Talk:Offshoring/Archives/2011

Heritage Foundation

Seriously sourcing the heritage foundation? 75.134.186.16 (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Merging with Offshoring IT Services

The section on Offshoring is more generic and deals with both IT and Business Process Offshoring. There is a need to continue with a distinct page for Offshoring IT ServicesB2bhandshake

• Strong agree with merging these articles. Given that the only reference in this entire article is "Testimony on Chinese Currency Manipulation", there's clearly a lack of independent information specifically on this topic. Virtually every point in the Offshoring IT services article is duplicated in the Offshore article. My suggested next step is for someone to propose a framework for the new, merged article.Strom 20:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The Internet has been fundamental in enabling the offshoring of IT services, and remains a vital medium for the transmission of IT services. Arguably, the Internet isn't quite as vital for other offshore services, such as legal and banking services. Therefore I would argue for keeping the two articles separate. Gavin Wilson 07:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I have added an NPOV tag to the debates section. The "debate" section is a joke, someone has just cut and pasted the Lou Dobbs talking points here. Just one debate argument has a source, the rest do not have a source and cannot be verified. A debate is where both sides of the argument are presented with facts to back them up. The debate section just presents one side of the outsourcing argument. I have tried to insert the other view of outsourcing but it needs more cleaning up. Until then please do not remove the NPOV tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CasperDude (talk • contribs) 19:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging with Offshore Outsourcing

Outsourcing and offshoring are two related, but distinct topics. Outsourcing is the movement of an internal business function to an external company, regardless of the location of the company. Offshoring is the movement of an internal business function to another country, regardless of whether it stays in the same company or not. Offshore outsourcing is the combination of the two, the movement of an internal business function to both another company and another country. The terms are not synonymous and none should be removed or merged considering the various issues concerning the various combinations of these topics. Vicissidude 20:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Quality of Service Concerns

The quality of service about call centers is just but one instance of customer dissatisfaction. Again, many outsourcing deals have been executed with the customer being satisfied. So using just one instance to draw conclusions is highly questionable.

Request to Add

Details of a book on offshoring by Prof. Erran Carmel and Paul Tjia appear as references. Why not allow inclusion of Abstract of a new book by Mohan Babu "Offshoring IT Services : A framework for managing outsourced projects" (McGrawHill India) http://www.offshoringmanagement.com/theBook.htm?

Trademark

I added "rightshoring" as a synonym of "bestshoring", without realising that it is a trademark[1]. What's more, it's a trademark of my employer! I have removed the term, am recusing myself from this issue, I leave it up to the rest of the Wikipedia community as to whether and how the trademarked term can be used in this article. My inclusion of the trademark in the article does not grant any specific permissions on behalf of my company, and neither should my removal imply any official statement on the use of this trademark. I am acting in this regard as an individual and not as a representitive of Capgemini PLC. — PhilHibbs | talk 09:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History

I do not think we should claim that offshoring started when the US jobs moved to Mexico. I cannot see anything indicating that offshoring did not take place before or that Northen America is a better example than all the others. Please be aware of the fact that this is not a US encyclopedia. 213.23.130.15 16:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) US encyclopedia or not, this IS an English encyclopedia. Considering that the US holds the largest English-speaking population in the world, it is appropriate to bring up US examples.

Completely Irrelevant Content

Debate->Legal Concerns

First two examples are completely irrelevant for below reasons and should be either removed or replaced with appropriate and relevant examples.

The 'Concern' seems to be that there may not be a legal recourse if problems arise. The example (Indian Citibank, MPhasis BFL) states that the fraudulent employees were arrested - meaning there was appropriate, competent recourse provided by the country's legal system and law keepers. Secondly this incident can happen any where on the earth and is purely dependant on the individuals in question. Remember Enron happened right here in the USA. So I question the presence of this as an example of Legal Concern.

