Outsourcing Cheerleaders Getting Nervous
Scott Kirwin
"The inaccurate perception that global sourcing is causing a net loss in US technology jobs is a factor in some students' decisions not to pursue higher education in IT. It is a perception that we are working to correct," Harris Miller, president of the IT Association of America said.
Inaccurate perception? For years Harris Miller and the IT Association of America have joined Microsoft CEO Bill Gates to push for an unlimited number of foreign IT workers into the United States, and have fought all efforts to halt or even study the flow of jobs abroad and the potential danger this poses to American security. Today there is no limit to offshoring. Companies exhort executives to ponder "What can I outsource today?" It's gotten to the point that Gates has warned companies that they are outsourcing too much. That hasn't stopped the lemming-like rush to offshore.
Who wants a job where "long term" means next year and stability lasts only as long as the current pay period? Who desires a job competing against an influx of nonimmigrant visa holders who make on average 25% less than you do? How about a job that requires years of training but can be sent abroad today for a fraction of your prospective salary? Would you get a degree in a field that will have completely changed by the time you graduate? Or a job whose entry level positions have been sent abroad?
While it pains me to say this, college kids aren't stupid. Enrollment in the Computer Sciences (CS) bachelors degree programs dropped 19% in 2004, and the number majoring in CS declined by 23% overall. Kids are voting with their feet, avoiding a field that doesn't guarantee them a wage to pay back their student loans. Dr. Ron Hira, Assistant Professor of Public Policy at Rochester Institute of Technology and the chair for IEEE-USA Career & Workforce Policy, attributes this decline to one simple fact: a Computer Science degree doesn't pay.
IT wages and salaries have been in decline for years in the USA, while they have been skyrocketing in India and China. Why? Because IT jobs are leaving the US and going to those nations. There is simply too large a pool of IT trained labor in the USA chasing after too few jobs available here. Meanwhile, Congress, through nonimmigrant visa programs such as the L-1 and H-1b, have allowed more than 1 1/2 million foreign workers into the United States, mostly men from China and India to fill positions in the IT field.
Forrest Research claims that 11 percent of American white-collar jobs, affecting 14 million people, are vulnerable to offshoring. The research arm of an offshoring firm says 540,000 service jobs moved offshore through 2004 and predicts a loss of 3.4 million positions by 2015 (source). In theory Globalization is supposed to be a win-win for both nations; in fact, Nobel Laureate Paul Samuelson details how offshoring to China has led to permanent per capita real income loss. Prof. Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001, points to the decline of real wages in the United States in the 10 years after the signing of NAFTA as proof that trade with China isn't solely to blame for this income loss.
So college students are avoiding fields that can potentially be offshored. Do you blame them? Miller, whose organization is generously supported by offshoring giants like HP, IBM and Tata, has apparently become concerned with this situation - one that he has helped create.
What's the matter Harris, afraid you'll run out of people to send to the unemployment line?
Oh, and before you mention the supposed benefits of offshoring jobs read this.
I would note that part of the problem seems to me to have been the way IT was oversold to people as the booming career choice of the future back in the 1990s. It became very obvious to me at some point that way too many people, even older people with experience in completely different fields, were rushing to get IT degrees and certifications because (they were told) it was where all the money and growth was. That glut of people always looked dangerous to me.
If, on the other hand, our tax and trade policies are creating perverse incentives to outsource and to import labor, making domestic IT talent more expensive than it needs to be, it would seem that should be addressed.
When I read your articles--and I know there are others who feel this way--I see you attacking specific free trade agreements and specific corporate bigwigs. But a lot of people don't react all that well to bashers of corporate CEOs (too easy and too common a target) or to generalized arguments about why global free trade in goods and services is bad or good.
What might help more would be if there were specific government policy initiatives you were favoring. Some will of course, in rather infantile fashion, say "there should be no government policy," which is not only Constitutionally dubious (one of the Federal government's specific responsibilities is regulation and policing of interstate and international trade) but also logically dubious: so long as we have taxes and laws which affect trade in any way, the government must have some policies.
