Working like dogs (was Job flight)

[Charles Brown]

We need a New May Day 
!
It's winter in 
socialism , now, but May Day is on it's way.
Charles
 
***
From: Tom Walker 
Subject: Re: d-squared wrote:
 
> but one argument that I
> always think ought to get more traction is that
> capitalism has singularly failed to shorten the 
working
> day. A lot of people intuitively realise that there 
is
> something wrong here; we were promised robot slaves 
and
> unlimited leisure time in the comic books, and now 
the
> space age is here and we're still working like 
dogs.
Broken record, here. Yes, it's uncanny how the argument doesn't 
get more
traction. I mentioned yesterday in a post on this thread that a 
reduction of
U.S. annual hours to approximately European standards could be 
expected to
generate (or preserve) around 10 million jobs, the same number 
John Kerry
claims (with less supporting argument) his economic policies 
would produce
in four years. Kerry's 10 million estimate comes from a memo 
from Lawrence
Katz who projects that number from the lowering of the 
unemployment rate to
4.1%. Sounds to me like a tautology: if the unemployment rate 
drops while
the labour force grows, jobs will be created. That's right up 
there with
Calvin Coolidge's "When a great many people are unable to find 
work,
unemployment results."
That same Katz commented some years ago on a Brookings Institute 
paper about
hours reduction as work sharing. He made a number of sensible 
background
points but his main point and emphasis was utterly 
unsubstantiated. He even
produced a pseudo-algebraic 'model' ("the best case scenario for 
advocates
of work-sharing") that only pertains if one assumes that the 
given hours of
work are optimal for maximizing output, a condition that has 
been clearly
demonstrated to be contrary to theory. And, of course, he just 
had to frame
his discussion with a recital of the "lump-of-output fallacy," 
Richard
Layard's lame attempt to lend greater terminological precision 
to the
utterly fraudulent claim of a "lump-of-labour 
fallacy".
The bottom line for Katz was the conclusion that "there are a 
number of good
reasons to believe that mandated work-sharing is unlikely to 
produce much of
a reduction in unemployment." One of those "good reasons" being 
his
theoretically bankrupt model and the other being the allegedly 
fallacious
assumption "implicit" in arguments for work-sharing. That, I'm 
afraid is
what passes for the conventional wisdom in economics on the 
hours of labour.
 
Tom Walker

Re: Working like dogs (was Job flight)

[Max B. Sawicky]

It's true I've tended to think of public employment as a last
resort, rather than on an equal footing with counter-cyclical
and work time.  There's no reason to do so.  Politics at one
time or another may favor and disfavor any of them.
I hereby elevate it to my Sacred Threesome.

"Active labor market policy" covers a lot:

http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&context=iir

What's your favorite part?

mbs

>
> I agree with you, but how to get there? If deficit spending were the
> key, wouldn't Japan be at full employment? If you have a constant
> deficit (as % of GDP), you're not getting any fresh fiscal kick, so
> wouldn't you need ever-increasing deficits? Why not focus on the good
> things public spending can do (infrastructure, health insurance,
> child care) and the people it can put to work doing them, and for
> those who remain unemployed, an active labor market policy?
>
> Doug
>

Re: Working like dogs (was Job flight)

[Doug Henwood]

Max B. Sawicky wrote:

As for what Clinton 'did,' as opposed to who he did, the
biggest factors seems to have been the dot com bubble and
household debt stimulating demand.  Obviously there were other ways
AD could have been boosted, but Clinton wasn't interested
in them.  Blinder's book sez the 1993 budget deal was
not huge in effect.  Pollin has this one by the short
hairs, methinks.
Balancing the budget by taxing the top 1-2% isn't a bad long-term
strategy. It reduces the social power of the rich, while running
debts can increase it: "You want me to roll over your debt? Well,
I've got a list of policies I think you should follow" It has
almost no depressive effect on AD either
My bias these days is that a commitment to maximum employment,
through fiscal policy and/or work hour reduction, is the sine qua non
of U.S. social-democracy, progressive politics, or anything more
radical than that.
I agree with you, but how to get there? If deficit spending were the
key, wouldn't Japan be at full employment? If you have a constant
deficit (as % of GDP), you're not getting any fresh fiscal kick, so
wouldn't you need ever-increasing deficits? Why not focus on the good
things public spending can do (infrastructure, health insurance,
child care) and the people it can put to work doing them, and for
those who remain unemployed, an active labor market policy?
Doug

Re: Working like dogs (was Job flight)

[Max B. Sawicky]

Yes, though less hard when there's no employment growth.

As for what Clinton 'did,' as opposed to who he did, the
biggest factors seems to have been the dot com bubble and
household debt stimulating demand.  Obviously there were other ways
AD could have been boosted, but Clinton wasn't interested
in them.  Blinder's book sez the 1993 budget deal was
not huge in effect.  Pollin has this one by the short
hairs, methinks.

My bias these days is that a commitment to maximum employment,
through fiscal policy and/or work hour reduction, is the sine qua non
of U.S. social-democracy, progressive politics, or anything more
radical than that.

mbs



Max, Clinton brought the federal budget into surplus, and unemployment hit a
generation low. Doesn't that make it harder to argue that the two goals are
incompatible?

Doug

Re: Working like dogs (was Job flight)

[Doug Henwood]

Max B. Sawicky wrote:

My gripe about this teensy memo is that 4.1 is couched in
terms of being a structural goal requiring supply-side
improvements in the tax code, rather than something accessible
with fiscal policy.  Not coincidentally, Kerry has no fiscal
policy and is mouthing anti-deficit rhetoric.
I really don't look forward to spending the rest of what
passes for my professional life doing shovel-duty behind
the Clinton/Rubin circus elephants in the DP parade.
Max, Clinton brought the federal budget into surplus, and
unemployment hit a generation low. Doesn't that make it harder to
argue that the two goals are incompatible?
Doug

Re: Working like dogs (was Job flight)

[Max B. Sawicky]

I agree on the big points, but all the LK memo seeks to do
is show that getting to 10 million and 4.1 in four years is
plausible in historical context.  His memo does not attempt
to demonstrate that Kerry's plan gets us there.  If he showed
40 million jobs and one percent unemployment, it would be
equally tautological but less plausible.  (Though I'm reminded
that Bill Vickrey used to talk about "chock-full employment."
Old Bill thought we could have two percent and was moved to
fury when alluding to four percent or more.)

