Builder.com Writers Outsourced to India 755
An anonymous reader writes "Builder.com, which is part of CNet.com, is now outsourcing some of their writing to India. The funny thing is, the editor claims it's not as much about money as because he's 'getting a better interface with producers of the content.' He claims CNet isn't giving up control, but if they're the publisher, and he's the editor, and they can't hire and manage their own writers, why shouldn't the Indians just put up their own website to replace CNet, and we can all read what they write direct? I mean, we're all going to be buying software direct from Indian companies soon, so why not?" Newsforge and Slashdot are both part of OSDN. OSDN also runs sites like devchannel.org which are more-or-less direct competitors of builder.com.
the trend continues (Score:2, Informative)
I was out of work for a while and just recently was lucky enough to score a job working in an irrigation supply house... doing deliveries and stuff like that. I like so many
NAFTA SUCKS
world trade SUCKS
any american who HONESTLY believes otherwise SUCKS
Why shouldn't the Indians... (Score:5, Informative)
Probably because CNet pays them more than they could make running their own web site. Running a web-site would involve getting out and selling ad space and buying lots of bandwidth. Both of these roles are probably more cost-effecively done from the fancy CNet building in San Francisco, because it's a better place to shmooze with advertisers and suppliers.
CNet still has a nice cushion of IPO cash that they can use to pay Indian developers well as well as buying more expensive things like Esther Dyson's EDVentures [marketwatch.com]
I'm sure Esther didn't come cheap, so I think CNet's right when they say it's not just for the money savings. If a writer in India can produce better content for the same price they'll hire one there. If Esther can provide even-better content for a much higher price, they'll hire her too.
My guess is that the cost of the Indian writers to build out the sales side of the proposed website wouldn't be possible in the post-.com-ipo era.
Before you get all worked up (Score:5, Informative)
BTW, "Coolie" is a word that roughly translates into menial laborer.
Magnus.
US gets more BPO work than India: US commerce dept (Score:3, Informative)
US commerce department data quoted in a news article in The Wall Street Journal show that a lot more work is being outsourced to the US in comparison with other countries like India.
http://us.rediff.com/money/2004/mar/18bpo.htm?hea
Learn to be a SysAdmin and do repairs. (Score:2, Informative)
Also when it comes to hardware repairs not only dose the corprate IT force need to be phisicly present to make the repairs this is also true in the computer shops however be prepaired for thies jobs to become the tech equivlent of McDonalds drive throughs.
Also have back up skills. No matter how diverse your technical skill remember that with most of the jobs being outsourced the programmers and phone support people will retrain to the jobs that are left and will leave fewer opennings for you.
And advice for any generation DO NOT go for the "HOT" jobs becouse when you graduate you'll be fighting everyone for those jobs plus the market will have evolved a few steps just out of hipness and media attention.
Look for fun & well paying yet less visable jobs. Like industry jernalists and look at the trends such as... Ahem.. Blog and Forum media. (Slashdot).
Someone suggested learning Hindi and being the project cordinator. There are probably a whole bunch of possable jobs created by outsourcing alone. Look into the outsourcing industry.
But have a wide range of skills and get some non-tech skills as well.
Translating Anime and Manga sounds like fun....
Re:Oh man (Score:2, Informative)
India and China practice what you so roundly criticize, so why don't you bitch about them doing it.
*******
US asks WTO to rule on China's chip tax
By Tony Smith
Posted: 19/03/2004 at 11:03 GMT
The Register Mobile: Find out what the fuss is about. Take the two week trial today.
The US government has filed an official complaint with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) regarding the tax rebates China offers to its domestic chip makers
As reported yesterday, US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick last week said of the tax rebates: "If they don't stop it, we're going to take action."
And that's just what the Bush administration has done. "US manufacturers of semiconductors and other products have a right to compete on a level playing field with Chinese firms," said Zoellick in an Associated Press report. "As a WTO member, China must live up to its WTO obligations."
In 2000, China imposed a 17 per cent sales tax on semiconductors. However, it permits local manufacturers to claim an 11 per cent rebate on the levy. If they design the chips as well as make them, they can claim a 14 per cent rebate. Neither tax break is open to overseas suppliers.
Such preferential treatment for local firms is a violation of WTO rules against discriminatory treatment, the US government claimed.
The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), the trade body representing US chipmakers, yesterday welcomed the government's move. It has been calling for some time for the US government to take the case to the WTO.
With the complaint filed, China and US trade representatives now have 60 days to negotiate a settlement. If talks prove unsuccessful, the case will come before a WTO panel. (R)
Re:outsourcing (Score:3, Informative)
Who knows?
By the same token though, if you were to say in 1950 that the next 50 years would be marked by a long slide in industrial employment, the very same question would apply. Indeed, given all that was known at the time, it would be quite reasonable to say that "the new jobs [that would be] created in the US to replace the [displaced industrial jobs] do not pay nearly as much nor do the[y] have the same level of [benefits]."
The same could be said in 1890, if it was pointed out that farm employment in the US would decline massively over that subsequent 50 years.