So the question is: what specific changes should be made to tax policies, to trade policies, etc. that you could get people to rally around?
It's all well and good to be against something, but history shows that being against something is usually not the best way to make progress. What are you for? Not in general terms either, but specific terms---we all want better jobs for more money and greater security and a prosperous America and all, but what specific positive steps do we need to take?
As you no doubt saw I sat on this piece for several days and ended up significantly rewriting it over that time. In the end I toned down my attack on Harris Miller.
Harris Miller is to offshoring opponents as Michael Moore is to patriotic Americans. He preaches the gospel of how good the H-1b/L-1 visa programs are, yet his organization of 60+ employees does not list a single Indian or Chinese on its payroll. The paid membership of the ITPAA is about 15% Asian-Americans or residents. Yet the ITPAA and I personally have been called racist by pro-offshoring groups like the ITAA.
That said, I value your input on this subject since you are an agnostic on offshoring.
As for positive steps the ITPAA has called for the following:
1. A moritorium on the issuing of all new H-1b/L-1 visas. Existing visa holders could still renew their visas.
2. A federally funded independent study to identify offshoring incentives in state and federal policies.
Enrollment for CS degrees might be affected by the fear of outsourcing, but it is certainly also affected by the fact that a CS degree is not required or terribly beneficial for a large number of IT jobs. Often business degrees are seen as just a favorable or even more favorable for positions. I would be interested to see what the numbers are like for students minoring in CS. I would also be interested in learning how many IT workers in the US have formal CS educations.
I would also like to know what those students are majoring in? For years the US has struggled to fill engineering and science positions because not enough American students earn degrees in those fields. Are students shifting away from IT and into those fields that would provide more stable, long term employment? I suspect that this is not a case of students avoiding jobs that can be outsourced as much as students avoiding jobs that no longer offer the high pay for limited education that the over inflated IT market used to provide.
Yes, IT wages have been declining for years and yes the number of jobs being outsourced is affecting that, but another major factor is that IT salaries in the US were absolutely insane. The tech bubble greatly inflated salaries and pulled a lot of extra people in the field, but the demand for IT was so strong from the “tech bubble” that salaries remained greatly inflated.
Outsourcing may become a problem. I strongly suspect that it will not because I believe that the market will correct it before it becomes one, but I certainly could be wrong about that. Still I don’t see compelling arguments that it is a problem now. Every argument I see points to problems that exist and then points to outsourcing as their cause, yet they ignore a huge number of other factors that are just as likely, in some cases, more likely to be the cause of the problem.
I say, "Go for it!"
Dealing with H-1Bs is expensive and a pain for a company. My understanding is that companies don't do it to save money. They do it because there is a shortage of good people here. Because, let's face it, most people in IT are not really that great and should probably be in another field anyway. Sure, you can exploit an H-1B worker, assuming he really wants to be in this country -- if you push him, he'll probably put up with a lot more crap than his American counterparts because if he loses his job, he has to leave the country. But I would argue that companies that take advantage of H-1Bs in this way are the exception, not the rule. H-1Bs are living in the U.S. and therefore have a U.S.-level cost of living. Companies hire H-1Bs primarily to take advantage of talent wherever they can find it. The amount of money they can save is, by my estimation, fairly small.
America's openness to foreigners has always been one its greatest strengths. Despite 9/11, despite H-1Bs, I see no reason to think this has changed substantially. I want fresh blood coming into this country to make it better.
I do agree that there are far too many people in the tech field these days and that that has driven salaries down. But all professions go through boom and bust cycles. It's just that IT has been booming since the '50s and we thought it would never bust. Well, we found out differently in the stock market in 2000; why are we so surprised by it in 2005? This would be happening even without H-1Bs and offshoring, I expect -- our technology infrastructure is now largely in place, personal computers are fast enough for just about any use to which one might want to put them, and there is now somewhat less demand for talented people to make things better, stronger, and faster. That is the bigger picture, I think.
When you could cash in stock options for millions, it seemed that the sacrifice was worth it. But since the dot.com bust, who is getting stock options worth anything anymore. The "gold-rush" is over.