My gripe about this teensy memo is that 4.1 is couched in
terms of being a structural goal requiring supply-side
improvements in the tax code, rather than something accessible
with fiscal policy.  Not coincidentally, Kerry has no fiscal
policy and is mouthing anti-deficit rhetoric.

I really don't look forward to spending the rest of what
passes for my professional life doing shovel-duty behind
the Clinton/Rubin circus elephants in the DP parade.

Mbs



Kerry's 10 million estimate comes from a memo from Lawrence Katz who
projects that number from the lowering of the unemployment rate to 4.1%.
Sounds to me like a tautology: if the unemployment rate drops while the
labour force grows, jobs will be created. That's right up there with Calvin
Coolidge's "When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment
results."

That same Katz commented some years ago on a Brookings Institute paper about
hours reduction as work sharing. He made a number of sensible background
points but his main point and emphasis was utterly unsubstantiated. He even
produced a pseudo-algebraic 'model' ("the best case scenario for advocates
of work-sharing") that only pertains if one assumes that the given hours of
work are optimal for maximizing output, a condition that has been clearly
demonstrated to be contrary to theory. And, of course, he just had to frame
his discussion with a recital of the "lump-of-output fallacy," Richard
Layard's lame attempt to lend greater terminological precision to the
utterly fraudulent claim of a "lump-of-labour fallacy".

The bottom line for Katz was the conclusion that "there are a number of good
reasons to believe that mandated work-sharing is unlikely to produce much of
a reduction in unemployment." One of those "good reasons" being his
theoretically bankrupt model and the other being the allegedly fallacious
assumption "implicit" in arguments for work-sharing. That, I'm afraid is
what passes for the conventional wisdom in economics on the hours of labour.


Tom Walker

Re: Working like dogs (was Job flight)

[Tom Walker]

d-squared wrote:


> but one argument that I
> always think ought to get more traction is that
> capitalism has singularly failed to shorten the working
> day.  A lot of people intuitively realise that there is
> something wrong here; we were promised robot slaves and
> unlimited leisure time in the comic books, and now the
> space age is here and we're still working like dogs.

Broken record, here. Yes, it's uncanny how the argument doesn't  get more
traction. I mentioned yesterday in a post on this thread that a reduction of
U.S. annual hours to approximately European standards could be expected to
generate (or preserve) around 10 million jobs, the same number John Kerry
claims (with less supporting argument) his economic policies would produce
in four years. Kerry's 10 million estimate comes from a memo from Lawrence
Katz who projects that number from the lowering of the unemployment rate to
4.1%. Sounds to me like a tautology: if the unemployment rate drops while
the labour force grows, jobs will be created. That's right up there with
Calvin Coolidge's "When a great many people are unable to find work,
unemployment results."

That same Katz commented some years ago on a Brookings Institute paper about
hours reduction as work sharing. He made a number of sensible background
points but his main point and emphasis was utterly unsubstantiated. He even
produced a pseudo-algebraic 'model' ("the best case scenario for advocates
of work-sharing") that only pertains if one assumes that the given hours of
work are optimal for maximizing output, a condition that has been clearly
demonstrated to be contrary to theory. And, of course, he just had to frame
his discussion with a recital of the "lump-of-output fallacy," Richard
Layard's lame attempt to lend greater terminological precision to the
utterly fraudulent claim of a "lump-of-labour fallacy".

The bottom line for Katz was the conclusion that "there are a number of good
reasons to believe that mandated work-sharing is unlikely to produce much of
a reduction in unemployment." One of those "good reasons" being his
theoretically bankrupt model and the other being the allegedly fallacious
assumption "implicit" in arguments for work-sharing. That, I'm afraid is
what passes for the conventional wisdom in economics on the hours of labour.


Tom Walker

Re: Job flight

[Carrol Cox]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Inputs and outputs, though.  I certainly wouldn't want
> to live in a precapitalist economy or in most forms of
> Actually Existing Socialism,

After Marx returned from a vacation in Germany in which he had been well
entertained by some friends in the aristocracy there, someone asked him
how, given many of his enjoyments, he would be able to live in a
socialist society. His reply: I'll be dead by then.

The same same principle applies to thought about living in a
pre-capitalist society. There is no way we can judge how people born
into another mode of life would evaluate that mode of life.

That's one reason socialists should for the most part emphasize the
negative in their agitation and propaganda. Guesses about what will be
"good" in the future are mostly sort of silly. But we can know with
intensity what is not to be tolerated in the present.

Carrol

Re: Job flight

[Max B. Sawicky]

The trick is not getting in until 10:30 a.m.

-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:22 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Job flight

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>Inputs and outputs, though.  I certainly wouldn't want to live in a
>precapitalist economy or in most forms of Actually Existing Socialism,
>but one argument that I always think ought to get more traction is that
>capitalism has singularly failed to shorten the working day.

I'm with you on that. But if there's more money to be made out of a longer
workday, the stinking capitalists will lengthen the workday.
And bend many of our minds around to thinking of it as normal. Even a petit
bourgeois radical such as myself didn't leave the office until 9:30 last
night.

Doug

Re: Job flight

[Doug Henwood]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Inputs and outputs, though.  I certainly wouldn't want
to live in a precapitalist economy or in most forms of
Actually Existing Socialism, but one argument that I
always think ought to get more traction is that
capitalism has singularly failed to shorten the working
day.
I'm with you on that. But if there's more money to be made out of a
longer workday, the stinking capitalists will lengthen the workday.
And bend many of our minds around to thinking of it as normal. Even a
petit bourgeois radical such as myself didn't leave the office until
9:30 last night.
Doug

Re: Job flight

[dsquared]

Inputs and outputs, though.  I certainly wouldn't want
to live in a precapitalist economy or in most forms of
Actually Existing Socialism, but one argument that I
always think ought to get more traction is that
capitalism has singularly failed to shorten the working
day.  A lot of people intuitively realise that there is
something wrong here; we were promised robot slaves and
unlimited leisure time in the comic books, and now the
space age is here and we're still working like dogs.

