Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses United States

A Job Fair For Jobs In India — In California 309

Posted by timothy
from the borders-aren't-everything dept.
dcblogs writes "Indian and U.S. companies are holding a job fair at the San Jose Convention Center this weekend for jobs in India. The job fair is aimed at Indian workers in the U.S., but anyone with an interest in working overseas can attend. India is pitched as a 'sea of opportunity' in a PowerPoint presentation about the job fair. That's in contrast to another slide that makes the obvious point that the U.S. has 'barely recovered from a downturn,' with 'signs that it's headed for another.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Job Fair For Jobs In India — In California

Comments Filter:
  • Recovered? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fnj (64210) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @09:31AM (#38034206)

    What the FUCK are people smoking when they say the US has "recovered" from its "downturn."

    • Re:Recovered? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 12, 2011 @09:45AM (#38034270)

      The "economy" will NEVER recover. It's simply too good an argument to keep wages down "because of the tough times and everybody has to sacrifice*".

      *CEOs not included

    • Re:Recovered? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Larryish (1215510) <larryish&gmail,com> on Saturday November 12, 2011 @09:46AM (#38034274)

      "Sea of Opportunity"?

      More like "Sea of Things I Don't Have Antibodies For".

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Well, to be fair, that statement is really intended for the illegal aliens (mostly from Mexico) that they are trying to get to go to India and take jobs from the folks in India.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      By the methods economists have traditionally used people aren't really important, at least not directly. A "recession" is when there's negative overall economic growth. We're in positive territory now, and have been for a while. To these economists, that's "recovery." The assumption, which has been somewhat true in the past, is that eventually employment will begin to rise. That assumption may not be true this time. Or, at minimum, it may take much longer for employment to rise, and there may be some

      • Re:Recovered? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bryan1945 (301828) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @10:01AM (#38034352) Journal

        Need new terms for a lot of things. When unemployment goes up less than expected, that's an "improvement." When less people file for unemployment one month to the next, that's an "improvement." When cutting the *increase* of the budget, that's "saving money."
        UGH.

      • Re:Recovered? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by overunderunderdone (521462) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @10:40AM (#38034492)
        You're complaining that the definition of technical terms ("recession" and "recovery") having to do with one thing (economic growth) aren't a about another related thing (employment). There are already other terms that address the issue you think economists are missing (unemployment, underemployment, job growth etc.). And there's even qualifiers you might notice economists attach to terms like recovery, for instance "weak recovery" or "slow recovery" to describe exactly the situation we're in, a recovery that's too slow to add many of the lost jobs back.

        An economy is a complicated thing with lots of moving parts. Dumbing down the vocabulary used to describe those parts to accommodate the ignorant it unlikely to help much. "Recovery" even qualified as "weak recovery" may sound too positive to people when it describes a situation with persistent high unemployment. On the other hand it's certainly more positive than the alternative.
      • by Grishnakh (216268)

        we need to do something about it. First, let's all stop listening to Ron Paul. He means well, but he's living in a previous century. ( the 19th)

        The only problem here is, what is the alternative? Should we listen to Bachmann? Perry? Obama? Yes, Paul's got some pretty obsolete ideas (shutting down the EPA is particularly bad), but the alternatives running for that job aren't any better.

    • This [google.com]. It's technically true that the economy recovered. But, the sad fact is that it's only growing at the same rate as before the recession which is only sufficient to add new jobs about the rate that population growth is adding new workers. We're stuck with high unemployment unless we can grow the economy faster than before (which is what usually happens after a recession). If they're right that we're headed to another downturn unemployment will go up even further, at which point we're looking at somethin
      • Re:Recovered? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jrminter (1123885) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @11:08AM (#38034620)

        It is technically true that the economy has recovered because the GDP measure is terribly flawed. it is defined as:

        GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports - imports)

        Note that no distinction is made for government spending financed by tax revenue and that financed by borrowing. In his book, "Leverage" (p. 81), Karl Denninger has analyzed the official GDP data from the BEA GDP Series and debt from the Treasury's "Debt to the penny" source and has shown that when government deficit spending is removed from GDP, there has been essentially no growth in the past 30 years. This is why most of our wages have grown very slowly. The problem is that we have spent our way into a very deep hole that no matter what we do there will be a massive contraction in nominal GDP - a real depression. This is unavoidable. However, digging a deeper hole with with more debt will only make the eventual pain worse.