So it is not just about offshoring. though the pendulum has swung too far on that issue, it will probably reach a point of equilibrium. But Americans work for tangible and intangible rewards. Endless hours, 24-hour/day responsiblity, and the prospect of having an already short career track cut even shorter by offshoring is not a very attractive offering.
Of the three people in my family in the IT world, two have left it. The one remaining was laid off for two years, then returned to Accenture to work 100 hour weeks for about 100K/yr. That amounts to about $20/hr on a 5000 hour work year. Fortunately for the company, he is not married. But the flip side is that he, at 35 yrs old, wants to find a mate, but has no time to pursue outside relationships due to his time commitment to his job.
Meanwhile, my CPA wife, working 50 hrs/wk makes just as much as he does and has time for family and other activities. As a father of teens, I would never counsel my children to pursue a career in IT. The instability of the job market, and the rapid pace of change in technology and software are not conducive to a well-rounded satisfying life. At least not from my perspective.
As for the IT problems, to many people entered the field who actually did not have the apptitude, or the skills to do the job correctly. They were trying to take the fast and hot track to a high paying job. The US falls in love with technology, and for years was blinded by the light, until reality set in, and companies relizied that many of the IT techs, actually were useless. It was a hot and "new" market, that was flooded with workers taught by questionable professors.
I question anyone who rallies against world competition to save their butts, because they are not competitive in the market.
I left the IT market, as there were to many people chasing after to few jobs. This is why the enrollement in Computer Science is down. The gleam of the new and exciting field lost its luster, and not nearly as many workers are needed today, as was needed when the general public did not have access to or use computers every day.
For anyone who's position might be "outsourced", they really need to look at the economics of their job, and be competitive in the global market, or their job will disapear.
The CPA is one of the hottest offshoring markets right now. As for the "free-wheeling culture" I missed it - as did most of the people in IT. You're talking about a small minority in Silicon Valley - not in Chicago, St. Louis and Philadelphia.
Jerry:
Wrong. Without the H-1b/L-1 offshoring would not be economically viable (Matloff).
Also, did you know that 40% of offshore work is done onsite by H-1b/L-1 visas?
If there is a shortage, why aren't salaries increasing? If H-1b/L-1 visa holders are so in demand, why do they earn less and not more?
In a free market price reflects shortage or abundance. Falling salaries prove the latter.
ROFL! A big fan of Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" aren't we?
Excellent points. I agree with you completely on this last paragraph because I view outsourcing as the result of many factors including what I term management failure. This is why my position against offshoring have been softer than say the Isolationist wing of the Republican party as typified by Pat Buchanan.
For my offshoring is a symptom of a greater disease. Studies have consistently shown that American workers are the most productive workers on the planet - so why are they being replaced so easily?
According to free trade theory, India and China should only have a comparitive advantage in low-productivity goods and services. Instead we are seeing some of our best positions, jobs requiring high skills and training - engineering, accounting, design, pharma research - being sent abroad.
When I started asking these questions, I became a critic of globalization. However fighting it is like fighting a traffic jam: you must search for its root cause and fix it.
If you're ambitious and competent and entrepeneurial, IT is still a great career for Americans.
Some accounting jobs are being offshored. But the demand for accountants in America is actually rising, not falling. There is currently a shortage of accountants in America and the job market for accountants right now is white hot.
My wife just changed jobs and got a 45% increase in pay.
As it happens my bachelor's was in Accounting, and I passed the CPA exam shortly before finishing my Master's in IT, so I know a bit about both careers. If you want a steady career but monotonous work, by all means go with accounting/auditing/tax work. If you prefer being creative and inventive and can live with a lot of instability, go with IT.
As for the IT problems, to many people entered the field who actually did not have the apptitude, or the skills to do the job correctly.
I know it's true because I've worked with a lot of them :)
Seriously, a lot of people do wash out of the field. Good IT people are still surprisingly difficult to find. It takes a lot of intellectual honesty and self-discipline to code well, and if you interact with end users or manage projects you need a lot of people skills too.