I occasionally find it a sobering thought that my
grandfather lived in a two-up-two-down he could barely
afford and rose at 0530 every morning to get down to
the market, and now, after the social mobility afforded
to the third generation thanks to a very expensive
university and business school education, I find myself
living in a two-up-two-down I can barely afford,
getting up at 0530 in order to be ready for the market.

dd


On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 14:01:49 -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:


>
> Compared to what? It's hard to argue with its capacity
> to grow,
> innovate, and produce cheaper commodities over the
> centuries - at a
> high social and ecological cost, for sure, but I don't
> think you can
> win the "efficiency" argument from the left. It has to
> be on other
> grounds.
>
> Doug

Re: Job flight contest $$ (was terrorism futures market)

[Tom Walker]

Gene Coyle wrote:

>Thinking about job flight?  Here's your reward.

Thanks, Gene. I'll enter. I won the last essay contest I entered that was
announced on Pen-L: Robin (terrorism futures market) Hanson's "Has
Privatization gone far enough?" Since there are eight prizes in this one, a
$5,000 "show" should be a dead cinch for the Sandwichman!

& the title 'Import workers or export jobs?' shouldn't hurt because one of
the standard replies to fears that immigrants will take away jobs has been
the 'lump-of-labor fallacy' rebuttal that there is not a fixed amount of
work. The Economist has, over the past decade been the leading propagandist
against the lump-of-labor fallacy, so they should be especially impressed
when I begin my essay with the words: "There is most definitely *not* a
fixed amount of work to be done..."

Tom Walker
604 255 4812

Job flight contest $$

[Eugene Coyle]

Thinking about job flight?  Here's your reward.

Gene Coyle



This year sees the fifth anniversary of the Shell Economist writing
prize competition, and we hope very much that you will consider
entering. The theme is 'Import workers or export jobs?'
  
  Points to consider
Should developing nations be allowed to 'poach' skilled professional
labour from countries who have helped pay for this expertise? Or is the
influx of immigrants, whether skilled or unskilled, a positive force,
bringing either expertise or ambition and hard work to the host nation?
  
The above is, of course, just a starting point. We're looking forward
to essays that touch on some or all of these questions and go further,
while providing a new, fresh perspective and real insight into the
issues involved.
  
  US$65,000 to be won
>From a total prize fund of US$65,000, the winner of the competition
will receive US$20,000, while the prizes for the second and third place
runners up are US$10,000 and US$5,000 respectively.
  
You can find all the details you need - such as maximum word count and
the closing date - on our Web site www.shelleconomistprize.com.
  
So, if you decide to rise to the challenge and enter the competition,
good luck. We look forward to receiving your essay.
  
Best regards,
Shell and The Economist

Re: Job flight

[Tom Walker]

"While there are no hard local numbers, about 300,000 jobs nationwide have
been lost since 2000, according to Forrester Research Inc."

Well, "while there are no hard numbers," about 10,000,000 jobs have been
lost in the U.S. due to excessive hours of work (compared to Europe).

Candidate Kerry says he'll create 10,000,000 jobs over 4 years by reducing
corporate tax rates. Well, the same number of jobs could be created over the
same time frame -- perhaps shorter -- by phasing in a reduction in the
average annual hours of work from around 1815 to a more leisurely 1550. The
rule of thumb is that about half of a reduction in hours per worker
translates into job creation and about half into productivity gains.

Imagine, though, the torrent of indignation, outrage and disdain that would
issue forth from editorial pages and mainstream economist if a Democratic
candidate had the temerity to make such a "ridiculous", "fallacious" and
"utterly frivolous" proposal*. The fact that the editorialists and
mainstreamers wouldn't know what they were talking about is beside the
point -- their ignorance would be unanimous and their unanimity would
surmount all uncertainty.

*Not to mention "unprecedented."

GOP 1932:
"We favor the principle of the shorter work week and the shorter work day
with its application to Government as well as to private employment, as
rapidly and as constructively as conditions will warrant."

DEM 1932:
"We advocate the spread of employment by a substantial reduction in the
hours of labor, the encouragement of the shorter week by applying that
principle in government service,


Tom Walker
604 255 4812

Re: Job flight

[joanna bujes]

ravi wrote:

come on now. its not about your job against my job, and i am not trying
to defend "indian programmers" or some such identity group. if i do go
back, i hope i will be more empowered to participate in the real world,
rather than have to sit in a cube and write uninspiring software.
No, no, no. I wasn't being ironic...or mean... I was being quite
literal. I mean if outsourcing continues at its merry pace, you are much
more likely to get a job in India than I am. Anyway, I'll forgive you
for using the word "empowered" if you'll forgive me for even suggesting
that there can be any kind of enmity between us.
Right before I answered your email, my next door neighbor, a french
immigrant, told me that her programmer boyfriend had been laid off his
third job. Apparently they had laid everyone off in his office except
those with H1B visas. He had actually moved to another state in order to
find this last job. She was very worried, and talked about how in her
own sector, banking, they were having huge layoffs. I asked her what she
was going to do and she said that she was thinking about going back to
France. They're outsourcing there too, she said, but at least there's
health care.
So all this was running around in my head when I replied. Frankly, I'm a
litttle depressed.
Joanna

Re: Job flight

[Louis Proyect]

Ravi wrote:
in some cases, this complexity is
willful... take the current obsession with XML and building layers and
layers on top of it.
Sounds like the project I'm working on, which combines websphere, XML,
Struts, java and javascript. It has taken me a year to figure out how all
the pieces fit together. The industry has convinced itself that OO
development is like putting together preassembled parts. That may be true
for shrink-wrapped software that can re-use the same widgets, but it hardly
seems worth the effort for in-house development of typical back-office
systems like payroll, etc. I could have written the same modules in php in
1/3 the time. Unfortunately, you need java or maybe Gates's new software
for the kind of stable, multi-user systems that big organizations require.
Frankly, I don't see how you can ship this kind of work overseas since it
is so dependent on heavy user interaction. On the other hand, if you are
developing turn-key applications based on stable specifications, it might
be another story altogether.
Louis Proyect
Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: Job flight

[ravi]

joanna bujes wrote:
>
You're saying that writing a program or creating a software product in
three different countries is no different than creating a pre-fabricated
house in three different countries: the roof in the US, the window
frames in China, and the walls in India. I think though that fitting a
pre-fabricated house together is not the same as getting a dozen
application components to work together.  You can say that the whole
point of API's is to allow just that to happen, but from what I notice,
it's just not that easy.
i did somewhat miss the distinction you draw. nonetheless, i am not sure
i am wrong. do you feel that software interfaces are inherently more
difficult to engineer and manage? in some cases, this complexity is
willful... take the current obsession with XML and building layers and
layers on top of it. to some extent all of this is because some of this
application layer work still suffers from the hubris of the late-90s
tech boom. they still have a bunch of underqualified people running
around selling pie-in-the-sky end-to-end CRM, ERP, what-have-you
systems. ultimately though, i think it will indeed break down to
well-defined APIs and implementations that a few people here can put
together. a lot of that has happened for hardware, hasn't it? complex
processors, PCBs, peripherals are built in different regions and
integrated for a multitude of higher-order systems.

But, I am happy for you that if push comes to shove, you will be able to
go back and be able to work and  live.


come on now. its not about your job against my job, and i am not trying
to defend "indian programmers" or some such identity group. if i do go
back, i hope i will be more empowered to participate in the real world,
rather than have to sit in a cube and write uninspiring software.
   --ravi

Re: Job flight

[dmschanoes]

The great, sort of, and humbling, definitely, thing about a market
economy is that it puts a dollar sign alongside all endeavors and makes
them equivalent in that great democracy of the world market where
lawyers, guns, and money  make sure your vote counts because they're
doing the counting.

So writing a program and integrating an application unto a platform is
precisely no different than assembling a pre-fab house of components
from various countries.  There is nothing special about San Francisco
Bay Area Labor vs. Bay of Bengal or Tokyo Bay or Bayonne Bay of Bay of
Fundy labor, intellectual, manual or anything else.

What was it Marx said-- not that one man is as good as another man, but
that one man's hour was as good as another man's hour?  Time is
everything man is nothing.  That's all outsourcing really is.

And another humbling thing about capital is that absent the proletarian
revolution, it will always find a way to reconstitute itself and
continue its ragged course-- because there is, in reality, not an
absence leading to the reconstituton, but actually defeat.  And that's
exactly what WWII, pre and post, was.  The defeat of that revolution.

Henwood is right. Again.  Unfortunately. There is no sense bemoaning the
intervention of the capitalist state as the saviour of the capitalists'
bacon.  After all, that's what it's supposed to do.  That's what it's
always done, whether in the "Golden Age" of laissez faire, like saving
the property of the East India Company after the great rebellion of
1857, like supporting the flimflam financing behind the expansion of the
US railroads, etc. etc. etc. or in the Imperial Age, with defense
contracts, regressive tax structures, subsidies, bailouts, and the ever
popular  wars to begin more wars.

How good is capital?  Good enough.  Until it's overthrown.

Re: Job flight

[joanna bujes]

You're saying that writing a program or creating a software product in
three different countries is no different than creating a pre-fabricated
house in three different countries: the roof in the US, the window
frames in China, and the walls in India. I think though that fitting a
pre-fabricated house together is not the same as getting a dozen
application components to work together.  You can say that the whole
point of API's is to allow just that to happen, but from what I notice,
it's just not that easy.
What I see on the job every day is that there is no management. All the
management, coordination, intelligent thinking, long-term thinking,
etc., happens on the grunt level -- or, at the  first tier management
level. Above that, it's all hot air. So, all I'm saying is that if an
entire company moves abroad, it might work very well after a year or
two. But if it's scattered here and there, it won't work because you'll
need the 2nd layer of management to do their job, and they don't know how.
But, I am happy for you that if push comes to shove, you will be able to
go back and be able to work and  live. As for me, I'm not so sure. Maybe
you can hire me to teach your kids.
Joanna



ravi wrote:

joanna bujes wrote:

The truth is they don't have a clue on how to manage intellectual labor.

joanna, my friend, why is this not an elitist attitude? what is so
intellectual about programming? it could be, but it doesn't need to be,
and it seldom is. i.e., there are very neat solutions for proramming
problems, but often brute force techniques (more CPU, more memory, etc.)
solve the problem equally well, and most code, i suggest, exhibits
little intelligent thought.

The "efficacy" of the capitalist model is more myth than fact.


i do not think it is due to any great strength of the capitalist model
that outsourcing does and will succeed, since the proposed a posteriori
capitalist/market theories state nothing more than the obvious. most of
this work is boring, mundane, repetitive and trivial and is easy to
replicate elsewhere.
as i said above, the work does not have to be that way. i knew people at
bell labs who would come up with the most inventive counter-intuitive
little algorithms to solve problems better. that's creative. perhaps
even a little useful. but not really necessary.
   --ravi

Re: Job flight

[Waistline2]

In a message dated 3/28/2004 3:28:28 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's Panglossian political economy.  The destruction or creation ofjobs is not a technical function, but a social one.  The expulsion oflabor power from the production process is essential to theexpropriation of surplus value, to increased rates of expropriation.The derivative effect, of the rising tide raising all boats, or in thiscase, the reemployment of expelled labor, has nothing to do withtechnology and everything to do with the rate of profitablereproduction.So applications of the same technology reduce jobs in on area of theworld markets while increasing jobs in the other.We can look at steel, auto, oil, semiconductor production throughout theworld to see the unity of these opposites at work.Still, certain critical moments are reached inside each of these areaswhen overproduction overwhelms the circulation and realizationprocesses.  This is manifested already in Mexico, and Brazil, where joblosses in industrial production sectors parallel similar losses in theUS, and it is becoming manifest in China where problems intransportation, infrastructure, i.e. ships waiting 30 days or more tounload, ports unable to move unloaded commodities out of ground storagequickly enough, electricity shortages, etc., all facets of circulation,are breaking through the euphoria of rapid growth.
Comment
 
 
Brilliant. 
 
Engels called modern technology "labor destroying devices" indicating its social function as bourgeois property. 
 
Absolutely brilliant summation. 
 
Melvin P. 

Re: Job flight

[Louis Proyect]

Yeah, that's an incredible salary. I know some top flight programmers
with eons of experience...none of whom make more than 130,000.
Joanna
The article is probably bullshit. It reminds me of those articles about
auto workers who make that kind of money, or other skilled blue-collar
workers. It turns out that these sky-high wages are based on working 60
hours a week for something like $30 per hour, a high but not outrageous pay
for a skilled worker. The other thing to keep in mind is that these are
more likely to be independent consultants rather than salaried workers, who
rarely make more than $85,000 per year.


