The Myth of Outsourcing.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by enjolras

I have an issue with this too.. Who cares? The median wage in America is unbelievably high compared to the rest of the world. The quality of living (Adjusted wage) for the lower and middle class in America is actually much better than it was just 30 years ago here at home. I could honestly care less about how wealthy the wealthiest people are, or if they are outpacing everyone in income growth.. because it doesn't matter. The real sign of our progress is in the middle class. As long as it stays mobile (updward mobility into the middle class continues to be very strong) and the quality of life stays high..who cares how much money Bill Gates has?

And the middle class is undergoing some detremental changes. The gap continues to widen between those that have those that don't.

------------------------------------------
Median Household Income is Down. Census data shows that median household income (the point at the middle of the income scale) fell 3.3 percent since 2000, a loss of $1,439 per household. [www.census.gov]

Middle and Low-Income Wages Declining. In 2003, those at the middle and lower earning levels saw their weekly wages decline, while those in the top 10 percent saw significant gains. [www.epinet.org, 1/28/04]

Poverty Levels Are Up. In 2002, the number of Americans living in poverty increased to 34.6 million; an increase of 3.5 million under Bush -- and the majority are women. [www.census.gov]
-----------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON, DC -- According to data released today by the U.S. Department of Labor, real wages have sunk 2.3 percent in the last six months. Over the last year, real wages have declined by 1.3 percent, meaning that the trend has worsened recently.
http://edworkforce.house.gov/democra...rel71604b.html
-----------------------------------------
A separate study, by David Kamin and Isaac Shapiro of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, examined how the fruits of this current economic recovery have been allocated. In the 10 quarters since the recession officially ended in 2001, 47 percent of the real national income growth has gone to corporate profits, and only 15 percent to wages and salaries.

Even if you add in the cost of health insurance and other benefits, as you should, the workers got only 43 percent -- well below the 61 percent average in eight previous recoveries. This is the first post-World War II recovery in which corporate profits grabbed off a bigger share of the growth than workers' pay and benefits.
Both of these studies come from liberal think tanks, but the statistics are straight from the Labor and Commerce departments and suggest what the economic costs have been for the loss of labor's clout.
http://www.ufcw1518.com/index2.html?...1003~mainFrame

--------------------------------------------------
Although President George W. Bush boasts about an improving economy, a majority of America’s working families have suffered a steady erosion of their wages and persistent difficulties balancing work and family responsibilities, according to a new report from a top management scholar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Thomas Kochan, co-director of the MIT Workplace Center and MIT Institute for Work and Employment Research, says significant economic gains over the past two decades were limited to families with two working parents who, at minimum, have graduated from college. Examining statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau, Kochan found that in families where both the husband and wife held bachelor’s degrees or advanced degrees, their family incomes rose by 26 percent between 1980 and 2000—while those with less than a high school education saw their family incomes decline by 18 percent. Although college attendance has been rising, only 29 percent of men and 26 percent of women have bachelor’s degrees or advanced degrees.

Middle-income wage earners saw their hourly pay decline between 1985 and 1995—and then rise for five years until the stock market slumped in 2000. Since then, wages have stagnated, the report says. Over some 20 years, the median wage earner is in about the same position as he or she was a generation ago, concludes Regaining Control of Our Destiny: A Working Families’ Agenda for America, released July 21
http://www.dsausa.org/lowwage/Docume...ew%20data.html

[W*GS]

One thing that is overlooked - it's not the same people who are in the same percentiles all the time.

BTW, how much did it cost in 1980 to buy a VCR, in terms of hours worked? 1970? 1960? Even 1990?

How about a 1GHz PC with 1GB RAM?

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

And the middle class is undergoing some detremental changes. The gap continues to widen between those that have those that don't.