Legal recourse means more than just prosecution for fraud. It also means reimbursement for damages. It is currently unclear whether Citibank customers can sue for these breaches. It's so unclear that, given the nature of the offshoring relationship, it's impossible to determine who the responsible party is. Should a Citibank customer sue Citibank, Mphasis BFL Group, or the customer service reps involved? In which country do they take this action? Are there legal protections available in the foreign country for the private citizen? How does an individual know they will receive a fair trail considering the overwhelming corruption in that country? None of these questions are easily answered by the average person doing business with Citibank. And none of these questions arise if offshoring was not present. Vicissidude

I have removed the legal concerns. Just because the company is in the US does not mean there would be reimbursement of damages.Look at the Enron scandal for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal A lot of employees lost their pensions, 401k and other benefits and as of 2007 are yet to recover them. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1753448.stm So just because the scandal happens in the US, does not mean that the losses are easily recoverable. So before making statements like these, some more research should be undertaken.

Next on to the Intel India sackings - First and foremost this is not at all connected to offshoring as the Citibank event where seemingly American jobs were transferred to India. This is "Intel India", an independent entity similar to any other company with international operations. Again in this case there was fraud which happened with a dishonest motive from Intel India's employees to save income tax (payed in India) and which was acted upon by Intel. (Legal system allowed them to take action against the fraudulent employees). Employees doing fraudulent activities is not limited to one particular country, there is no reason to believe country 'X' has 100% honest citizens. This example proves nothing in particular which might even be remotely connected to offshoring, the subject of the article.

Offshoring includes any jobs transferred overseas, whether they were outsourced or not. While I agree that fraudulent activities are not limited to any one particular country, fraud is especially prevalent in third world countries (http://www.transparency.org/policy_and_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2005). When an independent auditing report states that fraudulent employee practises are endemic in one particular country, it can certainly be believed. Again, first world company and customer exposure to this level of fraud and corruption come up due to offshoring. Vicissidude

Transparency international index mainly involves corruption in government contracts and bribes not involving business practices between two private parties. Outsourcing is business between two corporations and therefore, the TI index is not very relevant. Again, the most serious breaches of consumer information has occured in US companies employing US citizens.

1) Massive Credit card information breach in Tucson,AZ http://www.news.com/Credit-card-breach-exposes-40-million-accounts/2100-1029_3-5751886.html 2) Loss of US citizen data from Accenture in Columbus,OH http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accenture 3) HP employees data stolen in Palo Alto,CA http://computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,109816,00.html Once again, more research needs to undertaken on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.161.152 (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Debate Sections

I recently removed a bunch of arguments which stated that we should offshore because the third world needs money more than the first world. Further, they stated that jobs lost due to offshoring in the first world are easily recovered and are often better than the alternative jobs in the third world. Therefore, first world people should be happy losing their jobs since they're helping someone in the third world who would otherwise work in a sweatshop. Any of these topics I would love to debate you on. But, they need their own debate sections. Littering these comments throughout the current sections is inappropriate for the sections they were put under. Vicissidude 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is a large body of evidence that suggests that free trade is a net producer of jobs. One missing fact in this piece is that the US has a trade surplus in outsourced services. In other words, more countries outsource to companies in the US than US companies outsource to foreign countries. The surplus is about $50 billion. There is also data that shows that jobs created in foreign countries as a consequence of outsourcing and foreign direct investment pay significantly better than locally produced jobs. Since it also represents increased demand for labor within a particular market, the wages of all workers tend to rise as a consequence. Mchoate 14:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, this was posted in the incorrect section, which was my point. Post it in the correct section first, and then we can have this discussion. Vicissidude 21:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comparative Advantage

The entire section about comparative advantage is false. the idea of comparative advantage is that even if one country is better at EVERYTHING than another country, they will still benefit from trade, and will therefore both have economies with jobs. What is written is just nonsense that confuses the concept of comparative advantage.

No, you are denying that countries can develop an absolute advantage. When the idea of comparative advantage was developed in 1817, factors like geography and climate were defining factors in product development. You could not move production to another country then. Because of these differences, it was realistic that different countries could have different costs of production. Today, knowledge is the basis of the economy, not geography and climate. Companies work the same way regardless of locations, so the location with the lowest cost has the advantage. Without different cost ratios, there is no basis for comparative advantage. Asia has the absolute advantage due to it's access to overwhelmingly abundant cheap, skilled labor. (Paraphrased from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_12/b3875614.htm) Vicissidude 18:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The theory of comparative advantage is not expunged by today's economic conditions. Re-read the first person's comments: even if Asia was best at everything, they would only focus on where they could get the highest return and then trade with others, leaving others to produce the rest of the goods (where other countries have comparative - but not absolute - advantage). Anyway, Asia clearly doesn't have an absolute advantage and never will. For example, Asia imports heavily capital goods. More generally, the world economy is too dynamic, with innovations popping up all the time, for one nation to be the experts on them all.

Vicissidude - I'm afraid that's just a basic error! The cost ratios you should focus on are those for different industries (or tasks) within the same country. These ratios can be based on the costs of producing 'knowledge' products, agriculture or whatever you like. In turn, it's the international differences between these ratios that generate potential gains from trade. These gains from trade are as valid for the offshoring of intermediate service fucntions as they are of grain, guns, butter etc.

--Nmcmurdo 00:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits

To claim my edits removing the US bias from thje article were vandalism as an anonm has recently done are indicative of something wrong. I presume the anon was vandalising and if not perhaps he or she would care to give an explanation, TV Genius 23:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

From Neutral Point of View, The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

The wholesale removal of text in the name of "removing the US bias" goes against NPOV. According to NPOV, all points of view are to be presented. You can change the text, but you can not remove it. 67.183.93.53 19:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If someone makes a complex set of edits and you disagree with bits iof it you shouldn't revert but reedit the bits you didnt like, as you have done today. Content clearly can be removed without it being vandalism, you have misunderstsood the malicious nature of vandalism. I agree tht all points of view are to be presented but not one dominanatly, and IMO the US view is still very predominant but at least now it doesn't read like an encyclopedic article from an American encyclopedia. There were also style points I changed, see WP:MOS which you have left today, great, this makes the article look more like a wikipedia article. NPOV means treating the winners and losers of offshoring impartially not just concentrating on how bad it is for developed countries and how corrupt third world countries are. It seemed like an article seent hrough US and developed world tinted spectacles whereas the content of the article has an equal effect on third world countries. TV Genius 01:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an English encyclopedia. The United States is the largest English-speaking country in the world. So, it is only natural for most of the articles to be from an American point of view. The answer to that is not to remove whole paragraphs which only you consider to be from a US POV, but to balance those paragraphs by adding a different POV. That is particularly true in a "Debate" section, where we want to bring out different points of view to compare and contrast. 67.183.93.53 05:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an intenational encyclopedia in english which is very different from being an English speaking let alone American encyclopedia. It is not acceptable to argue in favor of of the article to be from an Ameican point of view, that is not justifiable under NPOV. Remember vastly more people speak and read english as a second language than as a first language. Also I didnt tag the article so you cant claim only I think this. TV Genius 14:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If there are so many people who speak and read English who are not native English speakers as you say and therefore not from the US, then my point in my previous paragraph is even stronger. You do not need to remove whole paragraphs which only you consider to be from a US POV since all these other non-US English speakers can balance out that POV by adding their own text. Further, in a "Debate" section, it is expected to see any and all points of view, especially since the NPOV specifically states All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. Further, As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. And later, The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article. 67.183.93.53 02:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure where this is going. Perhaps if you could explain which sentence I dfeleted that you objected strongly to, IMO I overall did a good set of edits that have transformed the article into a more updated and less pov article, hence it no longer carries the US centric tag. Obviously people who read English as a second language and are not from or in the US is likely to be much higher in an article like this which is international in nature but with an English language focus, that is the nature of Offshoring. Which is why it was so important to balance out the US bias, and I believe it has now more or less been done. TV Genius 18:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Links

The Red-herring link under educational concerns is invalid and links to the google cache. The site that holds the archived copy requires registration. Can an alternate source for this study be found (eg the journal article if that is what it is?) In the mean time i have un-linked it User A1 03:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved Boersen,H. & Gils (van), W & Zantinge. M. article from outsourcing however, it appears to be a term paper. Does not support argument with any financial analysis. It's value is questioned. Brodger3 12:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This Link is invalid as well: http://home.hccnet.nl/jgm.boersen/paper/outsourcing.html 78.53.2.149 (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Leakage

We dont need a lecture one conomics here nor do we want the article to reasd as if we are a first world encyclopedia only interested in first world countiries and the latest edit implied that that was the case. All POV's yes, just your own POV no. Your edit implies that offshoring actually equals leakage which implies we only conmsider the POV of rich countries. This states as fact your opinion and makes for unbalanced article, which it already is anyway. Please dont make it worse, SqueakBox 19:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop inventing lying claims of vandalism and engage in the talk page like any decent editor, SqueakBox 19:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You are the one removing the listing. That is vandalism.

The fact is, leakage IS a topic of debate in offshoring. This topic DOES belong in this article. Just because YOU do not like it does NOT mean it should be removed. This article is not all about YOU and YOUR point of view.

Economics IS a factor concerning offshoring. The fact that YOU do not want to hear about the economics behind offshoring shows that YOU don't really understand the topic. So, please leave the editing to people who actually know something about the topic.

Also, please check your edits before you start posting. Your spelling is atrocious.24.17.42.210 20:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you stop making false vandalsim claims as until then we cant debate, see WP:AGF. Your claim that I dont understand the debate isnt actually any truer than your imagination makes it, I understand the debate only too well and your claim to know more than me is pathetic and not a serious argument. I run an offshore business. If you want to criticise my spelling in the article bring diffs otherwisde calm down and engage in discussion as I am beginning to assume your refusal to engage in adult debate is not well intentioned, as are your stupid comments about knowing more than me, lol, SqueakBox 20:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

We arent terribly interested in how the US allegedly suffer from offshoring, that is a political debate. lets keep the article neutral and stop obsessing about how offshoring allegedly damages the US, SqueakBox 20:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You have repeatedly vandalised this page by removing content that belongs here because it did not agree with YOUR point of view. Those actions, which completely sidestepped any debate whatsoever, demonstrates that it is YOU who do not want to debate this topic.

YOU may not be interested in how the US has been effected by offshoring, but then that is YOUR point of view. Since this is a topic called OFFSHORING, particularly in a section labeled DEBATE, then this discussion has merit. 24.17.42.210 20:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes its called offshoring not Offshoring in America, by making repeated false vandalism claims I have reached the point where unless you change your attitude I will not engage further in debate with you. The only vanmdalsim has been your sticking an NPOV tag on y talk page. Just clam down and engage rationally. It is you who who are trying to POV push your patriotic views and then declaring opppositiopn to that to be vandalism as well as making stupid and insulting comments to me about my knowledge of offshoring. The US is one twentieth of the world and that's how important we should treat it, now please stop vandalising my user page, making false claims, violatinfg 3RR etc, then we can engage in a serious debate on this page, SqueakBox 20:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I am happy to live with the current version, if you arent please can you bring your concerns here and we can discuss them before taking further action, SqueakBox 21:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I see another editor removed the section. Well done! SqueakBox 21:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The text was a wilful or utterly incompetent reading of Keynes. There is no place in an encylopedia for unreferenced fallacies. In no meaningful way could this be referenced as a Keynesian argument, any more than if I attempted to place a section on the dog article referencing Darwin as arguing that canines originated on Mars.--Nmcmurdo 00:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I am glad to hear this. The piece seemed to me very politically motivated anti offshoring pov. He also wrote some stuff at leakage, tyou might want to review the economics section as the obvious place for bad lectures on economics are in articles not directly related to economics. I guess for me people who oppose offshoring using his argument want to see the first world remain rich and the third world remain poor, and I dont believe any of the aims of this encyclopedia should coincide with that, SqueakBox 01:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The political motivation was the removal of the text. SqueakBox, you have previously admitted owning your own offshoring company. As such, you are hardly unbiased. 24.17.42.210 00:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this again. Correcting the basic error that a country is made poorer by money 'leaking' out of its borders is usually lesson no. 1 in economics! --Nmcmurdo 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Have replaced the content. Blanking is vandalism. Please do not do it again! 24.17.42.210 16:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've fact-tagged each paragraph. To keep the section, we need reliable sources. Let's all focus on what can be properly supported with sources. --Ronz 17:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable way forward - but that should be time limited. There's a very great danger of misleading the general public with this material. On a rather obvious point of process, one cannot sustainably state that all "blanking is vandalism"! Removal of misleading, unsupported or erroneous material is essential to make Wikipedia a useful resource. --Nmcmurdo 19:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me also clarify what we would be looking for reliable sources to say. The four current links simply describe the Keynesian circular flow of income; not the contention that offshoring makes a country poorer by reducing the amount of money available in the country. That's what we need a reliable source to confirm, or the statement should be removed - I suggest within a week. Otherwise we're still in the territory of "dogs evolved on Mars (Darwin, 1859)" ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nmcmurdo (talk • contribs) 19:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

The sources are reliable. This concept is a well-referenced concept in economics. It should not be removed. The blanking thus far has been vandalism as defined under Wikipedia:Vandalism. I have issued my last warning for Nmcmurdo. 24.17.42.210 03:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Either we have sources for the section or not. Currently, I see no sources linking Keynesian economics and Circular flow of income with offshoring. Seems like there are some pov problems as well, especially the last sentence of the section, "This imbalance, while good for the rich and poor countries..." I've restored the fact-tags I added earlier and added one to the last sentence. If there are no sources supporting these paragraphs and the tagged section, then the entire section should be removed. Please note that the editor who added the information is responsible for providing sources. The information was added January 13 [2]. If no more sources are forthcoming then let's remove the section and drop the issue. --Ronz 15:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The "This imbalance, while good for the rich and poor countries..." POV was added by SqueakBox. If you want to remove that sentence, then be my guest. The sources for the entire section has already been provided. I removed the citation required tags. 24.17.42.210 18:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the section. The sources do not support it. You've had since Jan 13 to provide them. --Ronz 18:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think that's a sensible, Rontz, given how long the (anonymous) contributor has had to provide references.--Nmcmurdo 22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The sources support the text, neither of which is new and has been around for 60 years. I'm replacing the text. 24.17.42.210 17:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Its your own idea, its off topic and you are still making false vandalism claims to back yoursdelf up but that isnt how we work here, SqueakBox 17:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not my idea. The idea has been around 60 years. It is part of the DEBATE of OFFSHORING, and belongs in the DEBATE section. 24.17.42.210 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The sources you've provided do not support the content. --Ronz 17:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page, the "wrong version" I'm sure, until this dispute is resolved. This is preventative as I don't want to see anyone blocked for 3rr, although that technically has already occurred. Issue #1 seems to be assertions of vandalism - let's drop that for now. Removing data over a content dispute is not simple vandalism, and there has been a significant amount of time provided to support the text. Issue #2 is the primary one - can the issue of leakage be support by an actual cite? The ones provided appear to support a concept of leakage, but not specifically to the topic - can you provide anything more targeted to this topic? Kuru ^talk 17:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the "right" version, lol. I agree that leakage is a valid concept of itself but it isnt valid for this article and is thus original research as included in this article. The vandalism is a non-starter and neither the inclusion or exclusion of this material could be described as vandalism, SqueakBox 18:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

US centrism

This article has been writen from a US point of view. This breaks our own WP:NPOV and is not acceptable in an international encyclopedia. There are stillt traces of a very por US POV whereby offshoring is treated entirely from the perspective of the US, ie its so negative for the US etc, and this needs removing at the core, SqueakBox 16:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't sound that biased. CadillacDTS 01:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Outsourcing/Offshoring-US Centrism

My issue with outsourcing (Among several) with regard to US Centrism is looking at this subject from the US point of view (As well as to a lesser extent other industrialized countries) is the US is the country that is taking the brunt of the consequences. When the current wave of offshoring picked up momentum at the end of the 90’s and the beginning of this decade, executives of company after company trooped in front of the media to assure anybody who would listen assuring the (US) population that only tedious and repetitive low level low paying jobs would be outsourced. Skilled labor and design and drafting positions were "safe." Instead we find that outsourcing of jobs continues to creep up the food chain to skilled manufacturing, customer service and telephone support to design and drafting positions. The end result is who is going to be able to spend money on all these goods and services these companies are trying to sell to us when all the well paying and skilled jobs are gone and we are left with seven dollar an hour McJobs” and no benefits.

On the flip side, the countries where these jobs are being outsourced are experiencing a booming economy with large segments of the population flush with cash; homes stuffed with new TV's, washers/dryers and microwaves (likely manufactured in their own country continuing to spiral up their economy) and shiny new buildings both housing and workplace being filled up faster than they can be built. My two questions, I have yet to see a cogent response to- How are third world countries suffering from the effects of offshoring? And since when the did the US become the welfare (or Workfare) provider to the third world?

When the situation is reversed, these same countries either severely restrict imporation of skilled labor or outsourcing to other countries. 12.76.162.171 03:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, your views are an excellent example of consequences of reading US centric articles in the media. First of all, there is no evidence for the drastic reduction in jobs in the developing world due to outsourcing or offshoring. And the USA is not a very friendly country for those people who need to move into the USA for doing their jobs. It's visa restrictions are fierce. Developing nations are not building shiny new buildings on the expense of US. In developing countries poor farmers are so desperate that they take their own lives, because of the farming subsidies provided by the US and other developed countries, which in turn enable farmers from developed countries sell their goods at a lower price. At the same time, the US uses anti-dumping duties to fight products from the developing countries. What the world needs is not a winner in this trade battle. The world needs balanced trade. And for that we need more balanced articles, which helps people to think in a more balanced way. So, please cooperate and make this article a balanced one. Madhavacharya 07:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Split this Article

I feel like the article should and can be split into "Offshoring in America", "Offshoring in developed countries", "Offshoring (developing countries)", etc.

My reason is that more Point-of-views can be explained, and each article will come with an already expected "bias" to the specific pros and cons of outsourcing of the specific subject.

Offshoring is a major economical issue, and one long article cannot do it justice, as it is very difficult to remain neutral and still give plenty of information throughout. Another article would help with organization, not that the current article is poorly written, but problems would be solved with a split.

I wouldn't work as offshoring in America means what? nMany US corps offshore but who offshores in the US etc. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

An introduction to offshoring

(Moved from the article for discussion. [3]):

An introduction to offshoring

Recent reports of the widespread offshoring (substituting foreign for domestic labor) of white-collar jobs that were previously insulated from foreign competition have attracted much public attention. Although workers in manufacturing industries have long been exposed to foreign competition, trends such as falling communication costs, the rise of Internet commerce, and other technological advances have made a much wider spectrum of jobs vulnerable to relocation across national borders.

This issue guide aims to provide some insight into the economics of white-collar offshoring: its causes, consequences, impact on the U.S. economy, and implications for the future.

Policy implications of offshoring Offshoring of white-collar work remains relatively modest when measured in aggregate employment flows. In some key industries, however, (software, for example) this employment impact is likely quite significant. Furthermore, the overall economic impact of offshoring is potentially enormous. Employer announcements of plans to move more white-collar jobs abroad can have an immediate effect on the on willingness of the current workforce to accept lower pay increases and to work harder. If a greater share of jobs in the United States becomes exposed to foreign competition, this could place steady downward pressure on wages of U.S. workers.

For years, policy makers and trade advocates recommended training and the acquisition of technical skills as the remedy for the depressing wage effects of trade on blue-collar workers' wages. This prescription was always insufficient, and the recent trend toward offshoring white-collar work just serves to emphasize this.

The challenge to policy makers in the United States is to make sure the potential benefits to be gained from trade in services are widely shared. Capital-owners and corporations seemed poised to reap large benefits from service trade; public policy needs to insure that U.S. workers are compensated for the extra risk they now bearing due to competition with workers all over the globe. This compensation should take the form of large social insurance programs (publicly guaranteed health and pension benefits) as well as more-directed programs like making sure that service-sector workers displaced by trade are eligible for trade-adjustment assistance (TAA).

Furthermore, the publicly owned firms that engage in offshoring ought to at least be transparent in their business dealings, offering layoff notices and providing clear accounting of the employment in their various units, both domestic and abroad.

Less controversially, there seems to be no reason why the U.S. tax code should privilege offshoring over domestic employment, and proposals to fix any such asymmetry should be welcomed. In addition, there should be a strong consensus to fix the official data on imports of services (which has been shown to be woefully inadequate). The Bureau of Economic Analysis should be provided the resources necessary to understand why its surveys are not picking up the extent of offshoring and to collect the data necessary to correct the problem.

--Ronz (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

corporate slander

It may have not been the author's intention, but in naming AT&T and only AT&T as a company that has suffered a loss in customer service because of outsourcing the author has unfairly set the expectation that AT&T's major competitors such as Verizon, Sprint, and others are not engaging in these practices, which is not only untrue, but damaging to AT&T's international reputation. This may need to be noted and considered.

Thank you for your time,

Ryan Bentrim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.237.81 (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You aren't clear what you're referring to, but I think I found it. Since it was all unsourced, I removed mention of specific companies and added a tag indicating that it needs a source. --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

US unemployment rate needs to be updated

"Not surprisingly, many U.S. executives cite the current low U.S. unemployment numbers (4.5%) as proof positive that offshoring has not been deleterious to the U.S. workforce, or to the nation itself."

The current, official, unemployment rate in the USA is 5.5% - that is a substantial difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.173.71 (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The current rate, as of September 7, 2010 - is 9.6% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.47.28.78 (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

US unemployment rise in last 2-3 years has no relation with offshoring given that a lot of jobs were lost in the offshored nations too. --Sandyiit (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Educational concerns

(Moved from the article for discussion. [4])

Offshoring proponents often say it is necessary to move jobs overseas due to a looming shortage of qualified workers in the domestic market and the booming number of qualified candidates in foreign markets, particularly in China and India. A study by Duke University found that 222,335 engineers graduate annually from American universities, far more than the 70,000 often quoted in the media. Furthermore, the Duke study highlights the conflicting numbers coming out of China, India, and the US. China and India, in their official numbers cited by the media, both count the graduates from three year training programs and diploma holders, equivalent to Associates degrees in the US. The media then compares the China and India numbers to US numbers of four-year Baccalaureate programs. Duke University estimates the total number of engineers with Bachelor's degrees produced annually for the three countries to be 351,537 for China, 112,000 for India, and 137,436 for the US. These figures make the US the per capita leader in producing technology specialists.

However, other studies do point out that the US does not produce as many science and engineering graduates as required, because US students do not show adequate interest in math and science. According to a National Academy of Sciences study, the US graduates far fewer engineers than either China or India. According to a Raytheon study, a survey of 11 to 13 year old students in the US revealed that numerous students would rather clean their rooms, eat vegetables, go to the dentist or empty the trash than do math. About 50% of the doctoral degrees awarded in the US are to foreign born students.

This section has no relation to offshoring. Talking about graduates and engineering graduates passing out in a year has no bearing on offshoring as a topic Sandyiit (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)