Posted on 04/12/2004 10:04:50 AM PDT by Mini-14
Frank Hayes' fears about techies bailing out of a declining American IT workforce are already being realized ["ITAA's Job Dream"]. I've done it. I concluded that IT is largely a dead-end career for Americans and opted out so that my wife could pursue advanced degrees in education and move up in a field that can't be so readily outsourced or filled by guest workers. I rebelled at my former employer's "wage compression," outsourcing and use of H-1B and L-1 visa holders. One year ago, I resigned my IT job at NCR Corp., a Fortune 500 company based in Dayton, Ohio, because I was too disgusted and demoralized to continue working in a profession I enjoyed after my employer made it evident that American workers are disposable and replaceable no matter how loyal, productive, competent or well educated. I concluded there was no future for me at NCR or in IT. Like many other corporations, NCR was indifferent to its employees and American society. And, like many other companies, it has thoroughly embraced the policy of outsourcing. NCR's outsourcing partners are HCL Technology and Saytam, which provide an IT workforce in India. NCR also has a contract with Accenture, and it has an Indian subsidiary that is also hiring a non-American workforce and isn't subject to American taxes or workplace laws. Unlike Frank Hayes, I don't believe that it's widely possible to dodge the offshoring bullet by building up business skills and increasing face time with users. This sounds good, but techies are very busy with responsibilities. And I've noticed that IT writers seem a bit uncertain about how techies should remain competitive. Not long ago, we were being urged to gain new technical skills. How certain is anyone that broader business skills are now the answer to job retention? The truth is there really isn't much certainty regarding the actions to take or the skills to acquire to prevent outsourcing job loss. After all, many of us in the IT workforce have learned the indisputable truth that outsourcing and use of IT guest workers is really all about slashing labor costs, not increasing the quality of products and services. I came to these conclusions long before the most recent ITAA study, which was the subject of Hayes' article. The public statements and actions of people like Harris Miller of the ITAA, Carly Fiorina of Hewlett-Packard, Sam Palmisano of IBM, and Lars Nyberg and Mark Hurd of NCR made it abundantly clear that there were declining opportunities for American IT employment. Many of us in the IT workforce saw the writing on the wall. I'm just more fortunate than most in that I was able to walk away altogether. Though people like Miller and Fiorina deny it, America's displaced IT workers don't lack for skills or education. There is no urgent need for guest workers and no internal shortage of technically trained workers. Technology hasn't made American IT workers outmoded. Access to cheaper, more submissive and more manageable non-American labor has just made American IT workers undesirable and frequently unemployable. I am not a person who expects others to manage my career or provide me lifetime employment. But on the other hand, I don't expect my government or powerful multinational corporations to conspire to undermine my employment opportunities and, more broadly, eliminate job opportunities for Americans. As I told Bob Herbert of The New York Times ["Dark Side of Free Trade," Feb. 22, 2004], I'm a moderate conservative now alienated from the Republican Party and the Bush administration because of free trade, outsourcing and the H-1B/L-1 visa programs championed by free-trade ideologues. People such as me are often disparagingly referred to as "disgruntled IT workers" by both politicians and many in the news media. Our arguments are dismissed as sour grapes and we are told to face reality. In other words, shut up and get another job because outsourcing will continue and it's part of doing business today The Visa Problem Offshoring isn't the only way that American jobs are being eliminated. Many companies are also insourcing, importing low-wage, nonimmigrant H-1B or L-1 visa workers into the U.S. These visa programs are championed by people like Harris Miller and the member companies of the ITAA and are used by hundreds of multinational corporations intent upon cutting labor costs. As with outsourcing, many in the media and politics make inaccurate statements regarding the H-1B and L-1 visa guest worker programs. These misrepresentations provoke frustration and anger similar to that evoked by the latest ITAA study. For example, The Washington Post's editorial "Cap on Hiring" states, "It isn't possible to argue that the holders of these visas bring down American wages. No one doubts that they do jobs for which there are clear, well-defined shortages of Americans." This is complete nonsense. Such statements are totally at odds with the reality of how these programs are used to replace American IT workers all over the U.S. Some in Congress do believe there is a problem of job loss related to the H-1B and L-1 guest worker programs. On Feb. 4, 2004, the House International Relations Committee held a hearing called "L Visas: Losing Jobs Through Laissez-Faire Policies?" The testimony of Michael Emmons, Sona Shah and Patricia Fluno provided firsthand evidence of how L-1 visa programs