------------------------------------------
Median Household Income is Down. Census data shows that median household income (the point at the middle of the income scale) fell 3.3 percent since 2000, a loss of $1,439 per household. [www.census.gov]

Middle and Low-Income Wages Declining. In 2003, those at the middle and lower earning levels saw their weekly wages decline, while those in the top 10 percent saw significant gains. [www.epinet.org, 1/28/04]

Poverty Levels Are Up. In 2002, the number of Americans living in poverty increased to 34.6 million; an increase of 3.5 million under Bush -- and the majority are women. [www.census.gov]
-----------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON, DC -- According to data released today by the U.S. Department of Labor, real wages have sunk 2.3 percent in the last six months. Over the last year, real wages have declined by 1.3 percent, meaning that the trend has worsened recently.
http://edworkforce.house.gov/democra...rel71604b.html
-----------------------------------------
A separate study, by David Kamin and Isaac Shapiro of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, examined how the fruits of this current economic recovery have been allocated. In the 10 quarters since the recession officially ended in 2001, 47 percent of the real national income growth has gone to corporate profits, and only 15 percent to wages and salaries.

Even if you add in the cost of health insurance and other benefits, as you should, the workers got only 43 percent -- well below the 61 percent average in eight previous recoveries. This is the first post-World War II recovery in which corporate profits grabbed off a bigger share of the growth than workers' pay and benefits.
Both of these studies come from liberal think tanks, but the statistics are straight from the Labor and Commerce departments and suggest what the economic costs have been for the loss of labor's clout.
http://www.ufcw1518.com/index2.html?...1003~mainFrame

--------------------------------------------------
Although President George W. Bush boasts about an improving economy, a majority of America’s working families have suffered a steady erosion of their wages and persistent difficulties balancing work and family responsibilities, according to a new report from a top management scholar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Thomas Kochan, co-director of the MIT Workplace Center and MIT Institute for Work and Employment Research, says significant economic gains over the past two decades were limited to families with two working parents who, at minimum, have graduated from college. Examining statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau, Kochan found that in families where both the husband and wife held bachelor’s degrees or advanced degrees, their family incomes rose by 26 percent between 1980 and 2000—while those with less than a high school education saw their family incomes decline by 18 percent. Although college attendance has been rising, only 29 percent of men and 26 percent of women have bachelor’s degrees or advanced degrees.

Middle-income wage earners saw their hourly pay decline between 1985 and 1995—and then rise for five years until the stock market slumped in 2000. Since then, wages have stagnated, the report says. Over some 20 years, the median wage earner is in about the same position as he or she was a generation ago, concludes Regaining Control of Our Destiny: A Working Families’ Agenda for America, released July 21
http://www.dsausa.org/lowwage/Docume...ew%20data.html

Your sig line, that is so good it has to be fattening. Honestly now, is that in there? If it is...wow, that is funny. "Daddy, what is irony?"

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

Your sig line, that is so good it has to be fattening. Honestly now, is that in there? If it is...wow, that is funny. "Daddy, what is irony?"

From The O’Reilly Factor For Kids, in a chapter titled “Sex”:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ind...cleID=CA472557

[alkemical]

Cisco shifts top brass from Silicon Valley to India


Issue Date: February 1, 2007, Posted On: 1/30/2007

Cisco shifts top brass from Silicon Valley to India


BY CHRIS NELSON


Elfrink
SAN JOSE, Calif. — For the better part of a decade, India has been the outsourcing destination-of-choice for American IT companies looking to reduce costs without sacrificing quality.

While that trend appears to be holding steady, India could soon become home to a bevy of top level executives from the choicest global technology giants. And ushering in this era is Wim Elfrink, the chief globalization officer at Cisco Systems Inc., who along with a seven member team has shifted base from Silicon Valley to Bangalore, India.

They represent what many in the tech industry consider to be one of the most ambitious globalization campaigns ever undertaken. Cisco wants to have 20 percent of its senior management working at the company's Globalization Center East, a sprawling $50 million research-and-development center currently under construction in Bangalore, India, by 2010. According to Cisco, the executives will consist of a mixture of rising stars from San Jose and Bangalore, and talent landed through acquisitions or plucked away from competitors around the world.

Elfrink described the facility and Cisco's plans for it in a recent interview with the company's media department. "The Cisco Globalization Center will enable Cisco to locate a significant presence in Asia — a region in which there is high growth potential. All of the company's primary business functions, including sales, business development, IBSG, finance, human resources, marketing, engineering, and customer support will all be represented in India, as well as the United States," Elfrink said.

