesn't the Third World have the right to demand free access to labor
markets?
Finally, the unions need to make the connection between outlandish CEO
salaries and lost jobs. Outsourcing is not the only reason for all
worker woes. To take one recent example, if Boeing were to ever open a
factory in India, many would scream about "lost jobs." But aren't far
more jobs going to be lost to cover the damage from the Pentagon
contract kickback scandal, which has already led to the resignation of
Boeing's CEO?
The Human Face of a Global Economy?
In this ongoing debate, a startling new entry is a multimedia theater
piece "Alladeen," now touring the U.S. after a successful run in
England. Produced by England's Motiroti and multimedia wizards Builders
Association, the play is an antidote to media stories about faceless
Indians taking jobs away.
Call centers are the Ground Zero of the outsourcing debate. Because
western customers have to interact directly with an operator in India,
all of the coded racism, and anxieties come boiling to the surface. In
previous recessions, similar misdirected hostilities targeted H-1B
visas, green card holders and other shades of new immigrants. But
because the targets were inside the country and able to lobby for their
own rights, demonizing was not easy (witness the death of California's
Prop. 187).
In this new battle, the targets are in a distant high-tech call center
-- which makes it much easier to scapegoat and destroy. There is a
subtle interplay of racism in this whole debate. Would outsourcing be a
political hot potato if the jobs were going to Norway, Israel or
Portugal? In fact, no one complains about job loss to Ireland, even
though it is the global leader in outsourcing.
"Alladeen" tackles this issue head-on. Through a combination of actors,
simultaneous video displays, computer screens and taped video footage
from a real-life Indian call center, the play breaks through the
clutter of economic and ideological debates. Finally, the anonymous
Indian at the far-away call center is given a voice, a name and a life.
We see what is created, and also what is lost.
Alternating skillfully between documentary footage and re-enactments,
"Alladeen" takes the audience through the life cycle of a call center.
We start with the training sessions, where eager Indian graduates are
told to neutralize "mother tongue influence." A white supervisor
explains that Indians always say "w" for "v" and then patronizingly
adds to one candidate, "There's no extra marks for going fast. I'm not
going to give you a chocolate bar." Just as Indians rote-memorize
scientific facts in high school, these trainees memorize city names, to
"switch on and off" American accents and learn cultural facts
("potatoes are important in Montana"). Overhead projectors are used to
explore football ("the pork skin"), baseball ("a model of sacrifice")
and TV shows that tap into the zeitgeist of a city ("Ally McBeal" for
Chicago, 'Buffy' for California and 'Friends' for New York).
Later, each freshly minted trainee will channel their favorite
"Friends" character. But are they creating an illusion for the caller,
or living in a dream world of their own? One where they live on
"Central Perk West?" In this phase of cultural globalization, "being
American" is a job requirement -- even if some "real" Americans want
nothing to do with you.
As the trainees become more confident, they deal with stoned callers,
buck-naked pranksters and suspicious matrons. Internet websites flash
trivia about the callers' hometown, and eagle-eyed supervisors monitor
every call -- all is perfectly calibrated to give the caller the
impression they are dialing their neighborhood call center, and talking
to a cheerful Phoebe, Monica or Chandler.
But all contradictions are laid bare when "Phoebe" receives a call from
an Indian-American from Redwood City. Even though she recognizes a
fellow Indian, protocol demands that she lie and say "I'm in New York
City." Discovering that the man is a software engineer, Phoebe tries to
ask him about life in America.
Disguised half-questions are blurted out in the tiny window of
opportunity before the call ends. Finally, desperately trying to
semaphore her own situation, Phoebe blurts out, "But is it easy there?
I mean what if you were Indian?"
"My dear!" comes the puzzled reply, "I am Indian!"
Alladeen's most poignant moments are in two real-life documentary
clips. In one segment, the Bangalore call center operators are asked,
if they had one wish, what would it be. The answers come rushing out:
To be "handsome," "rich," "five inches taller," "married." But one
exhausted operator, who talks earlier about the grind of the midnight
shift, can only look at the camera and say, "I wish this were a
nine-six shift!"