are used by corporations to systematically replace Americans (and those who hold green cards) while abusing the imported visa workers. (A video webcast of the hearing is available.) The H-1B visa program has long been used as a tool to facilitate outsourcing and circumvent the labor costs of American IT workers. Norman Matloff, professor of computer science at the University of California, Davis, has written extensively on this subject and testified before Congress about how the H-1B program has injured American IT workers. He is clear that the H-1B program is premised on misrepresentations and false studies. He has a new article on the subject in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. I have direct knowledge of these issues through my experience with outsourcing and guest worker replacement programs at NCR. I watched non-American (Indian) workers enter NCR facilities in the U.S. and receive "knowledge transfers" from American IT workers. Then the Indian replacement workers usually returned to India to do the work previously performed by the Americans who had trained them. On other occasions, the replacement workers remained in the U.S. on H-1B or L-1 visas and continued to perform necessary IT work in the same buildings in which the Americans had formerly worked. This is not an urban legend; I watched it happen. It has occurred all over the U.S. Understandably, Americans who remain in IT jobs often work in fear of job loss since employers now have ready access to low-wage guest workers and have displayed a ruthless lack of concern for the American workforce. Most of us who have gone through this experience have finally realized that we are competing with a Third World wage scale while our employers continue to charge U.S. prices. It's not fair and it's not just, but thanks to the actions of the U.S. Congress and successive presidents, it is completely legal. The Retraining Fallacy Free-trade and outsourcing proponents publicly hold out the option of retraining into other professions, but these other professions are mostly unidentified. The reality, as I told Bob Herbert, is that there aren't any new middle-class postindustrial jobs for displaced Information Age workers. There are no opportunities to leverage our experience into higher-value-added jobs. Instead, there are persistent credible accounts of software engineers taking low-wage unskilled jobs just to survive. Health care is often cited by outsourcing and free-trade proponents as an area in which new jobs are available. Free traders don't care to mention that many white-collar workers would see dramatic decreases in their earnings (wage compression) even if they could afford to undergo the time-consuming and costly retraining necessary to enter the health care profession. In any case, software engineers changing bedpans and giving injections would be a waste of resources and educational capital. What a loss of skills and knowledge to our economy! What a costly betrayal of workers! There is no employment rebound for IT workers. Recent college grads or new entrants into IT can't even get jobs on help desks, which are now increasingly moving offshore. The reports from companies such as Challenger, Forrester and Gartner all point to increased IT outsourcing and use of IT guest workers. "Global competitiveness" sounds good in corporate boardrooms and political speeches, but the reality is that increasing numbers of American IT workers are suffering and losing confidence in our political and business leaders. We are locked in a merciless, unrestricted competition with low-wage workers of the developing world. This is ultimately an unwinnable competition. American IT workers, like many in the middle class, are learning that education, skill and hard work are no longer indicators of success. It's all about cheap labor -- a fact not lost on Harris Miller, Carly Fiorina, Mark Hurd and Sam Palmisano. Global free trade is ultimately an emperor with no clothes. As Paul Craig Roberts has discussed in "Clarifications on the Case for Free Trade" and "The Harsh Truth About Outsourcing", the premise for free trade to be beneficial to all parties is that some comparative advantage must exist for all parties. This is not possible with the full worldwide mobility of labor and capital. The U.S., its workers generally and American IT workers in particular have no comparative advantage in the world today. Nations such as China and India command an "absolute advantage" over the U.S. This situation is more than just the result of what Frank Hayes calls the "ITAA's fumbled efforts to hype the benefits of offshoring," and if it leads to an IT staffing nightmare for American corporate HR departments, my response is, "You reap what you sow." John Pardon is a former technical writer, software engineer and database administrator who has worked for a number of software development and IT corporations. Since his departure from NCR in early 2003, he has written on the topics of outsourcing and the H-1B and L-1 visa programs, inspired by his own experiences and those of other U.S. IT workers, notably Scott Kirwin, founder of the Information Technology Professionals Association of America, and Michael Emmons. Emmons' story was told in Computerworld's sister publication, CIO magazine [ "The Radicalization of Mike Emmons"]. Pardon can be contacted at jpardon@worldnet.att.net.