Whole swathes of accounting or law experience aren't likely to suddenly become worthless due to new innovations. So if you want to build a long career as a specialist, IT again probably isn't the place to do it. If you can keep working in the same technology for 10 years, you're doing well.
TallDave just pointed out that 20yrs. of training can evaporate. Well, how do most people, who aren't insanely gifted in one field or another get to be really good at something?
They combine a little talent with a lot of practise.
Its sounds like not being really competent is going to be an endemic problem in IT. And that will give rise to a cliche'--"Jack was as prepared as an IT guy."
I also think that as the economy continues to accelerate toward what some think is a Singularity, that this general incompetence is going to spread. Of course, as a counter there will arise more aids to the incompetent, and that means technical writers should do well.
That's like saying 40% of milk is given by chickens. If it's being done by an H-1B, it's being done in this country and by definition is not "offshoring." If it's being done in another country, what the heck do they need a visa for?
If there is a shortage, why aren't salaries increasing?
There is a local shortage, not a global shortage -- the demand is being met by professionals from other countries. And salaries ARE increasing for the jobs that require non-commodity skills. Windows support is a commodity skill these days, for example. Any 20-year-old who grew up with Windows can do a halfway decent job of first-line support. Networking is not rocket science anymore, and consumer networking hardware, while not reliable enough for the enterprise, is good enough for many smallish businesses -- many companies just keep a few Linksys routers on hand and swap 'em out when one fails rather than keeping a full-time network support engineer on staff. We had a full-time IT guy at our office. After a while he got bored and left! Now we have the network managed remotely, and we have a local consultant come in when hands-on work is needed. He has been here exactly twice in the past few months.
My salary, on the other hand, has quadrupled since I got into the computer business in 1990 and continues to rise annually, and this is true of everyone I work with and all of the most talented people I know. When you are the only person in the world with your exact skill set, and that skill set is in demand, things tend to work out pretty well. If you are a mediocre Perl hacker or half-decent Java slinger, well, so are tens of thousands of other people.
ROFL! A big fan of Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" aren't we?
Actually, I am, but I'm not really trying to win any friends among the people I'm talking about. Perhaps "most" was hyperbole, but you know as well as I do that a lot of people went into computers because they thought it was an easy path to making a lot of money. They have no real aptitude or passion for it and they should be doing something else.
40% of H-1bs are here supporting offshore work. You originally asked:
You wanted the connection between non-immigrant visa and offshoring, and I provided it to you. Now you claim that it doesn't matter. You wouldn't happen to be Joe Biden, would you? He moves the goal-posts around in his arguments too.
So you are irreplaceable? Are you so sure about that? If so, what proof can you give me that if I was your boss I couldn't find an H-1b capable of doing your job for 25% less?
There is only 1 paid position that is safe from outsourcing: CEO. If you are a CEO or the owner of a company, then you're pretty safe.
If not, there are 2 billion people in China and India and I would bet that I could find one that could do your job for less.
They're the ones that require fluent English, or being on-site during US working hours, and there are lots of those jobs.
Doing the job for less doesn't mean doing it as well, it seems. Stories about offshored code and work being generally shoddy or, more generously, plagued by communications errors and faulty assumptions abound, and I've heard enough of them direct from those who've experienced them to know that they're not just mythical.
I'm not worried about it, for myself or for the Republic.
One more thing, do you know how many emails and letters I've gotten from people who said "I never thought it would happen to me, but..." and then go on about how they had to train their H-1b/L-1 replacement - an indignity that sparked my own activism?
One thing that we would most likely agree on is that there is a lot of arrogance in the IT field. Seeing what I've seen as the founder of the ITPAA and as someone working in IT in the Philadelphia area has made me much more humble.
That's where the 60% of non-immigrant visa holders come in. There are only a lot of those jobs if we restrict the number of people from abroad who are willing to take them.
Yes, I said restrict them.
I make no bones about my nationalism: I am an economic nationalist. That's something the Japanese taught me.
Don't forget supply and demand. If we boost the labor supply and the number of jobs stays flat, salaries decrease. That is what has happened in the IT field.