Capitalism is an inherently dynamic force. Any attempt to control this dynamism results in catastrophes like the Great Depression (largely caused by the errant adoption of anti-free trade laws during a normal recession).
Re:outsourcing (Score:3, Informative)
Foreign diplomats generally avoided specific threats of retaliation against the United States since any such language would be considered an infringement upon national sovereignty, and it was not the place of foreign governments to protest the Constitutionally enacted laws of the United States. Furthermore, the word "protest" during the time of the Great Depression did not automatically express dissatisfaction with U.S. trade policy. The word "protest" usually represented the argument that treaty rights of a foreign nation had been violated.
Canada briefly discussed retaliation in 1929 with U.S. Secretary of State Frank Kellogg. Canada warned Kellogg that upwardly shifted tariff rates might result in a high probability for retaliation. Canadian Minister Vincent Massey was encouraged to release an official statement representing Canadas position, but none was ever written. Canada did not want to antagonize high tariff legislators in Congress. Instead, Massey decided to go a more discreet route via the American press. After meeting with the editor of the New York World, Massey was "impressed" by the position of the editor "that Canada will never be taken seriously by the United States...until she is prepared to strike back." This author supposes that a similar opinion is shared by the Chinese about the United States today. The United States repeatedly languishes over its huge trade deficit with China, but our market remains open to their goods while their market is virtually closed to ours. China will never take the United States seriously until we have the courage to take a stand, strike back, and apply higher tariffs on Chinese goods like the Chinese have applied to our goods!
Many nations of that time embraced the idea that retaliation would be counterproductive. They feared antagonizing Congress or a grass roots brushfire of national patriotism among U.S. citizens that might lead to discrimination of their imported goods. Historical records show that the Smoot-Hawley tariff did little to encourage foreign countries to retaliate with high tariffs of their own. In May 1931, the State Department report found that "by far the largest number of countries do not discriminate against the commerce of the United States in any way." Data from the U.S. Commerce Department show that the reason for the severe drop in exports in almost every American export industry was because of economic problems related to the depression, not foreign retaliation for higher U.S. tariffs. Some U.S. exports, however, did see significant gains in foreign market share. Exports of apples, pears and grapefruits increased. Exports of prunes went up 31 percent, and exports of dried apricots soared higher by 72 percent. Exports of raw materials such as cotton and rayon held steady. Exports of American films increased 49 percent, and exports of false teeth rose 24 percent.
Re:Oh man (Score:1, Informative)
To for a japanese company to sell cars in America you must build it here...but IBM already is in america they just use cheap labor overseas.
And on another angle...I bet you bitched when the chinese decided to require so much percentage of software be from chinese companies but thats the same thing that reagan did! Now that the chinese are play capitalist hardball you dont like it?
Hey anyways no one said capitalism was fair...in fact the capitalist systems is basically required to be UNFAIR! Get used to it! Stop actingh so naive like capitalism owes you something. It's every man for himself baby!
Myths of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff by Roger Simmerma (Score:2, Informative)
Smoot-Hawley Tariff
by Roger Simmermaker
July 12, 2001
To be able to accurately explain the affects of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, it is necessary first to rid ourselves of popular myths so that we can start with a clean slate and derive conclusions from fact, rather than fantasy. I will list some common myths here, and then disprove them using facts according to history. The myths that prevail, even today, some 61 years after the tariff bill was signed by President Herbert Hoover, are as follows:
1.The Smoot-Hawley Tariff established the highest tariff rates in U.S. history, and the sharp rise in tariff rates caused countless nations to retaliate with tariffs of their own.
2. The Smoot Hawley-Tariff contributed to the instability of the stock market.
3. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was responsible for causing the Great Depression.
Campaigning against Herbert Hoover for the presidency in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt saw the tariff as a way to get a leg up on his Republican opponent's incumbent bid. Even Republicans eventually began to mischaracterize their party's former president in later years, as well as the tariff bill he signed into law in 1930. Even Ronald Reagan said "The Smoot-Hawley Tariff helped bring on the Great Depression." Someone should have told Ronnie that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was enacted over eight months after the Great Depression. Later, former President Reagan said "the Smoot-Hawley tariff...made it virtually impossible for anyone to sell anything in America...and spread the Great Depression around the world." Someone should have told Ronnie that over two-thirds of the goods imported into the United States entered duty-free, and that some nations actually increased exports to the United States after the Great Depression. Al Gore fell for the same politically correct lie as Reagan in 1993 in his debate with Ross Perot, claiming the tariff "was one of the principle causes...of the Great Depression." There was actually a higher percentage of imports on the duty free list in 1930 than there were after Ronald Reagan left office.
Even the Democrat party platform of 1928 proclaimed that tariffs were necessary to sustain "legitimate business and a high standard of wages for American labor." The platform also encouraged the equalization of the cost between production at home and abroad to "safeguard...the wage of the American laborer." Today, most Republicans and Democrats alike regard equalizing tariffs as extreme. Only the Reform Party considers it fair and common sense to treat our own producers equally with foreign competitors in the realm of U.S. trade policy.