If you would more closely examine that 2002 BEA data, you will see that government sector worker income is responsible for most of the growth in per capita income, for most states and for the nation as a whole.
Non-government workers in some states (Colorado is one glaring example) experienced negative growth in per capita income, while government workers in the state experienced a per capita income growth over 8.5%.
A busy bar will do $6,000 to $10,000 per bartender on a typical weekend night. If your tip is 15% (and it's lots more if you are good looking or affable or just plain good) you take home $900 to $1,500 for that shift. Good bartending jobs are held onto by those who have them, generally. There are LOTS of MBA's in the bar biz who don't want to take a pay-cut to enter the corporate world. The downside is, who wants to be bartending when you are old(er)? Also, drugs abound in this milieu.
There are weak spots - but the fact remains - personal income is on the rise.
I am not hiding anything and I would hope that everyone actually interested in the truth would read as much as possible. Who else here is actually trying to give facts?
And I stand by my statements - we are growing again. The I.T. Sector is not decimated and will/is rebounding. Outsourcing by the worst estimates I have found will only account for 400,000+/- jobs in the next 10 years - that is far less than the 500,000 loss from 2000 to 2003.
The U.N. is one of the prime proponents of free trade. Surely you're aware of that? You're on the same side they are.
I am quite alright with regulation against child labor. I am actually okay with tariffs. I am okay with regulation on trade when U.S. regulations limit productivity compared to business done in unregulated nations.
You're tying yourself in knots, Cowboy. China and India have high trade barriers - and we do not. You say you're OK with tariffs - why not apply tariffs to the offshoring of IT jobs?
Keep in mind that this is about much more than programmers. It is about the very nature of our economy. Do we wish to export value added goods, or not? Presently, most of our exports are agricultural products and various natural resources. We are net importers of every technological product except aircraft and aircraft parts.
As we squander our technological leadership, what do you suppose our national destiny will be?
So, we simply use trade policy and the tax code - along with some tariffs - to alter the equation. Sounds like a plan!
As for what happens to anyone who does it...well, that wouldn't be appropriate to this fine board, now, would it?
What are you trying to say in this statement?
That I have a rather low opinion of those who send American jobs offshore. But then, Poobah, you already knew that - because you are an intelligent and perceptive individual. Just misinformed about free traitin'. :-)
False.
Again, dont get hung up on the word "slave". You will miss my point.
2,500 to $4,000 per month for American developers
If you can get an Oracle 9i developer for under $20 per hour in the US, than you need to pass their resume on to me.
Sure. Use government to artificially increase the price of your competition.
BTW, what's your take on agricultural subsidies? Should we eliminate them? Or should we expand them?
Hey, how about subsidies for smokestack industries while we're giving other people's money away?
Heck, let's give EVERYONE enough money to have an "above average income."
That I have a rather low opinion of those who send American jobs offshore.
In what sense are these jobs the property of "Americans?" Are they the property of the employers? Are the the property of the employees?
Food, feeds, and beverages: 53.5
Industrial supplies and chemicals: 173.2
Capital goods, except autos: 286.4
Autos and auto parts: 79.6
Consumer goods: 88.8
other: 33.0
Perhaps you should inform the Census department that they cannot figure imports and exports. I'm sure they'll be grateful for the help!