Louis Proyect
Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: Job flight

[joanna bujes]

ravi wrote:

i am not an expert on the matter, so this is just my opinion: i believe
the above effect is temporary. programming is not difficult and it is
well suited for outsourcing. those going through outsourcing disaster
will learn from their mistakes... already, i know of many fellow indians
in the US who are getting into the very lucrative career path of acting
as a sort of outsourcing liaison, leveraging their knowledge of both
worlds.
I don't think it's happening because Indian programmers are not good
enough, I think it's happening becauses long-distance management is even
harder than local management.


joanna, i actually greatly admire your company. they were internet
pioneers and the geek in me looks up to their innovative work. but they
were charging enterprice prices for badly put together products long
before there was any outsourcing.
Absolutely, no question about it. Actually I think they suck and so far
as the internet pionnering stuff, I think they just got lucky.
my guess is that when you add up the numbers, outsourcing will still be
cheaper. i just read an article (i believe in business week) in which a
programmer, who was earning $200,000 (!!!) a year, was complaining about
the loss of her job and questioning what was wrong with america, etc.
$200,000/year??? i could probably count on my fingers the number of
programmers who deserve that kind of pay!
Yeah, that's an incredible salary. I know some top flight programmers
with eons of experience...none of whom make more than 130,000.
Joanna

Re: Job flight

[ravi]

joanna bujes wrote:
The truth is they don't have a clue on how to manage intellectual labor.

joanna, my friend, why is this not an elitist attitude? what is so
intellectual about programming? it could be, but it doesn't need to be,
and it seldom is. i.e., there are very neat solutions for proramming
problems, but often brute force techniques (more CPU, more memory, etc.)
solve the problem equally well, and most code, i suggest, exhibits
little intelligent thought.

The "efficacy" of the capitalist model is more myth than fact.


i do not think it is due to any great strength of the capitalist model
that outsourcing does and will succeed, since the proposed a posteriori
capitalist/market theories state nothing more than the obvious. most of
this work is boring, mundane, repetitive and trivial and is easy to
replicate elsewhere.
as i said above, the work does not have to be that way. i knew people at
bell labs who would come up with the most inventive counter-intuitive
little algorithms to solve problems better. that's creative. perhaps
even a little useful. but not really necessary.
   --ravi

Re: Job flight

[ravi]

Doug Henwood wrote:
joanna bujes wrote:

More interesting is the thesis that outsourcing is profitable for
hi-tech companies. I wonder how they figure out that profit. The very
large hi tech company I work for has outsourced a number of projects to
India and China. I know first hand that the results of this off-shoring
were nothing short of disastrous. Because of communication problems and
inept management, the work done offshore had to be done over, about
three times so far. This not only cost more time-wise and money-wise,
but in the meantime, my company shipped products that looked like they
were done in somebody's garage (while charging "enterprise" prices) and,
I suspect, considerably tarnished their reputation and credibility.
This line is now emerging in the biz press. I saw something from one
of the brand-name consultants the other day saying that 2004 will be
the year of "reality-check" or some such for the whole trend. The
savings turn out to be far smaller than the raw wage gap makes them
appear.
i am not an expert on the matter, so this is just my opinion: i believe
the above effect is temporary. programming is not difficult and it is
well suited for outsourcing. those going through outsourcing disaster
will learn from their mistakes... already, i know of many fellow indians
in the US who are getting into the very lucrative career path of acting
as a sort of outsourcing liaison, leveraging their knowledge of both worlds.
joanna, i actually greatly admire your company. they were internet
pioneers and the geek in me looks up to their innovative work. but they
were charging enterprice prices for badly put together products long
before there was any outsourcing.
my guess is that when you add up the numbers, outsourcing will still be
cheaper. i just read an article (i believe in business week) in which a
programmer, who was earning $200,000 (!!!) a year, was complaining about
the loss of her job and questioning what was wrong with america, etc.
$200,000/year??? i could probably count on my fingers the number of
programmers who deserve that kind of pay!
   --ravi

Re: Job flight

[Doug Henwood]

Michael Perelman wrote:

That is the standard answer in the economic literature.  What would
have happened in
the post-World War II American economy without the federal
government to prop up the
job market?
It's always some prop, isn't it? This idea that capitalism would have
failed 10, 40, 100, 150 years ago had it not been for some special
circumstance isn't very helpful. It keeps barrelling on. Capitalism
could probably live with a re-routed Gulf Stream and a Europe under
deep freeze. Know the enemy, man.
Doug

Re: Job flight

[Michael Perelman]

That is the standard answer in the economic literature.  What would have happened in
the post-World War II American economy without the federal government to prop up the
job market?


On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 04:09:23PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Michael Perelman wrote:
>
> >Supposedly, new technology lowers prices, which spurs new demand,
> >which reemploy as
> >the workers.  I'm not saying I accept this argument, but I have not seen many
> >economists eating crow.
>
> Several centuries of capitalist history are on the side of the
> non-crow-eaters, no? I like Ursula Huws's argument that one reason is
> the continued commodification of household tasks, an instance of
> capitalism's seemingly endless propensity to create new and
> profitable "needs."
>
> Doug

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

Re: Job flight

[jjlassen]

Hi Michael,

I think the jury's still out on this one. In certain national contexts (usually
advanced capitalist ones), the economists are probably not eating crow.
(Basso's work shows that working-time is increasing in advanced capitalism) At
the global scale, (the only proper level to examine this question IMO), the
economists don't even know where to begin carving it up. The ILO says 1/3 of
the world's workforce is un- or underemployed (about 1 billion, mainly
underemployed). And they claim the situation is getting worse.

I think I mentioned before that China experienced full employment by the end of
the 1970s. Now, the scale of the 'surplus' population is measured in the
hundreds of millions. (and there was *not* much disguised unemployment in China
before the reforms) I'm not *blaming* technology for this; 'unemployment' is a
social category that presupposes capitalist relations of production, which in
the case of China you actually watch being created. The capitalist relations of
production is where our critique should be aimed I would think. Policy makers
in China have given up trying to create formal employment for the 'surplus
population', and are happy to let them fend for themselves in the informal
sector. Well, I suppose hawking stuff on the street is still value-creating
service employment! (sarcasm)

This still seems relevant:

"All political economists of any standing admit that the introduction of new
machinery has a baneful effect on the workmen in the old handicrafts and
manufactures with which this machinery at first competes. Almost all of them
bemoan the slavery of the factory operative. And what is the great trump-card
that they play? That machinery, after the horrors of the period of introduction
and development have subsided, instead of diminishing, in the long run
increases the number of the slaves of labour! Yes, Political Economy revels in
the hideous theory, hideous to every "philanthropist" who believes in the
eternal Nature-ordained necessity for capitalist production, that after a
period of growth and transition, even its crowning success, the factory system
based on machinery, grinds down more workpeople than on its first introduction
it throws on the streets." KM

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm#S7

Cheers,

Jonathan

M Perelman wrote:

The current explanation that job flight this response to improved technology
races to
questions for me.

Virtually every economics textbook I have seen dismisses the idea that new
technology
can destroy jobs.  The most reputable counterargument came from David Ricardo
in the
19th-century.  Few economists have done much further.

Supposedly, new technology lowers prices, which spurs new demand, which
reemploy as
the workers.  I'm not saying I accept this argument, but I have not seen many
economists eating crow.

Secondly, I have no idea how you separate new technology from outsourcing.
Until
very recently, much of the spur to new technology came from the production of
informational processing technologies, but much of the manufacturing, which
certainly
played a role in the reduction of costs, occurred offshore.


-
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/

Re: Job flight

[dmschanoes]

Supposedly, new technology lowers prices, which spurs new demand, which
reemploy as
the workers.  I'm not saying I accept this argument, but I have not seen
many
economists eating crow.
___-

That's Panglossian political economy.  The destruction or creation of
jobs is not a technical function, but a social one.  The expulsion of
labor power from the production process is essential to the
expropriation of surplus value, to increased rates of expropriation.
The derivative effect, of the rising tide raising all boats, or in this
case, the reemployment of expelled labor, has nothing to do with
technology and everything to do with the rate of profitable
reproduction.

So applications of the same technology reduce jobs in on area of the
world markets while increasing jobs in the other.

We can look at steel, auto, oil, semiconductor production throughout the
world to see the unity of these opposites at work.

Still, certain critical moments are reached inside each of these areas
when overproduction overwhelms the circulation and realization
processes.  This is manifested already in Mexico, and Brazil, where job
losses in industrial production sectors parallel similar losses in the
US, and it is becoming manifest in China where problems in
transportation, infrastructure, i.e. ships waiting 30 days or more to
unload, ports unable to move unloaded commodities out of ground storage
quickly enough, electricity shortages, etc., all facets of circulation,
are breaking through the euphoria of rapid growth.

 International semiconductor companies have reached an impasse, where
the technology has advanced to such a level that the comparative
advantage of reduced wage levels as in China is in fact minimized by the
overwhelming technical inputs which require an elaborate and reliable
infrastructure to protect uninterrupted production.

Re: Job flight

[Doug Henwood]

Michael Perelman wrote:

Supposedly, new technology lowers prices, which spurs new demand,
which reemploy as
the workers.  I'm not saying I accept this argument, but I have not seen many
economists eating crow.
Several centuries of capitalist history are on the side of the
non-crow-eaters, no? I like Ursula Huws's argument that one reason is
the continued commodification of household tasks, an instance of
capitalism's seemingly endless propensity to create new and
profitable "needs."
Doug

Re: Job flight

[Michael Perelman]

The current explanation that job flight this response to improved technology races to
questions for me.

Virtually every economics textbook I have seen dismisses the idea that new technology
can destroy jobs.  The most reputable counterargument came from David Ricardo in the
19th-century.  Few economists have done much further.

Supposedly, new technology lowers prices, which spurs new demand, which reemploy as
the workers.  I'm not saying I accept this argument, but I have not seen many
economists eating crow.

Secondly, I have no idea how you separate new technology from outsourcing.  Until
very recently, much of the spur to new technology came from the production of
informational processing technologies, but much of the manufacturing, which certainly
played a role in the reduction of costs, occurred offshore.



--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

Re: Job flight

[joanna bujes]

Doug Henwood wrote:

Compared to what? It's hard to argue with its capacity to grow,
innovate, and produce cheaper commodities over the centuries - at a
high social and ecological cost, for sure, but I don't think you can
win the "efficiency" argument from the left. It has to be on other
grounds.
I don't dispute that capitalism is efficacious for capital. It's
efficacy for
humanity is another question.
Joanna

Re: Job flight

[Ted Winslow]

Doug Henwood wrote:

Compared to what? It's hard to argue with its capacity to grow,
innovate, and produce cheaper commodities over the centuries - at a
high social and ecological cost, for sure, but I don't think you can
win the "efficiency" argument from the left. It has to be on other
grounds.
This isn't so if the degree of rationality characteristic of the
mentality dominant within capitalist relations of production is less
than what would obtain within relations more consistent with the
development of rationality.  In so far as the capitalist corporate form
embodies characteristics which express the psychopathology of those
whose creature it is, it won't be as "efficient" as a form expressive
of less psychopathology.  This effect goes unnoticed where (as with
Doug's recent interviewee Leo Panitch) it's simply assumed that
capitalists are fully instrumentally rational.  Moreover, where
compensation arrangements give the stock market significant influence
over the decision making of corporate executives, the degree of
psychopathology characteristic of these decisions will be increased
because of the greater psychopathology characteristic of the mentality
dominant in financial markets.
The psychopathology can't be competed away if it's an essential feature
of the mentality generated by the internal social relations that define
capitalism.
Ted

Re: Job flight

[jjlassen]

joanna bujes wrote:

"The truth is they don't have a clue on how to manage intellectual labor.
They try to do it as it were an assembly line. Doesn't work. Offsourcing Hi-
tech means managing intellectual labor accross great geographical, cultural,
and sometimes linguistic divides. Not what I would call a recipie for success."

The Talyorists long ago dropped any distinction between types of labor.
Intellectual, manual labor, it's all the same thing to them: actions geared
toward a result, measured in time and price. Some nuts have been harder to
crack than others, but the development and now near universality of computer
and communications technology changes everything.