"We believe that India, with its educated workforce, market opportunities, rich history and culture, is a great location from which to implement our globalization strategy. As a result of the Cisco Globalization Center East, we will be able to best serve our customers by creating new ways to deliver information, products and services," he added.

International business experts are divided over whether the 50,000-person company's plans make sense. Some have called it a shrewd move that will give high-ranking employees critical insight into one of the world's fastest-growing economies. Others, like Vivek Wadhwa, an adjunct professor of globalization and engineering at Duke University, questioned whether Cisco is attempting too much, too fast. He said it is possible that the United States could lose the ability and insight required to develop "the next Internet or other big phenomenon."

"From Cisco's point of view, this deal makes absolute sense — it gets them access to lot of very bright talent at low prices," Wadwha said. "It's all good for Cisco, but it's also good for India because it brings to the country a lot of new jobs and high technology.

"For the United States, India doesn't represent much competition, so this isn't bad news, per se. The trouble is in the trend: If U.S. companies continue to outsource research jobs so fast, it could erode this country's competitiveness to the point where we might not be able to invent the next big technology."

Asia's emerging economies have long proven attractive targets to Silicon Valley's tech giants. Hundreds of American companies, from giants such as Oracle Corp. and Yahoo Inc. to fledgling startups, have entered Asia since the 2000 dotcom crash. They did so under pressure from investors and venture capitalists to cut costs, big time; some firms outsourced entire departments — be they software development, data analysis, even research and development — to developing countries where the help is cheap but skilled.

But rarely have top executives, such as chief information and technology officers, seen their positions shifted halfway around the world — partly because they command high salaries and special compensation packages no matter where they reside. Figure in relocation costs and hardship allowances and most companies pay more for a top-level executive to live outside the United States.

The executive migration at Cisco indicates that offshoring has evolved from a cost-savings measure to a strategic imperative. Given Cisco's massive size — it is Silicon Valley's most valuable company, based on market capitalization — many other multinational corporations are expected to follow suit.

IBM Corp. already has approximately 150 executives living in emerging markets, including 35 in India and 89 in China. Last summer, the Armonk, N.Y.-based technology company moved its Global Procurement Office from Somers, N.Y., to Shenzen, China. IBM vice president John Paterson moved with it.

"India was chosen for a number of reasons," Elfrink said. "First, it has innovative customers and skilled partners that have global capabilities. India has a culture that is known for its strong understanding of the concept of partnership. And, India's government is focused on economic development across all levels of society.

"We believe in India, with its educated workforce, market opportunities, and supportive culture, is a great location from which to implement our globalization strategy."

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by enjolras

I have an issue with this too.. Who cares? The median wage in America is unbelievably high compared to the rest of the world. The quality of living (Adjusted wage) for the lower and middle class in America is actually much better than it was just 30 years ago here at home. I could honestly care less about how wealthy the wealthiest people are, or if they are outpacing everyone in income growth.. because it doesn't matter. The real sign of our progress is in the middle class. As long as it stays mobile (updward mobility into the middle class continues to be very strong) and the quality of life stays high..who cares how much money Bill Gates has?

Except for the fact that everything in this paragraph is just not true. The simple fact is that 30, 40 and 50 years ago, a single man could work in the American economy and buy a house and two cars while his wife could stay at home and raise their children, and they could send their children to college and look forward to a full pension and an excellent retirement. And they never had to worry about their medical care.

Now, even in households where both parents are working full time, that dream is getting further and further away. And it does matter how much the CEOs make because that money is being removed from the value the workers create. What we've seen in the last 30 years is a complete change in polarity when it comes to the distribution of wealth. And BTW, every economist I've seen agrees that middle class wages have been stagnant for decades while executive wages have skyrocketed. The worker is being systematically shafted by the capitalist. The social contract is dead.

[heydensmom]

What ever! I'm out of a job come July 31, because....gasp...my job has been outsourced.

[Cito Pelon]

This is OT, but the thought popped into my mind that one of the big problems the USA has in heavy industries is the USA is the only country in the world that is not metric.

Who wants to switch from a fleet of Mercedes trucks to a fleet of Ford/Chevy/Dodge trucks if you have to buy all new tools, since the metric sizes would be of no use?

This applies to every industry in the USA that produces for domestic use and tries to export the same goods.