PART A: SEASONALLY ADJUSTED EXHIBIT 11. REAL EXPORTS AND IMPORTS OF GOODS, PETROLEUM AND NON-PETROLEUM END-USE COMMODITY CATEGORY TOTALS (2000 CHAIN-WEIGHTED DOLLARS): JANUARY 2002 TO January 2004 (In millions of dollars. Details may not equal totals due to seasonal adjustment and rounding. The values in this exhibit are subject to periodic change, reflecting revisions to the source information for the monthly deflators. Trade Balance Total Census Non- Residual Period Basis (1) Petroleum petroleum (2) 2002 Jan.- Dec. -521,472 -111,230 -408,126 -2,115 Jan.- -38,527 -9,385 -29,237 94 January -38,527 -9,385 -29,237 94 February -41,068 -8,585 -32,206 -277 March -40,658 -8,549 -31,821 -287 April -42,716 -9,877 -32,724 -115 May -43,071 -9,617 -33,304 -150 June -43,617 -9,141 -34,273 -202 July -42,284 -9,309 -32,798 -177 August -44,774 -9,443 -35,158 -174 September -44,494 -8,903 -35,397 -194 October -42,604 -9,874 -32,537 -193 November -47,245 -9,512 -37,517 -215 December -50,414 -9,035 -41,153 -226 2003 Jan.- Dec. (R) -572,564 -119,065 -448,891 -4,609 Jan.- (R) -46,466 -8,986 -37,248 -232 January (R) -46,466 -8,986 -37,248 -232 February (R) -44,019 -8,631 -35,175 -213 March (R) -46,886 -9,825 -36,681 -380 April (R) -48,345 -10,360 -37,562 -423 May (R) -49,931 -10,274 -39,218 -439 June (R) -47,291 -10,512 -36,353 -426 July (R) -47,183 -10,692 -36,053 -438 August (R) -46,179 -10,176 -35,585 -418 September (R) -48,893 -10,258 -38,224 -411 October (R) -50,046 -10,212 -39,416 -418 November (R) -46,835 -9,458 -36,970 -407 December (R) -50,490 -9,680 -40,407 -404 2004 Jan.- -49,811 -10,106 -39,251 -454 January -49,811 -10,106 -39,251 -454 February March April May June July August September October November December (R) _________________ Exports Total Census Non- Residual Period Basis (1) Petroleum petroleum (2) 2002 Jan.- Dec. 698,239 10,353 687,875 11 Jan.- 56,845 812 56,035 -2 January 56,845 812 56,035 -2 February 56,897 818 56,080 -2 March 56,989 778 56,210 1 April 58,367 818 57,548 0 May 58,749 804 57,945 0 June 59,121 781 58,339 1 July 59,774 831 58,943 0 August 58,995 963 58,032 0 September 58,602 834 57,772 -3 October 58,334 868 57,466 0 November 58,716 899 57,816 1 December 56,850 1,147 55,689 14 2003 Jan.- Dec. (R) 714,298 11,045 703,379 -125 Jan.- (R) 57,730 1,009 56,720 1 January (R) 57,730 1,009 56,720 1 February (R) 58,226 906 57,339 -19 March (R) 58,568 952 57,625 -8 April (R) 57,659 960 56,701 -2 May (R) 57,977 939 57,042 -4 June (R) 59,380 918 58,471 -9 July (R) 60,492 872 59,636 -16 August (R) 58,050 806 57,264 -20 September (R) 59,606 910 58,705 -9 October (R) 61,361 908 60,466 -13 November (R) 63,034 843 62,212 -22 December (R) 62,216 1,022 61,197 -4 2004 Jan.- 60,999 790 60,243 -35 January 60,999 790 60,243 -35 February March April May June July August September October November December (R) _________________ Imports Total Census Non- Residual Period Basis (1) Petroleum petroleum (2) 2002 Jan.- Dec. 1,219,711 121,584 1,096,001 2,126 Jan.- 95,373 10,197 85,272 -96 January 95,373 10,197 85,272 -96 February 97,965 9,403 88,286 276 March 97,646 9,326 88,032 288 April 101,083 10,695 90,273 115 May 101,820 10,421 91,248 150 June 102,738 9,923 92,612 203 July 102,058 10,140 91,741 177 August 103,769 10,405 93,190 174 September 103,096 9,737 93,169 191 October 100,938 10,742 90,003 193 November 105,961 10,411 95,333 216 December 107,264 10,182 96,843 239 2003 Jan.