The confidence Hoover expressed in high tariffs in his re-election bid was echoed throughout the campaign. If the word of the day was that high tariffs had caused the Great Depression, Hoover's stance would have obvious political suicide. Even FDR was unable to totally shake the call for high tariffs. On the campaign trail in October 1932, he proclaimed, "I favor continued protection for American agriculture as well as American industry." The creation of the myth that the Smoot-Hawley tariff caused the Great Depression would have to wait.
Regardless of how one calculates tariff rates, as either a percentage of imports where tariffs are applied or as a percentage of all imports, duty-free or not, the Smoot-Hawley tariff did not have the highest rates in U.S. history. That claim belongs to the Tariff of Abominations of 1828, which caused neither a depression nor recession. With the belief that high tariffs cause depressions and hamper economic growth, one has to wonder why there wasn't a Great Depression of 1830? The reason is that there are several factors that cause recessions and depressions. Some of these causes will be discussed in this chapter, and revealing these factors will show that they were the cause of the Great Depression, not the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.
In their attempts to vilify Senator Smoot and Representative Hawley for proposing such extre
Re:Serious Suggestion (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Typical American reactions (Score:3, Informative)
What we're seeing here is similar. IT workers are getting fucked over so that the higher-ups can buy bigger SUVs. This is the only benefit to exporting. That money that we're sending overseas ain't coming back over here, buddy. We also lose independency and piss off consumers who want to talk to someone that isn't halfway around the world.
The point is that these companies will eventually adapt once enough people get pissed off with them, but in the meantime, a nation of IT workers who bust their asses will continue to be unceremoniously fucked because of a small groups greed.
You get it now?
Why Indians are such good programmers (Score:3, Informative)
The biggest reason that Indians are such good programmers (and engineers) is because, at the current time, only the best and brightest in India are being educated and trained to do this work. On average, America and India have the same proportion of people who are smart at some given level (assuming an equivalent educational level). But in India, the educational system, and the economy, are just not up to par with America in terms of cranking out more programmers. That doesn't mean India's premiere school, IIT, is bad. In fact is it an excellent school, despite the limitations of resources they still have to work with. But IIT is pretty much all there is in India (several campuses around the country). In proportion to population, America cranks out far more programmers than India does (at least for now). That means it has dug deeper down the barrel in its population. There are many times more programmers from America as from India.
Right now, there are lots of people in America who can be considered "la creme de la creme". But they just happened to be in the wrong place (like, working for a mismanaged company that failed) when things went downhill. There are plenty of these highly experienced, well educated, people around looking for work. But they are also drowned out by even more people who just can't come anywhere close. The "noise level" is basically drowning them out.
But in India, it's mostly just "la creme de la creme" that's available. The "bottom of the barrel" isn't even trying because they don't have the educational system scaled up the way America has, so they don't even have a hint of the basic skills needed. If you take 1000 random resumes of people in India looking for work, and 1000 random resumes of people in America looking for work, on average you're going to find that a much higher proportion of Indians are better qualified for that work. And that's only because such a higher proportion of the population in America is (still) trying to get these jobs, and thus you have lots of lesser qualified people in the pool (in America, but not in India). Give an employer a choice of which stack of resumes to take to fill a job, and quite many will choose the Indian stack just because of the better signal to noise ratio (even if the salaries would be exactly the same).
Ultimately, what America needs to do is cut back on cranking out more programmers (and engineers, and other high tech people), so that "la creme de la creme" can take the work and get well rewarded for it, regardless of which country they come from.
Sorry, but you are wrong ... (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, but you are wrong; it has already started. High tech companies are already popping up all over India (but generally concentrated around where the IIT campuses are). In some cases these startups are even stealing American intellectual property (though the Indian government is trying to crack down on that to avoid scaring away future businesses from employing in India).
My USA Fortune 1000 software company take (Score:5, Informative)
2000 - cut US headcount
2001 - cut US headcount
2002 - cut US headcount / hired India software developers to 'help out with maintenace'
2003 - cut US headcount down to 1 USA developer per product, and 1 USA QA person per 2 products / Tripled India headcount - India somehow manages to go from 'helping out' to 'leading develoment'
This took the company from 5,000 USA based developers, qa, doc, sales, etc down to less than 1,500 of which most of them are in Sales, accounting, HR, and executive management.
This left the entire USA based development, QA and doc with less than 20 percent of the original headcount.
Our development schedules accross the board slipped 6 months to 2 years. This includes a dramatic reduction in functionality enhancements.
Guess what, that means that many critical high sales dollar generating products are solely dependant on 1 USA developer.
If we lose 15 key people in the US, our company will have 33 percent of its total sales at risk.
All the while the executives, who are sad that their stock options have been under water for 4 years, have been saying:
The IT spending environment is bad - it's not our fault
India development is comming on board.
Many of us USA based developers are looking to exit this company since the company does not even want the software products it develops to suceed.
This is from my experinces in:
1. Listening to management parrot some powerpoint cheerleading 'our company is great. We care about our employees.' complete BS
and most importantly
2. Seeing how the actual actions of the management do not agree with the words, beliefs, and corporate agenda presented by upper management.
I look forward to 2005 when stock options will have to be carried on the balance sheet as a future expense.