[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ale] Indian outsourcing

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org]On Behalf Of
> ChangingLINKS.com
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 10:07 PM
> To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
> Subject: Re: [ale] Indian outsourcing
> On Thursday 29 January 2004 17:03, Greg wrote:
> > Well, I guess it's time for my 2 cents ...  I agree with
> Andrew.  Life at
> > 20-something and life at 40 are two different situations.
> Age is commonly used as an excuse for a change in position or failure.

Not what I meant at all.  I meant what I said.  My priorities are different
now then 20 yrs ago.  Folks have gotten married in their 20's (and earlier)
and been responsible and folks in their 50's are still idiots.  That was all
that was meant. No more and no less. Also, where is failure mentioned ?  I
am employed ... and even when I didn't have a job I took care of my wife, 2
dogs, 2 cats, mortage, and 2 car payments. However, if your perspective
doesn't change with time, then you are not learning anything.  Also, the
greater majority of folks in their 30's and 40's have different priorities
then folks in their 20's and teens.

> A man spent the majority of his life interviewing millionares and doing
> research to find out what they have in common. Towards the end of
> the book,
> he points out that most men aren't successful until they pass 40. He
> attributes this in large part to something he calls "sexual
> transmutation."

transmutation ? alchemy ?  Viagra into gold ? ok, back away from the
infomercial ...

> Nonetheless, the attitude it takes to be successful and achieve personal
> goals can be used at any age, and can overcome any excuse.
> (Having integrity with personal attitudes can be a goal).


> > The abstract
> > theory bs that goes down in chic coffee shops isn't what a lot
> of Americans
> > are experiencing and I think that will become evident in the
> next election.
> > Irregardless of what your bank account says, it is still one person, one
> > vote (more or less) and I kinda don't really expect to see Bush v2.0 in
> > office too much longer.
> Good Lord, I hope you are right - I think most of us hope you are
> right. But,
> the one vote myth was brought to light in the last election,
> don't you think?

Nope - proven with a vengeance.  If 2 thousand (fill in party of choice)
voters had voted in Florida .... instead of spamming folks on voting day
.... things might be different.

> I was laughing at those people that really thought they had power
> in their
> vote. I ain't a democrat, and I don't even like to vote. But,
> THIS time I was
> planning on actually going to the voting booth and casting a vote for the
> Democratic canidate (I kinda like that Kerry guy - after I saw him speak).
> What are the chances that my democratic vote will actually COUNT here in

I am somewhat sure it will count, but folks feel that be "counting" they
mean that things will go their way.

> //thinking I better vote the Democratic ticket or I am really
> wasting my time.
> //betting "Texas" votes for Bush.

I am sure that all of the Dell er.. *former* Dell employees who have lost
jobs to foreigners feel the same way too

> > Also, I probably wouldn't mind if the Indians were better, but it isn't
> > that - it's that they live in a cheap society that is
> incomparable to ours.
> > So let's be fair and level the playing field.
> It IS fair. Would you like everyone to have a "fair" shot at your wife/
> girlfriend?

They did - and I beat out the loser with the Porshe.

 We can't ALL be winners - that is just part of the game.

Why is it a "game" ??? yes, I understand zero-sum politics (one winner/one
loser), but since when do we play games with peoples lives ???  Symbiotic
relationships are not like that.  At various times countries have had
mutually beneficial relationships.

> with it.

I am.  I am coming down hard on those who are greedy (save money !) and
using BS to justify that you can do anything in the name of saving a buck.

You have so many advantages that YOU are undervaluing -

No, I *know* how fortunate I am.

> causing you
> to ironically believe that somehow the "Grass is Greener" in India. LOL.

Never said that.  The grass won't be greener anyway if Dell, IBM and others
have their way - that would take away their cheap resource.  In times past
this was a major facet of something called Imperialism.

> > When it costs the same to
> > live over there as here, then talk about fairness.
> Cost of living ain't everything. In fact, some of the wealthest
> people in this
> country have a high "cost of living." People in New York and DC
> have a higher
> cost of living than you do. Do you see them bitching about how
> easy YOU have
> it?

Well, when you get Louisiana wages in NYC ... I also don't get paid what I
would if I lived in NYC/SF/DC, either and I don't have a problem with that.
However we aren't talking about small amounts, Drew - we are talking huge
amounts.  $4,500 vs $45,000.  Show me where in the US you can make $4,500
and live.