I wonder if the Japanese and South Korean workers are screaming about "outsourcing" as their companys buid state of the art manufacturing plants in the US, to build what used to be built and shipped from their home country? And to employ US workers?
What are those Japanese and Korean plants building? Why are they building those cars here instead of instead of in their home countries? What is the percentage of Korean or Japanese cars manufactured here sold in the Korean market? I don't think one can form and equivalence between the offshoring of IT services, the result of which will be reimported back into the U.S., and the manufacturing of automobiles in the U.S., which are overwhelmingly sold into the U.S. market.
Jerry Kindall:
Companies hire H-1Bs primarily to take advantage of talent wherever they can find it
Something I submitted to ITPAA a while back.
H-1b: For the Seafood Lover in You
Just wondering if you have seen this list on the
Programmers Guild web site.
http://www.programmersguild.org/rir
http://www.programmersguild.org/rir/Sacramento_H1b_2004.html
It is, I think, pretty reflective of what the H-1B
program has become.
Tax Associates, Web Developers, Interior Designers,
Latino Community Service Managers, Staff Pharmacists
at Longs Drug Stores, and Managers at Red Lobster
Restaurants.
Clearly there is a shortage of talented Red Lobster Restaurant managers in America, to the extent that we must import them from abroad.
Cheerleaders are a precious American resource that must be protected at all costs.
For years the US has struggled to fill engineering and science positions because not enough American students earn degrees in those fields.
As an electrical engineer I would be very much interested in any unbiased evidence which you may possess corraborating this claim.
Engineers Per Capita
Contrary to the impression given by the industry lobbyists here, the U.S. has always had plenty of engineers. The number of engineers per capita in the U.S. is the second-highest in the world (Israel being first). The fact is that the nation has never made full use of its engineers. During the late 90s, the industry claimed a huge labor shortage and yet was engaging in widespread age discrimination.
I missed your comment. Sorry about that.
This is more of the blame the victim mentality I see strongest by people who actually work in IT. Until they either get out (good for you) or get outsourced.
Here's the deal:
You're not all that special.
Yes I know that you think you are - just as we all do. But you aren't. You are replaceable. Worse, your very own government makes it easier to replace you.
Our government has incentives to offshore jobs built into the tax system. Through the H-1b (limited numbers) and L-1 (unlimited numbers of visas), a firm can find someone abroad and replace you with him. Your job will stay in your cubicle, but you won't.
Is this a fair playing field? Do you like competing at a disadvantage?
Of course the flipside is, if you catch the crest of a hot new wave you can make a lot of money by being offering your services as a contractor.
My broker told me in early 2000 about a client of his who was one of the first to learn XML. A business with a hot project asked him "What do you need?" He said $1200/hour. They told him he could start right then.
But the best part of the story is... the guy put all the money he made into Internet stocks.
Pree. Cise. Lee.
That's why, even as a part-time instructor teaching business, I advocate entrepreneurship to my students at every opportunity. When I get my DBA and hit the tenure track, I'm going to make it the main focus of my scholarship (and, in the "walk the talk" dept, I hope to be able to have a small orchard or pizza place or at least a consulting business on the side). Entrepreneurship is the engine of wealth creation, and may tend to increase interest in and support for principles of individual liberty.
No, I claim that you have not provided it. What, are you saying that without the visas the outsourcing wouldn't be happening? Or without the outsourcing there would not be any demand for visas? Either seems extremely dubious to me. Okay, I suppose I must grant you that you technically have shown they're connected, as the same companies are doing both, but I was looking for something a little more... causal.
Even if there were a causal relationship, of course, I'd still oppose protectionism on principle. It's not as if people in another country deserve jobs less than Americans do. It's not somehow "unfair" that their cost of living is lower than ours. If foreign workers can do the same job for less, well, then we Americans had better find some way to be worth the money we want. The reason protectionism bothers me so much is that it it smacks of laziness and/or pessimism, both of which I find abhorrent. Either we're trying to take a shortcut to having jobs, rather than obtaining them by being competitive, or we believe there is no way to be competitive and so have resorted to protectionism. As an American, both of these implications rub me completely the wrong way.