        What we have here is an economy based on the foolish presumption that we can survive when our income and expenses are two diverging exponential functions. Our expenses have been growing much more rapidly than our income and it has all been financed with debt. This debt was used to fund immediate consumption, not to produce the means of generating more income. This is not sustainable for an individual family and is not sustainable for a nation. We now see both Greece and Italy on the verge of collapse. The US is just as vulnerable. The math says there is no doubt there will be a crash. It is only a matter of "when." We do not have the national political will to have an adult conversation about this and plan and carry out the triage approach to spending that will be required to turn this around. The best an individual can do is get out of personal debt and make preparations to survive a nasty situation.

        • I agree with your first point but completely disagree with the follow-on. The US is, indeed, in the midst of a huge debt-fueled rut. A look at the per-person productivity numbers fueling this "jobless recovery" will show you there have been massive increases in productivity of the last decade. There's no reason to think that (a) these increases in productivity will cease as long as there is a demand for produced goods anywhere in the world. (b)there won't be sufficient demand anywhere in the world to driv
        • I won't argue with that since I haven't read the book. It sounds frighteningly plausible. However, if I'm understanding it, it's not that GDP measures nothing. It's that it's not measuring something else we'd better be taking into account (and maybe we need another more prominent measure that does). We've experienced real growth over those years otherwise with population growth we would have seen increased unemployment and/or falling wages rather than modest wage growth and relatively higher employment (asi
      • We're only stuck because of the neoliberal/globalist blinders we have on ... we need to stop caring about global competitiveness, it won't guarantee full employment either. If we really try to compete with the Chinese who the hell is going to consume any way, austerity is necessary ... but it's not sufficient. We need austerity so our economies can become relatively self sufficient (trade balance) giving us the room to rebalance them towards greater overall employment (even if it comes at a hit to efficienc

      • I'm afraid high economic growth and output is now possible and becoming even more possible without adding jobs. We're heading for Great Depression levels of unemployment either way.
      • by foobsr (693224)

        We're stuck with high unemployment unless we can grow the economy faster than before

        (Wikipedia) "The Limits to Growth is a 1972 book modeling the consequences of a rapidly growing world population and finite resource supplies ... In 2010, Peet, Nørgård, and Ragnarsdóttir called the book a "pioneering report", but said that, "unfortunately the report has been largely dismissed by critics as a doomsday prophecy that has not held up to scrutiny.""

        Interesting how the belief that "growth" is a

        • Interesting how the belief that "growth" is a solution still is almost ubiquitous.

          Our entire economy is based on growth and it's absolutely ridiculous. I cannot offer an alternative but without heading to the stars I think it's pretty obvious growth as an economic model is unsustainable and I do not understand why this is never discussed.

    • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @10:01AM (#38034350)

      I've not heard anyone say the US has recovered, what I've heard is that the recession is over and that is correct. A recession is a period where the economy shrinks. The US economy is no long shrinking, and has not been for some time now. However it has not been growing fast at all, and it shrunk quite a bit during the last recession, meaning that the economy is still quite far off its peak.

      So it is not "recovered" as in back to or above its pre peak level, but it is no longer in a recession, though there is worry it could fall in to another one.

      • by tomhudson (43916)

        When the economy "grows" slower than the population, you're still in a recession, because each person has less money, so individual spending power is shrinking. The problem with the GDP measurement is that it fails to take into account population growth.

        If the population were to shrink by 50%, and GDP to decline by 10% and incomes almost double, that would definitely NOT be a recession, despite what some would claim.

        We are not in a recession - we're *only* part-way through the 2nd Great Depression, and

        • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @11:57AM (#38034912)

          If you think this is a great depression I suggest you go talk to someone who lived through the real great depression so they can slap you upside the head and explain to you the vast, vast, differences.

          Oh and by your measure, there is still growth. The US has a very low population growth, as do most industrialized nations. It is higher than many other industrial nations (some of which have negative growth rates) but it still only 0.9% annually. In 2010, the GDP growth was 2.9%.

          • First, Take out the REAL inflation numbers, and GDP was negative.

            Second, the only reason that this depression isn't having the same "misery index" as the first one is because of the greater safety net, and because we caught a lucky break with the weather. Without unemployment insurance and welfare, and the dust-bowl conditions of the 30s [wikipedia.org], it would already be just as bad as the first one.

            The "real" unemployment rate - when you take into account those who are heaping on debt by staying in school because they can't find a job, those who have given up, etc. (the U6 measure), and we're into the same range as the Great Depression. The real rate of unemployment in California, for example, is now 20% [msn.com]. Another 5% and it will be equal to the peak in 1933 ... and it's heading there, as cities and states struggle with their own ongoing debt crisis.