> > Try saddling the Indians
> > with the same costs of living, taxes and government regulations *then*
> > compare us with only coding skills as the variable .... I mean
> you wouldn't
> > compare 2 different software packages on 2 different boxes, would you ?
> > (Linux on a 286 and MS on a quad Zeon ?).
> Yes you would. Compare an SUV to a motorcycle. The task:
> Outrunning the cops.

OK - but does one vehicle have to pull a 40 ton stone ?  Are both vehicles
given only 1 gallon of gas ?  Your logic is flawed.  If you want to test one
aspect of something it pays to only change that aspect or variable,
otherwise you introduce erroneous conclusions into the study.

> Perhaps you just aren't the right tool for the job. MAYBE someone
> else can do
> it faster, for less money and be more responsive (like a motorcycle).

The issue here is $/hr.  Nothing else.  Let's stick to the point.

> Ultimately, working code is working code.

Really ?????  Windows 3.1 works, so why isn't everyone on it ?  Hell, so is
DOS.  I am surprised anyone on this list would say that.

> > I think the whole thing boils down to greed (no, not wanting to
> make money,
> > but greed.  There's a difference)
> How many things do you have that come from offshore? Your shirt? You Palm
> Pilot? Your car? Your motorcycle? The crappy electronics that you got at
> Radio Shack? The point is most of us (if not all) consume
> *something* made
> overseas at a cheaper price. Is this Greed?

Visor is broke - I bought it based on price only.  It "seemed like a good
idea at the time" to go with Handspring.  Yes, I buy goods made overseas
since it is near impossible to buy them "made in the USA" - kinda proves my
point, huh ????  If all of your goods are made by someone else, they have
control over you.  That's one reason the DOD keeps the defense industry up -
if they didn't and no one made tanks, then when we need tanks, we don't have
them.  If you don't believe this, then look at the events leading up to
Pearl Harbor.  Little industrialized Japan has no coal, no iron, and no
metals and has to get them from someone else - and so they did.  They got
them from China and when we started to cut them off (a naval blockade of
Japan would have strangled them) they tried to stop us before we could
increase our threat to them.

> Pay $10K for a Harley that won't run without a weekly tune up, or
> pay $8K for
> a Suzuki Bandit 1200? Buy American does not always make since.

And sometimes it does.

> AND what is
> the motivation behind it????? "Buy American so we can greeeedily keep the
> money in our hands, so that WE can remain in 'power'"?
> To think that this country that has the most doesn't have enough
> is . . . .

Enough what, unemployment ?  If programmers in America refused to take pay
cuts or refused to learn new languages or only wrote crappy code, then I
could see going overseas.  Refusal to improve and be attuned to the changing
world brought the car and steel industries down, but like I said, and *THIS
MY BACK.  Competition implies a somewhat level playing field.

> > ... the same thing that brought us Enron
> > et al., the Iraq conflict, and a whole mess of other problems -
>  in society,
> > in politics, and in business.  And it always ends up bad for someone
> > everytime.
> Why does everyone bring up Enron in relationship to off-shoring?

The poster child of greed. Would one of the sleeze junk bond artists of
Drexel Burnham of the "Me" decade be better ?

> >
> > And as far as working a project half way around the world and
> expecting it
> > to work as well as having the folks who are 1 cubicle over ...
> well .. ok
> > ... I guess common sense isn't that common ...  Funny what
> consultants and
> > B-schools teach, but if they are so freakin' brilliant, then
> why aren't they
> > all millionaires?  Being able to go to an actual end user and
> say "OK, show
> > me *exactly* what you want" is priceless.  The other option is
> trusting a
> > business analyst to get it right - when that analyst is neither
> the person
> > doing the job nor coding the software and is possibly
> unintelligible, or to
> > be pc "lacking in verbal skills" (i.e. no normal American can understand
> > their brand of "English") .  While it may work great for some projects
> > (Linux, BSD), other software projects have different requirements and
> > environments.
> This is another problem US programmers have. I believe that they
> miscalculate
> the "hardship" of working with overseas coders and ELIMINATE the
> downsides to
> working with US programmers.

Nope. Never said that either.

> 1. In your example, the company is US based, and ALL of the
> programmers are in
> India. Don't you realize that you can send a whole damn department (to
> oversee the project) overseas and still save money? Often there
> is so much
> extra money left over from using the cheaper labor, companies can
> afford to
> add more features to the code - or talk long distance for hours
> to India - or
> fly to India - or spend more on marketing - or send it back to the share
> holders.

