I strongly believe in a company's right to make a profit and make decisions that improve profits. I also strongly believe in a consumer's rights to demand certain things of the company it spends its money with. With the current world and U.S. problems, I believe there should be and will be significant pressure on us companies to bring these jobs back to the U.S.
We need more data in terms of benefits and costs of outsourcing, in terms of both quality and employment.
The public sector should NEVER outsource offshore because they are supported by onshore taxpayers. The private sector should be able to outsource.
It is understandable. Should not become an accepted practice. We would never consider for our company. We can increase profits other ways.
While offshore outsourcing will result in a loss of U.S. jobs over the "next few years" I believe that over a longer period it will have no effect.
I don't think offshoring high-tech jobs will erode our competitive advantage. Overreaction by the media during an election year.
Companies are concerned about the bottom line. Henry Ford was concerned with his workers affording the product they made.
In order to improve their bottom line. No different then people going to Canada for prescription drugs.
I believe that most people do not understand macro-economics, but only what impact them on a micro level. It is difficult to present global facts that are meaningful to every worker and how it impacts themselves.
The backlash is caused by either people being uninformed (or misinformed), or by the Democrats and their constituencies trying to create a campaign issue.
What I have found is that the level of service is reduced. I have terminated my relationship with a number of accounts for poor service because of offshore support.
People are uneducated about the whole issue. Consequently the politicians are "making hay."
The backlash is warranted. Global competitive advantage for U.S. companies ultimately comes as much from innovation as from being the low-cost producer of goods and services. Consequently, culture still counts.
This is nothing more than a political strategy to gain an advantage in the presidential election.
For years we pushed for a "Global Market." We now have it. What we forgot was the "Global Economy" that should have accompanied it.
Free markets are to be encouraged. Offshore outsourcing is part of free marketing. Most of it is coming from IT professionals that are being outsourced to India. I am sorry to say that seems to be the result of high cost of IT development during the 1990s and the lack of hard dollar benefits to the company.
Unfortunately there is a market to support these companies and make it worth their while.
It's shortsighted. Long-term competitiveness is not enhanced by artificially keeping work in a specific location.
This view misses the point that in a global economy, labor and capital are deployed where they can be used most efficiently. Offshoring frees U.S. resources to in turn pursue their most efficient use.
The backlash is highly emotional, not necessarily based in fact.
Overblown hyperbole and fear-driven hysteria. The U.S. economy has gone through many changes over the past century and has thrived. There is no reason to think that this current period of change will be any different.
A company must manage the tensions between sound fiscal and economic policy (including sound macroeconomic policy like offshoring) with public perception and reactions. This can be done by encouraging facts representing the other side to those posited causing emotional reaction, through open discussion of the issues with employees, suppliers, and shareholders, and through living what (one hopes) is a culture of concern for the stakeholders.
In a nutshell, this too shall pass.
I believe that offshoring is the right decision. Companies should always strive to be more efficient. It will benefit the U.S. and the world.
It is needed and necessary. We are fast being eliminated as qualified candidates for high technology!
I agree with the backlash to a point in that it does displace certain skilled jobs in the U.S., and if you are one of these people displaced, it can devastate your livelihood and family. However, a certain amount of offshore outsourcing is and should be a fact of life, but U.S. companies and the U.S. government should work to protect a certain amount of U.S. jobs while also outsourcing to lower cost (let's say a 50/50 sharing ratio between the two options). The government should provide companies some incentives to make such a strategy palatable.
I believe we need to move jobs oversees only if absolutely necessary to reduce cost and maintain a company's viability.
It is a complex issue and effects on customer/community relations must be taken into effect. The stagnant economy is a major factor. Also, efficiency improvements have contributed to the issue by decreasing the number of jobs required to perform a specific unit of production.
There is a general lack of understanding of the costs/benefits of this practice. Backlash is unwarranted. Economy demands moving work to the highest-value location — U.S. needs to re-train workforce to deliver even higher-value-added jobs.
The public has not figured out yet that multinational corporations are not "U.S. companies" anymore than they are loyal to any other nation. They have loyalty to their stockholders, affiliates, and alliances only. This is a point that multinational companies are afraid to sell to the public.
Reader Comments» Post a comment