            There's almost 50 million people on food stamps. And housing is now already officially worse than the great depression [cnbc.com] (and it's going to get wors)

            It's official: The housing crisis that began in 2006 and has recently entered a double dip is now worse than the Great Depression.

            Prices have fallen some 33 percent since the market began its collapse, greater than the 31 percent fall that began in the late 1920s and culminated in the early 1930s, according to Case-Shiller data.

            Half of all homes now have a mortgage that makes them unsellable - if there is equity left, it's not sufficient to cover the additional costs of the sale (real estate commission fees, etc). Strategic default is a problem, but another problem is that, without jobs (or only part-time or low-paying jobs), even people whose mortgages are now "ok" are in trouble.

            The fact is that any rise in GDP is not being seen by the workers, and hasn't been for more than a decade. Ask anyone who's had to take a major pay cut, or simply can't find a job because for every opening, there are 100 or 1,000 applicants.

          • by pwizard2 (920421) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @01:51PM (#38035598)

            If you think this is a great depression I suggest you go talk to someone who lived through the real great depression so they can slap you upside the head and explain to you the vast, vast, differences.

            I talked to someone who was around back then and he said that things are actually worse. Today, people don't know how to hunt or farm like they did back then.

            • by rahvin112 (446269)

              My parents grew up in the depression. When you have to use the sears catalog for toilet paper, come talk to me about having it hard. Yes some of the people during the depression could grow their own food. So could you, but you don't because you don't know how. Well neither did most of the unemployed during the great depression. Food typically was about 40% of the living expense back then as well and significantly more expensive than today.

              Unemployment was upwards of 50% that means half the country had no jo

    • They're called Obama voters.

    • by Ihmhi (1206036)

      We supposedly ended the recession in 2009. Keep in mind, a "recession" is two quarters of negative GDP growth. Two quarters of positive GDP growth is technically the end of the recession.

      My theory is that someone, somewhere had an idea click in their head - if we don't hire a whole ton of people, we can exploit the hell out of existing workers and have plenty of people to replace them if they ever get fed up.

  • Next (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 12, 2011 @09:32AM (#38034216)

    Indian users complaining about the bad English of all those US based call centers.

    • If there were call centers setup in the US to cater to Indian clients then why would they be speaking English in the first place?

      • by Ster (556540)

        If there were call centers setup in the US to cater to Indian clients then why would they be speaking English in the first place?

        Because English is one of the official languages of India [wikipedia.org], and is spoken in every state [wikipedia.org].

        -Ster

  • by Kr1ll1n (579971) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @09:54AM (#38034306)

    Some are great, others not so much. Same as local talent.
    What can be said is that the more that return home for employment, the more jobs that open up stateside.
    This is *NOT* a bad thing.

    Many Silicon Valley companies use outsourcing firms to staff and have open arrangements with these firms which make it where they (the SV company) would be throwing money away with "finders fees". A good example of this would be 3-6 months of the consultant's\contractor's salary just to hire the pseudo-employee outright.

    Being a contractor with any company for more than a year should *NOT* be a normal thing, I work with very talented and knowledgeable Indians that have been in the same company as me for >4 years. Given the opportunity to go home, or stay working for a company that will NEVER hire me, I believe I would consider it, no matter who the company is.

    • by msobkow (48369) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @10:08AM (#38034376) Homepage Journal

      Unfortunately my experience has been largely negative. It's clear that some of the so-called universities attended by Indian students are paper mills that don't do a decent job of educating them about programming.

      There's also a cultural issue. For some reason, many of those I've worked with can't or won't search for internet howto's and help instructions on their own, though they'll follow those instructions if a senior developer sends them a link.

      Obviously I've worked with a lot of good Indian developers as well, but there are clearly some cultural differences that can cause friction and frustration.

      • So? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Weezul (52464) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @11:00AM (#38034576)

        We invented languages like PHP and VB because we need many poorly skilled developers for drudge work. If you don't do brain dead easy work, then don't hire people trained for brain dead easy development.

        There are *many* shitty universities inside the U.S. too, heck fraudulent education is a growth industry. You'd never hire developers from University of Phoenix though, simply because you already know they suck. Did you ever try asking your skilled Indian colleges which Indian universities are actually good?

      • by adamchou (993073)
        A few years back, I hired a recent Indian graduate without given him any kind of programming test. This was the first time I hired someone and I guess I was too naive to think what he had on paper could possibly mean he didn't know how to program.