Or increase upper management salaries.

> 2. In your example the Indians can't speak English as well as you.
> a. All it takes is a few Indians onsite that DO speak it well enough.
> b. Another option is to have a Americans from India smooth communication.
> c. When communication is more difficult, (whispering, language
> barrier, morse
> code) people actually try to LISTEN more carefully. *Some* US
> programmers are
> "know it alls" and don't really *listen* to clients.
> Communication through
> language barriers is much easier than you think. In my
> experience, I have had
> guys FINISH coding a formula before I can fully explain it - and
> get it right
> (language barrier and all).

I would suggest that this is a lone instance and not the case the majority
of the time.

 In every experience I have had, the offshore
> programmer was *faster.* The MAKE TIME and work hard - whereas, US
> programmers will "scedule you in sometime."

Try an unemployed programmer who has a house note.  I doubt seriously the
programmers of US Fortune 500 companies tell their bosses this.  If you have
nothing but bad luck *with every single US programmer* you come into contact
with, then I will give you, Drew, a pass on off-shoring.  But for the rest
of the companies ... ummm NO.

> Offshore programmers ask questions when they don't understand words.
> If I don't understand a question I get, I say "I don't
> understand. Ask that a
> different way."  It is no different than communicating with a US
> programmer
> who uses too much jargon.
> Aslo ti is vrey pssible for us to understands the wurst
> grammitical & speeling
> airors. Sea?

Yes, but try coding that way or marketing your product that way.

> 3. US programmers are not that much better in skill level
> especially when it
> comes to offsetting the cost being 3 times as much.

No, Drew, we are talking about 10 times as much.

 Can you code
> the project
> 3 times quicker?

Can they ? Hell no.  The point is the only reason you pick them is $$$$.

And, there are other problems that companies can
> face with
> US programmers - even the possibility of a Union, benefits, employee law,
> emotional attachment (because of the close proximity), etc.

PROBLEMS ???  PROBLEMS ???  PROBLEMS ???  PROBLEMS ???  So it is ok to treat
workers like sh** ????  Gee, I guess that explains everthing you say about
why you like offshoring.  Drew, you might want to consider spending more
time on alt.robber .barons instead of ALE (they would be more sympathetic,
but then we need you to balance the ultra liberals)

EXACTLY MY FREAKIN' POINT. India companies don't have to pay US Social
Security, Medicaid/Medicare, GA state tax, Federal Tax, Benefits,
Unemployement Compensation, $$$ to comply with the Disabilities Act, $$ to
comply with OSHA, Federal Hiring guidlines (child labor laws), and minimum
wage laws.

> 4. Also, consider the economics of the situation.

I think that's market-speak for "I am greedy and getting ready to screw

 For those in
> India, getting
> $11K may put them into a better lifestyle than most of the other
> Indians. So,
> the money they get is "a lot" of money (at least to them). If you were
> getting paid "a lot" would you try to do your best,

I try my best regardless.

 or just blow
> off the job?
> I think most of us would try to make sure our employer is happy
> WHEN we are
> happy with our income. See the point? Indians *may* have
> motivation to work
> harder because "the money is right." The same motivation you
> would have to
> "do a nice job" for say, $125K-$200K.
> I paid one guy $2500 for a project in Romania. He claimed that to him the
> money was worth $7500 or so. (Then he moved to Canada, got a job for
> $75,000US and economics cost me my best programmer. Doh!)
> 4. I am not trying to say that "all US programmers suck."

Well, you just spent a lot of lines saying that .. more market speak :
TRANSLATION: Please don't get mad at me for running you and your fellow
American programmers down.

I am
> just trying to
> highlight that the "common downsides of offshoring" are not as
> bad as some US
> programmers try to portray it AND that there are downsides to US
> programmers
> as well (which US programmers systematically omit). . . . and
> THAT is why US
> companies are offshoring.

No, they are doing it because they are greedy and no one has exacted
retribution upon them for their actions ... yet

 I don't believe offshoring is a FAD
> (except with
> regard to news coverage). Read Yahoo finance and you will see that share
> holders are rewarding companies for offshoring by buying more stock. :)

no, they are trying to make more money - even if it means their own jobs

> >
> > Just my opinion (worth about 50 rupees),
> That ain't much money over here ;)
> >
> > Greg
> >
> :wq!
> --
> Wishing you Happiness, Joy and Laughter,
> Drew Brown
> http://www.ChangingLINKS.com
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale