Cringely's Solutions To The Outsourcing Problem: VCs Should Spend
from the interesting-idea... dept
Last month, Bob Cringely got all worked up about offshoring, but offered no real solution. He latest column actually does come up with a solution, but it seems much more designed to make people laugh. His idea is that venture capitalists really aren't that smart and they take all this time waiting before funding a company which does no one any good. For all their delay tactics over funding companies, we've got a lot of smart entrepreneurs who can't really do much without the money. At the same time, VCs have been sitting on a ton of money over the last few years. So his proposal is that all VCs just pick their top targets that have been sitting in the pile waiting for cash and just give them 5% of the funds they're sitting on. In turn, those startups will start hiring unemployed techies, and the offshoring problem will disappear. I have no idea if he's being serious at all, but it actually seems that something like that is happening naturally. I'm hearing of more and more companies that have been hiring people again, and in a recent search for a freelance web designer for a project, almost everyone I spoke to said that all the freelance web designers they knew had found full time jobs. As a friend said to me: "It's this economy. People just can't stay unemployed like the old days."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
Why doesn't he just walk into the bank and tell the Loans division to start giving mortgages to top 5% applicants? The chances are they do it anyway, and if they don't, there are probably some reasons Cringely is not aware of.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Outsourcing is wrong
By Daniel McGinn
Newsweek
March 1 issue - It's a set of questions that would make any cubicle dweller a bit nervous. "Exactly how do you do your job? Would you mind writing it down?" When Hank Williamson, a tech administrator at a Virginia bank, heard those questions recently, he took them as a sign his job may soon be going on an exotic trip. The likely destination: India, where a homegrown techie could use Williamson's instructions to do the work for dimes on the dollar. "My job security here is nonexistent," says Williamson, 49, who's still earning six figures but is polishing his resume. He's better off than Lisa Pineau, a mainframe programmer in Plano, Texas. She was forced to train her foreign-born replacement before being laid off in late 2002. Spotting few openings for tech workers, she's considered going into bookkeeping or medical transcription, but now she's worried those jobs are moving overseas, too. "Anything on a computer is getting 'offshored'," she says. So lately Pineau, 46, and her husband Patrick (also a tech worker) have considered switching into a field they figure can't be exported. They want to open a Subway sandwich shop.
advertisement
Their experiences are small pieces in a complicated and disconcerting puzzle, one that's fast becoming an election-year focal point. More than two years after emerging from recession, why is the mighty U.S. economy struggling to produce jobs? There are few simple answers. But economists are beginning to identify the forces shaping this "jobless recovery." Many of them have nothing to do with cheap Asian labor; instead, the phenomenon is largely the result of companies' finding new ways to coax more work from existing employees. Still, offshoring is already affecting enough workers—and threatening the livelihoods of millions more—that it's likely to remain a battle cry on the campaign trail. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan described the anxiety in a speech last week: "Fears about job security are understandably significant when nearly 2 million of our work force have been unemployed for more than a year."
FREE VIDEO
• Bush talks jobs; labor supports Kerry
Feb. 19: President Bush said Thursday tax cuts are working to lift the economy. And John Kerry received the endorsement of the AFL-CIO. Carl Quintanilla reports from the campaign trail.
Nightly News
History suggests the slow-mo job market should have picked up long ago. Economists say the recession ended in November 2001. Since then economic output has marched steadily upward; the U.S. economy grew by 3.1 percent in 2003. Although employment traditionally lags during recoveries, eventually the stats should have begun climbing in tandem. Not this time: lately the economy has struggled to produce even the 110,000 or so jobs needed each month just to keep up with population growth, let alone reabsorb folks laid off since the slowdown began. Most observers say this recovery has been more tepid than even the jobless recovery of the early'90s. That's true even as the stock market roared, corporate earnings soared and interest rates remained mercifully low. "Businesses are rolling in cash," says Mark Zandi of Economy.com. "But they've yet to step up and expand their hiring."
Why the disconnect? Economists offer some theories. Maybe health-care and pension costs have risen so dramatically that CEOs will do almost anything to avoid adding staff. Maybe firms overhired during the boom, creating unreasonable expectations for how many workers America can employ. While those arguments may have some merit, experts lay most of the blame on soaring productivity. It's a problem most workers understand on a personal level, since many feel like they're clocking longer hours and worker harder than ever. As long as workers keep becoming more efficient, hiring will remain muted.
How are businesses making more with less? Steven Friedman, director of the Bush administration's National Economic Council, suspects that as business slowed during the recession, firms used the downtime to learn to better exploit the high-tech gizmos they'd stockpiled during the boom. "There's a lag period from the time people buy software and hardware to when they start getting maximum mileage out of it," he says. Consider your own experiences: have you checked into a flight using a workerless airline kiosk, or scanned out at a supermarket using a self-checkout aisle? Had you before 2000? Over time, higher productivity is a good thing; it leads to better wages and living standards. The downside is that as long as workers keep boosting efficiency, managers can keep a lid on payrolls. Most observers expect productivity growth to eventually slow (there's only so much more work you can wring out of workers) and job growth to pick up. But for Bush's team, the acceleration can't come too quickly. Says Friedman: "The job market is not where we want it to be, but it's turned in the right direction."
March 1, 2004 Issue: Campaign 2004
• Smiles to Go
• The Firm of Edwards & Edwards
• 'I Talk About Things People Care About'
• Help Not Wanted
• Alter: The Donald and the Democrats
Even as the recovery finally kicks into full gear, there's a new worry rising. It's given voice by the thousands of unemployed folks—like Lisa Pineau—who say they've lost their jobs to India, China and Malaysia. For all the vitriol over the issue, it's hard to say exactly how many offshoring victims really exist. Guesstimates put the exodus at anywhere from 300,000 to 600,000 jobs annually. That's a tiny sliver in an economy that delivers paychecks to more than 130 million workers, but its punch is magnified for several reasons. First, in an economy that's hardly producing any new jobs, any losses hurt.
Second is the growing sense that even if the numbers are small today, they're growing quickly. In 2002 Forrester Research predicted 3.3 million U.S. tech jobs might migrate overseas by 2015. When economists at the University of California, Berkeley, recrunched the numbers last fall, they concluded that a staggering 14 million positions could be at risk. Many of those in the bull's-eye are white-collar office workers. Some involve lesser-skilled fields like telemarketing, but others are highly educated. Some of them—radiologists, accountants, engineers—have invested in years of schooling, so they feel especially burned.
NEWSWEEK ON AIR | 2/22/04
CAMPAIGN 2004: THE EDWARDS SURGE, THE JOBS ISSUE, & DEAN’S LEGACY
Dan McGinn, Newsweek National Correspondent, Boston, Ron Facheux, Publisher of the Political Oddsmaker and contributor-at-large for Campaign and Elections Magazine, and Carol Darr, Director of the Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet at the Graduate School of Political Management, George Washington University
• Listen to the audio
• Listen to the complete On Air show
The fear factor is also growing because no one is entirely certain whose job might be next. Common sense says it's hard to outsource work that requires a hands-on presence (think plumbers, car mechanics or Subway-sandwich makers) or face-to-face contact (think realtors or psychotherapists). But those boundaries are fuzzy. Consider health care. Nurses and surgeons appear immune from the threat, but Ohio University economist Alfred Eckes speculates that as health-care costs rise, airline prices fall and Asian medical training increases, Americans might someday be shipped to Asia for certain surgical procedures, dampening U.S. surgeons' wages. Says Eckes: "Everybody is imagining the future for their kids [and saying], 'My god, where is America going to be in 20 years given these trends?' "
The doomsday scenarios will likely prove overblown. Some firms have tried offshoring and been unhappy with the results; they've reversed course by "in-shoring" work back to the United States. And, over time, workers are remarkably flexible. White House economist N. Gregory Mankiw sparked a firestorm this month by calling offshoring "probably a good thing for the economy in the long term," but the fact is, most economists—even Democrats—agree with him. Yes, offshoring creates painful transitions as people have to shift professions, but recall how many of our forbearers migrated from farms to factories to offices in the 20th century. And even if politicians try to stop offshoring, it's easier said than done. Protectionists traditionally use tariffs to boost the prices of imported goods like cars or steel; taxing services that travel via broadband and fiber-optic cable is more difficult. Driven by angry voters, elected officials are trying anyway: according to the National Foundation for American Policy, more than 20 state legislatures are considering bills to limit the awarding of state contracts overseas or require foreign call centers to identify their location when answering Americans' calls.
For now, worker anxiety seems destined to remain high—and the demographic that Wired magazine has dubbed "pissed-off tech workers" seems likely to grow more vocal. "You have people who did exactly what these economists said to do—their parents saved and sent them to school ... and now their high-tech jobs are moving offshore," says Marcus Courtney, president of WashTech, a Seattle-based worker-advocacy group. It's a disorienting reversal, the kind that's punishing people who "played by the rules," as John Edwards says in his stump speech. Standing in a crowd at an Edwards rally in New York last week, Linda Muller recognized the conundrum. Muller, 60, a retired textile worker, recalls how everyone flocked to high-tech when textile factories closed. Now those jobs are threatened, too? "It sure makes you scratch your head," she says. Or raise a fist. Or pull a voting lever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Outsourcing is wrong
The solution is to go out and create new jobs. Complaining about outsourcing doesn't help. It makes things worse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Outsourcing is wrong
And what new Jobs are you suggesting Mike ?
I spent 30k just 2 years ago to train for this field. ( That I'm STILL in debt for ) How much more do you think I should go in debt to begin @ the bottom of the ladder once again ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
If you're going to blame anyone, blame them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Outsourcing is wrong
Should we have forced horse-drawn buggies to keep being made after automobiles came along, just because all those people spent time training to be buggy makers?
Give me a solution that works, and I'll discuss it, but you don't give any solutions. You're just complaining.
[ link to this | view in thread ]