In the other segment, an operator named Aarthi Angelo talks about the
endless quest to hide Indian accents: "People are so sensitive to
accents. Especially after the World Trade Center incident, people
started asking me, are you Muslim? You know, we've been taught to
transcend barriers of caste and religion. But here we had to answer
that question." Then after a pause, she adds, "Even Muslims had to say,
no we're not Muslims!"
Outsourcing will continue to be debated at union meetings, political
rallies, Senate chambers, Fortune 500 seminars and journal pages. Yet,
Alladeen succeeds in painting a picture that is often missing from this
debate over globalization. The show puts a human face on a complex
economic system, highlighting both the gain and loss for each human
player.
The last word goes to Simon, another visitor to the BBC website: "What
we are seeing is capitalism working in a totally uneven playing field
and it will carry on until the playing field is evened out. That is
going to be a long and painful process and the world simply isn't going
to be able to support its entire population at the standard of living
we would like to continue to enjoy."
Naeem Mohaiemen is an historian, media activist, and the editor of
Shobak, a magazine devoted to South Asian issues. Additional research
for this article was provided by Udayan Chattyopadhyay.
http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/story/0,4567,106065,00.html
Business Times - 24 Jan 2004
Top White House aide defends outsourcing
Call against Bill to prohibit government jobs from being sent overseas
(NEW YORK) Contracting jobs overseas is 'simply the latest
manifestation of free trade', a top White House economic aide said in
defence of a practice used by American companies.
'Public policy needs to help workers find new jobs, not retreat from
the principles of free trade that have benefited the US and economies
around the world,' Greg Mankiw, chairman of President George W Bush's
Council of Economic Advisers, said in a question-and-answer forum on
the White House web site.
A US$328 billion spending Bill the US Senate approved on Thursday will
prohibit contractors to the government from doing that work overseas, a
provision that may affect companies such as International Business
Machines Corp.
The measure now goes to Mr Bush, who said he would sign it.
The contracting provision will become the first federal law that limits
such work from being done outside the US since the practice became a
political force a year ago.
The precedent is raising the hackles of the Chamber of Commerce and
other business groups that say it would undercut the ability of US
companies to compete with overseas rivals.
Supporters say the Bill is necessary in order to protect unionised
government jobs from being sent overseas, in the way corporations have
sent software developers, call centre operators and accountants to
low-cost countries.
In the next decade, as many as six million positions held by US workers
may be sent to India and other nations by companies in search of a
low-cost, technology-savvy, English-speaking workforce, Goldman Sachs
Group Inc said in a September report.
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, winner of Monday's Democratic
presidential caucuses in Iowa, said he would require overseas call
centres to disclose their location and would provide tax credits to
companies that maintain US factories.
Mr Mankiw, asked in the online forum if outsourcing benefits the US,
said that it reflects free trade principles.
'When a good is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to
import it than make it domestically,' he said.
Meanwhile, independent market analyst Datamonitor has said that the
rate at which call centre jobs will flow out of rich countries will not
be as alarming in the coming years as feared.
The company said some 241,000 such jobs will move offshore in 2007,
with many of them going to Mexico, South Africa and Malaysia which are
becoming popular offshore locations.
But it also said that the total number of call centre jobs should grow
to 4.78 million agent positions globally by 2007, compared to 4.2
million in 2003.
Of these, the number of positions offshore will have grown only to 5
per cent, compared to 2.6 per cent at present.
'The focus has shifted towards selling outsourcing rather than selling
offshore,' said Ryan Powell, author of the report entitled Global
Offshore Call Center Outsourcing: Who will be the next India?
'Once firms have outsourced to a third party, it becomes much more
acceptable to move that work offshore,' he added.
Mexico, South Africa and Malaysia are growing in stature at the expense
of India and the Philippines whose share of the offshore market will
drop to 64 per cent in 2007 compared with 70 per cent in 2002, the
report forecast. - Bloomberg, Reuters
Copyright ) 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.
Support this Newsletter and ZaZona.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm
To Subscribe or Unsubscribe send an email to
Back to archives