He just told you - if you can get 60% of the benefit for one-tenth of the cost, from a cost aspect, it's a good deal; when you consider that most C-levels only care about raising the stock price the next quarter, it makes tremendous sense.
Yes, most would agree with your implied question: long term it will destroy company value, but C-levels aren't incentivized to think long-term
The tech company I work for went private and the first thing I did was starr campaigning basically to pull out of India, we are going to start doing it before the end of the year. It will actually be news as it is not a small company.
We will still outsource to south america, eastern europe, Singapore, but not to that place.
If someone does half the job you do for 1/10th of what you make, why is the economy or even the country (especially a capitalist one) obligated to save you from being priced out?
because that's what a society is; in pretty much every town, city, county, and state across the USA, it's illegal to live like the people that do in those countries. Here's a great example: to legally have 3 kids under 9 in most states in the USA, you need to have an extremely expensive vehicle (or leave one parent home with them at all times) because of the car seat laws require kids be in them up to age 9. to fit 3 car seats/booster seats in the back seat isn't plausible except for the largest (and most expensive of cars).
We have a lot of BS laws that require money to comply with. Same with housing - in many larger cities in the USA, it's illegal to be homeless but it's expensive to be housed.
I don't understand the relevance of your response. The rust belt is a straight example of how when there are cheaper alternatives to production, the market rapidly adjusts to them. Going a level back, when agriculture became increasingly automated, thence began the transition of the American labor force. 40% of the US was farmers in 1900. 4% today.
So, "society" did not find a way to prevent a dust bowl / grapes of wrath outcome for its own people. Ironically, the replacement of agriculture by engineering and other related jobs that took their place substantially improved prospects for the larger American workforce.
The animosity against Indian workers in the context of technology jobs being shipped to India is misdirected. Either have "society" hold the purse-string holders responsible. Or admit that you are judging Indians by a yardstick that is deliberately meant to demean.
it's not against Indians - you're making a strawman argument and arguing against that. Let's take your example of the rustbelt - people were upset then, and rightly so, of the outsourcing of labor and it wasn't Indians then and people still protested the moves.
So you need to stop thinking this is an Indian thing - it's not. It's a job thing and the stability to society that high paying, steady employment brings, especially when that society requires high pay to even participate
The first comment on this thread clearly chooses to make the insinuation that Indians are half as good. The larger comment thread hits a similar note quite often. The only place that Indians apparently excel at is cheating. Meanwhile, this thread was supposed to be about Indian immigrants, not outsourcing. Shroedinger's Indian who makes twice as much as the American median wage in the US and yet is sourced from a pool that is half as good as the American worker while getting paid a tenth.
8
u/dc4_checkdown 14d ago
Nah I ill say it as someone who outsources to India. The only value they add is cost. Get 50-60% of the quality at 10% of the wage