- Dec. (R) 1,286,863 130,109 1,152,270 4,484 Jan.- (R) 104,196 9,995 93,967 233 January (R) 104,196 9,995 93,967 233 February (R) 102,245 9,537 92,515 193 March (R) 105,455 10,777 94,306 372 April (R) 106,004 11,320 94,263 421 May (R) 107,908 11,213 96,260 435 June (R) 106,672 11,430 94,824 418 July (R) 107,675 11,564 95,689 422 August (R) 104,229 10,981 92,850 398 September (R) 108,498 11,168 96,929 402 October (R) 111,406 11,120 99,881 405 November (R) 109,869 10,301 99,182 385 December (R) 112,706 10,702 101,603 400 2004 Jan.- 110,809 10,896 99,494 419 January 110,809 10,896 99,494 419 February March April May June July August September October November December (R) (1) Detailed data presented on a Census Basis. The information to convert to a BOP basis is not available. (2) The "residual" represents the difference between total exports or imports, and the sum of the components in the table. NOTE: For information on data sources, nonsampling errors and definitions, see the information section on page 26 of this release, or at www.census.gov/foreign-trade/www/press.html or www.bea.gov/bea/rels.htm. SOURCE: Report FT900 (CB-04-38, BEA-04-10), Bureau of the Census, Foreign Trade Division, January 2004. For more information, contact Haydn R. Mearkle (301-763-2246) or Nick Orsini (301-763-2311), Foreign Trade Division.
PART B: NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED EXHIBIT 16. EXPORTS, IMPORTS AND BALANCE OF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS JANUARY 2002 TO January 2004 (In millions of dollars. Details may not equal totals due to rounding.) Period Balance Exports Imports 2002 Jan.- Dec. -16,584 178,567 195,151 Jan.- -1,176 13,605 14,780 January -1,176 13,605 14,780 February -1,541 12,959 14,500 March 896 17,098 16,203 April -1,134 14,399 15,534 May -874 14,760 15,634 June 43 16,414 16,371 July -2,102 14,859 16,961 August -1,416 15,130 16,546 September -1,994 14,841 16,834 October -1,663 15,729 17,391 November -2,971 14,623 17,595 December -2,652 14,149 16,801 2003 Jan.- Dec. -27,410 179,787 207,196 Jan.- -2,354 13,069 15,423 January -2,354 13,069 15,423 February -626 13,703 14,330 March -795 16,039 16,834 April -2,579 13,867 16,446 May -1,831 14,095 15,926 June -1,775 15,293 17,068 July -2,977 14,629 17,607 August -1,703 14,456 16,159 September -3,919 14,960 18,879 October -3,511 16,287 19,799 November -1,922 16,672 18,593 December -3,417 16,716 20,133 2004 Jan.- -1,975 14,719 16,694 January -1,975 14,719 16,694 February March April May June July August September October November December NOTE: Data not available on a Balance of Payments basis. For information on data sources, nonsampling errors and definitions, see the information section on page 26 of this release, or at www.census.gov/foreign-trade/www/press.html or www.bea.gov/bea/rels.htm. SOURCE: Report FT900 (CB-04-38, BEA-04-10), Bureau of the Census, Foreign Trade Division, January 2004. For more information, contact Haydn R. Mearkle (301-763-2246) or Nick Orsini (301-763-2311), Foreign Trade Division.
And for that year, there were 196,000 H1B tech workers per year being brought in, in addition to the unlimited (and unreported) numbers of H1B applicants that were exempted from the cap because they were solicited for positions in academia and government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.