        His first day on the job, I was showing him our code base and asked him to do something with a for loop. Granted he's never programmed in PHP but come on, constructing a for loop in PHP is about as simple as can be. He didn't know how to do it, even after readin
        • I work in a university (in IT no less) and I can attest to this. It never ceases to surprise me how many students we hire that are computer science majors and know little to nothing about computers never mind how to program one.

          That and it seems like anyone can get a masters degree or even a phd if they read enough books and write enough papers.

      • cs in indian universities is a huge joke. hell, even other engineering degrees are usually shit. they don't tell you anything about the person than the fact that this guy can work real hard and follow orders. that's the way it is here, i'm afraid. for eg, i'm studying electronics in an indian university (its one of the better ones), and i know more and have more experience in programming than most of the cs faculty here.
        i dunno what kind of an issue this is. people here (in my uni) are very smart, they do e

    • by sgt scrub (869860)

      It isn't about sending them back so there are more jobs here. It is about sending someone you have confidence in back so they can lead a team of low wage developers in India.
      FTFA:
      Indian companies need experienced people who can step into project management roles up to senior levels, said Bhushan.

      The companies are typically looking for someone with eight or more years of experience and specific domain knowledge. The workers ahould have the ability to lead large project teams and run large Web sites, said Bh

  • Less competition for the unemployed here.

  • Last I read on slashdot, getting a work visa for India is extremely hard, meaning Americans can't as easily go to India for work as the reverse. Anyone have more info?

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      Last I heard, India was like every other country in that if they really want you they'll break all the rules and bring you in anyway. If you have the specialty that they need, all that is irrelevant. Just like here, where we actually have seminars on how to disqualify qualified applicants so that you can hire an H1-B.

      • by sgt scrub (869860)

        They are looking for Indians to go back and run projects for them so they don't have to pay an agency that handles management. It is cheaper to send someone back and set them up with a $7/h crew.

  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @10:02AM (#38034358) Homepage Journal
    There are job fairs for jobs in Japan in the US, MIT does one for jobs in Europe [euro-career.com], etc. Nothing all that unique about doing one for India.
    • by funkatron (912521) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @10:15AM (#38034400)
      It's a sign of economic growth in India that recruiting from the US is now a possibility. A couple of decades ago there weren't many jobs out there that would be attractive to Americans.
      • Wage War in India (Score:5, Interesting)

        by That_Dan_Guy (589967) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @10:27AM (#38034448)

        You are more right than you know actually. I work for an Indian outsource company. I was outsourced 3+ years ago. I talk to a lot of the guys over there and from over there. These companies now pay their people the same to stay in India as to come to the US. They used to pay them a lot more to come here. But in the last year or more there has been a pretty major wage war as the different India tech companies pilfer talent from each other at an alarming rate. It has led to a lot of turnover.

        But then, I've been approached by recruiters here who want to pay me more than I get now. They are just desperate to oversell my skills (fine, unless they oversell to the point the client thinks they're getting a triple CCIE when they're only getting a CCNP/MCSE), and I currently have the best schedule ever being able to work from home anytime I want. If only I didn't have kids I could be making 30% more than I am now.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          >> If only I didn't have kids I could be making 30% more than I am now.

          And keeping 70% more of it!

  • by java_dev (894898) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @10:46AM (#38034514)

    I lved in India with my family setting up some engineering teams. Best two years of my career... but also the most challenging, simply because you have no idea how hard it is to adjust to living in a foreign culture until you have to do it.

    Of course, if you have a crappy boss, it'll completely suck - like anywhere else..

  • This is nothing new. The only difference is that the jobs themselves are in India. I get spam job offers every week from Indian companies advertising for consulting positions here in the United States, unfortunately, I am not qualified for them because I don't have an H1-B and I am not Indian. I am a natural born citizen of the United States and that is just not the sort of person these consulting firms are looking for.
  • by erice (13380) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @12:31PM (#38035130) Homepage

    Periodic fairs for jobs in China have been held in the SF Bay Area going back to at least early 2009 so this is nothing all that new. The Chinese jobs usually required fluent Mandarin. The Indian jobs might be more approachable for non-Indians since English is the language of the educated class. Not that it matters much to me. I traveled in India for six months and while it is a fascinating place to visit, I don't want to live there.

  • by stewartm0205 (1443707) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @02:45PM (#38035930)
    Indians returning to India is old news. Not all Indians who come to America stay. Many return because they get home sick or they can't adjust. Many also return to India because they can get a better deal in India. For the same set of skills they can live better in India.

Whenever people agree with me, I always think I must be wrong. - Oscar Wilde

Working...