The true limit to capital's drive to abstract us is our own resistance, not
the 'inefficiencies' that result when they hit up against
geographical/cultural/linguistic barriers. (very much agree with Doug's point
on this - we have to change the terrain of debate to win the argument) They
will likely be able to overcome these limits, that is if we let them.

Speaking of water-cooler conversations, on one front, the wonks are hard at
work at continuing to annihilate distance. They're slobbering over the
possibilities of telepresence via internet2, and I've been noticing a lot of
talk about how it allows for 'hallway' or 'watercooler' conversations. And
they've also stumbled onto the future workplace of the networked prols: the
telecubicle!

http://www.advanced.org/tele-immersion/board/cubelabel.html

Cheers,

Jonathan

-
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/

Re: Job flight

[Anthony D'Costa]

Not really.  Initially the H1 and L1 visas facilitated the temporary and
some permanent import of skilled workers.  This was pre-Y2K era on-site
work.  The work was largely low-end--maintenance, debugging, some nominal
systems integration.  Physical presence was vital.  Now with learning and
(Indian) government spending on (physical and educational) infrastructure
and availability of modern communications, a lot of the work can be done
off-shore in India at much lower cost.  There is considerable efficiency,
despite some examples to the contrary, as hundreds of engineers can be
obtained rather quickly and hundreds quickly mobilized to complete a
project on tight.  The modular approach combined with partitioning of
projects allows considerable flexibility.  And let's not forget Indian
engineers are high on the learning curve.  So in a dynamic sense we can
expect them to get better as they handle more complex projects.

cheers, anthony

xxx
Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor
Comparative International Development
University of WashingtonCampus Box 358436
1900 Commerce Street
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA

Phone: (253) 692-4462
Fax :  (253) 692-5718
xxx

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004, Devine, James wrote:

> is it possible that a lot of the out-sourcing is a substitute for importing skilled 
> workers (under the special visas whose name I've forgotten) to do the work here?
> Jim D.
>
>   -Original Message-
>   From: joanna bujes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   Sent: Sun 3/28/2004 9:44 AM
>   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   Cc:
>   Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Job flight
>
>
>
>   Some experts see benefits being derived from outsourcing. Exporting
>   routinized jobs such as programming can lower costs for companies and
>   give them the cash to invest in higher-skilled, more innovative jobs in
>   the United States.
>
>   _
>
>   This is such a joke. I won't even comment about how they're going to
>   take their profits and invest them in "higher-skilled, more innovative
>   jobs in the U.S."
>
>   More interesting is the thesis that outsourcing is profitable for
>   hi-tech companies. I wonder how they figure out that profit. The very
>   large hi tech company I work for has outsourced a number of projects to
>   India and China. I know first hand that the results of this off-shoring
>   were nothing short of disastrous. Because of communication problems and
>   inept management, the work done offshore had to be done over, about
>   three times so far. This not only cost more time-wise and money-wise,
>   but in the meantime, my company shipped products that looked like they
>   were done in somebody's garage (while charging "enterprise" prices) and,
>   I suspect, considerably tarnished their reputation and credibility.
>
>   I am beginning to seriously question the "efficacy" and even the long
>   term "profitablity" of hi-tech outsourcing.
>
>   Joanna
>
>
>

Re: Job flight

[Doug Henwood]

joanna bujes wrote:

The "efficacy" of the capitalist model is more myth than fact.
Compared to what? It's hard to argue with its capacity to grow,
innovate, and produce cheaper commodities over the centuries - at a
high social and ecological cost, for sure, but I don't think you can
win the "efficiency" argument from the left. It has to be on other
grounds.
Doug

Re: Job flight

[joanna bujes]

Glad to hear it. If I told you the actual details of these disasters,
you would not believe it...plus it would take a lot of time.
The truth is they don't have a clue on how to manage intellectual labor.
They try to do it as it were an assembly line. Doesn't work. Offsourcing
Hi-tech means managing intellectual labor accross great geographical,
cultural, and sometimes linguistic divides. Not what I would call a
recipie for success.
The local engineering team I work with includes folks from the U.S.,
China, India, and Malasia. It is a superb team -- one of the best eng.
teams I have ever worked with. But...we all work in the same place. It's
very easy to meet, to communicate, to resolve issues, to meet by the
watercooler and explore the issues we were too shy or too hurried to
bring up in meetings, to help each other, etc. You cannot do this long
distance; you just can't.
It's true that paying these people bay area wages is more expensive for
the company. On the other hand, every product we're put out has been on
time and its quality has surpassed or equalled industry leaders. How do
you price a customer  knowing and telling others that your product is
"great."? How do you price the amount of money/time spent to re-do a
project three or four times and then deciding you're going to scrap it
and start over? This happens a lot with offsourced work.
It looks good in the short run, because in the short run the company is
still running on its non-offshored reputation. In the long run many
companies might still offshore because upper management don't give a
shit. I mean sure, they might be destroying the company, but they will
walk away with their guaranteed millions, so why should they care.
The "efficacy" of the capitalist model is more myth than fact.

Joanna

Doug Henwood wrote:

joanna bujes wrote:

More interesting is the thesis that outsourcing is profitable for
hi-tech companies. I wonder how they figure out that profit. The very
large hi tech company I work for has outsourced a number of projects to
India and China. I know first hand that the results of this off-shoring
were nothing short of disastrous. Because of communication problems and
inept management, the work done offshore had to be done over, about
three times so far. This not only cost more time-wise and money-wise,
but in the meantime, my company shipped products that looked like they
were done in somebody's garage (while charging "enterprise" prices) and,
I suspect, considerably tarnished their reputation and credibility.


This line is now emerging in the biz press. I saw something from one
of the brand-name consultants the other day saying that 2004 will be
the year of "reality-check" or some such for the whole trend. The
savings turn out to be far smaller than the raw wage gap makes them
appear.
Doug

Re: Job flight

[Doug Henwood]

joanna bujes wrote:

More interesting is the thesis that outsourcing is profitable for
hi-tech companies. I wonder how they figure out that profit. The very
large hi tech company I work for has outsourced a number of projects to
India and China. I know first hand that the results of this off-shoring
were nothing short of disastrous. Because of communication problems and
inept management, the work done offshore had to be done over, about
three times so far. This not only cost more time-wise and money-wise,
but in the meantime, my company shipped products that looked like they
were done in somebody's garage (while charging "enterprise" prices) and,
I suspect, considerably tarnished their reputation and credibility.
This line is now emerging in the biz press. I saw something from one
of the brand-name consultants the other day saying that 2004 will be
the year of "reality-check" or some such for the whole trend. The
savings turn out to be far smaller than the raw wage gap makes them
appear.
Doug

Re: Job flight

[Devine, James]

is it possible that a lot of the out-sourcing is a substitute for importing skilled 
workers (under the special visas whose name I've forgotten) to do the work here?
Jim D. 

-Original Message- 
From: joanna bujes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sun 3/28/2004 9:44 AM 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Job flight



Some experts see benefits being derived from outsourcing. Exporting
routinized jobs such as programming can lower costs for companies and
give them the cash to invest in higher-skilled, more innovative jobs in
the United States.

_

This is such a joke. I won't even comment about how they're going to
take their profits and invest them in "higher-skilled, more innovative
jobs in the U.S."

More interesting is the thesis that outsourcing is profitable for
hi-tech companies. I wonder how they figure out that profit. The very
large hi tech company I work for has outsourced a number of projects to
India and China. I know first hand that the results of this off-shoring
were nothing short of disastrous. Because of communication problems and
inept management, the work done offshore had to be done over, about
three times so far. This not only cost more time-wise and money-wise,
but in the meantime, my company shipped products that looked like they
were done in somebody's garage (while charging "enterprise" prices) and,
I suspect, considerably tarnished their reputation and credibility.

I am beginning to seriously question the "efficacy" and even the long
term "profitablity" of hi-tech outsourcing.

Joanna

Re: Job flight

[joanna bujes]

Some experts see benefits being derived from outsourcing. Exporting
routinized jobs such as programming can lower costs for companies and
give them the cash to invest in higher-skilled, more innovative jobs in
the United States.
_

This is such a joke. I won't even comment about how they're going to
take their profits and invest them in "higher-skilled, more innovative
jobs in the U.S."
More interesting is the thesis that outsourcing is profitable for
hi-tech companies. I wonder how they figure out that profit. The very
large hi tech company I work for has outsourced a number of projects to
India and China. I know first hand that the results of this off-shoring
were nothing short of disastrous. Because of communication problems and
inept management, the work done offshore had to be done over, about
three times so far. This not only cost more time-wise and money-wise,
but in the meantime, my company shipped products that looked like they
were done in somebody's garage (while charging "enterprise" prices) and,
I suspect, considerably tarnished their reputation and credibility.
I am beginning to seriously question the "efficacy" and even the long
term "profitablity" of hi-tech outsourcing.
Joanna

Job flight

[Louis Proyect]

NY Newsday, March 28, 2004
How your job may go abroad
BY JAMES T. MADORE AND PRADNYA JOSHI
Staff Writer
The Bank of New York plans to send 250 technology jobs from Manhattan
and elsewhere in the country to India.
The accounting firm Marcum & Kliegman LLP, with offices in Woodbury and
Manhattan, is experimenting with having income tax returns prepared
overseas.
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. began firing about 1,000 employees last fall at
its credit-card operations in Hicksville, sending some of the work to
Vancouver. It also has created dozens of junior stock analyst jobs in
Bombay.
The Reuters news service is hiring six journalists to write about U.S.
companies from Bangalore, India, while it shifts computer jobs from
Hauppauge to Bangkok.
From finance to technology, accounting to media, dozens of New
York-area businesses are sending work overseas, joining the
controversial trend called outsourcing. And local workers, who got used
to seeing manufacturing jobs depart for lower-wage countries such as
China and the Philippines, now are alarmed to see the same thing happen
to higher-paying, white-collar positions. While there are no hard local
numbers, about 300,000 jobs nationwide have been lost since 2000,
according to Forrester Research Inc.
For 20 years, Michael Wolfson earned a good living as a computer
programmer, most recently at financial powerhouse Bear, Stearns & Co.
Inc. Now, as he hunts for a job, he's refurbishing computers in the
basement of his Baldwin home and selling them on eBay.
Wolfson, 43, was told last year that his position in the brokerage's
Brooklyn office was being outsourced to India.
Forced to train workers

Bear Stearns then brought in groups of people from Tata Consultancy
Services, based in Bombay, and many programmers had to train the
supervisors from India who were flown over to learn the computer systems.
"People left there with very bad tastes in their mouth," Wolfson said.
Laid off in December, he is thinking of becoming a public school teacher.
After years of being counseled to seek jobs that provided higher pay for
higher skills, many workers fear those opportunities are evaporating for
good.
The list of vulnerable occupations has grown as the pace of outsourcing
has accelerated and now affects a broad spectrum including radiology,
paralegal, journalism and government services. For example, the
subcontractor hired by New York State to run the food stamp program is
having questions from the poor answered by telephone operators in Mexico
and India.
Some experts see benefits being derived from outsourcing. Exporting
routinized jobs such as programming can lower costs for companies and
give them the cash to invest in higher-skilled, more innovative jobs in
the United States.
While the macroeconomics evolve, outsourcing is escalating as a
hot-button issue in the presidential campaign with President George W.
Bush and Democratic candidate John Kerry sparring over the long-term
impact on the U.S. standard of living. Kerry on Friday proposed tax
changes to keep companies from moving jobs overseas.
In the New York area, outsourcing opponents argue that if the exporting
of jobs doesn't stop, the economy's mainstay of financial services,
accounting, computer software and business services could follow the
once bustling manufacturing sector into near extinction.
Job lost to worker on a visa

Toni Chester, a computer programmer in Manhattan who blames outsourcing
for the dearth of permanent jobs with benefits, said, "I cannot afford
to live here on what they pay programmers in India and that's where all
the jobs in my profession are going."
Chester, 40, lost her $200,000-a-year position in August 2001 to a
lower-paid colleague from India working here on a temporary visa. The
single mother of a teenage son, Chester spent more than a year largely
unemployed until landing a contract job.
"For tech people like myself, when you take away our jobs it's an ego
deflator; we're really lost," she said. "I love spending 14 to 15 hours
a day writing code." She added, "I cannot find a job. What's wrong with
me? Why won't American companies hire Americans?"
full:

--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org