Beyond the philosophical objection, as an employee and a stockholder, why would I not want my company not to be able to hire from the widest talent pool available? Do I want my company to be uncompetitive?
So you are irreplaceable?
Technically no, but I do have a pretty big "moat," and if I lose this job (I've lost two in the past few years) I am pretty sure I'll be able to get another one. I'm a tech writer, not a programmer, which means I'm marginally less offshoreable, but my competitive advantages do not derive entirely or even mostly from that. In any case, if I'm not competitive enough to be employed, the blame is mine and no one else's.
First they are not only building auto manufacturing plants, but all the supporting infrastructure and sub assembly plants too. This is their companies way to make more profit, while avoiding the protectionism of the US Government and tarriffs. It is not only auto manufacturers that are moving their plants to the US to avoid import Tarrifs, it is the ones the have gotten the most attention. And this does result in a net loss of jobs back in their respective home countries. Same thing that is being rallied against on the IT jobs.
Scott,
Everyone is replaceable, even the CEO. If you do not stay competitive, then you will become unemployed, or as many do, expect the Government to protect you from your own lack of skill and cometitive nature. I do not think the government should be protecting my job. Level playing fields do not exsist, except in theroy. We all try to tilt the field to our advantage.
If a visa holder can do my job, and is willing to do it for less than I, then the job should go to the visa holder. It is up to me to be productive for the wages I am being paid, and not shout and scream when my boss hires someone else to do my job for less. And since much of the IT bubble burst, and much of it has become a commidity, and not a "science", then the wages drop, and many will loose their jobs. Such is life. The US government needs to allow the market forces to act upon the industries, and stop protecting those that can not compete on a global scale.
The US is the country we are today due to immigrants, and their knowledge and talents that they brought with them. The more legal immigrants bringing their talents to the US, the better for the US. Let them come, let them pay US taxes, support the local economy, and send money to the family back home. It is a win for the company, the local economy, and the world. The more people who are free, and see freedom in practice, the safer the world will become.
First they are not only building auto manufacturing plants, but all the supporting infrastructure and sub assembly plants too.
I think that if you do some research in this area you will find out that you are wrong. The manufacturing plants that you speak of are largely simply final assembly plants. The parts and subassemblies are for the most part manufactured overseas. GM and Ford are following suit; many of their subassemblies are now also manufactured overseas, while the final assembly takes place here to avoid the import tariffs.
It is not only auto manufacturers that are moving their plants to the US to avoid import Tarrifs, it is the ones the have gotten the most attention.
I would invite you to name a few Korean manufacturers which have opened manufacturing plants in America, notwithstanding automotive. I would be absolutely tickled pink if you could name even one Korean manufacturer who has set up a plant here to manufacture for export.
The US government needs to allow the market forces to act upon the industries, and stop protecting those that can not compete on a global scale.
This is exactly the point. Market forces are not being allowed to work. In the law of supply and demand, government is manipulating supply by artificially adjusting the labor force, and corporations are manipulating demand by offshoring labor to a fractional wage country and then reimporting the result of that labor.
Ricardo is being perverted, and economists continue to call it 'free trade'.
One last point. If you think that we are competing on a global scale with countries which are not themselves highly protectionist, you are mistaken. Korea, Japan, India, China, etc. are very protectionist. As an example, what progress have we made in twenty-five years against the home bias of Japan, exclusive of things like Levi's, which are now manufactured in El Salvador? Sure they have McDonald's, KFC, and so on. On balance, is opening a McDonald's in Japan a good trade for Cisco at that point that John Chambers decides to just get it over with and move the whole corporation to China?
Superscalar I don't know who you are, but I hope you belong to my organization. Excellent points.
I do not consider myself or my organization a protectionist organization. I believe that I am fighting government interference in the marketplace.
If the government were subsidizing and encouraging foreign car purchases, Americans would be up in arms. Yet they continue to do this in labor.
It is a bipartisan issue: some of the biggest H-1b supporters are Dems and opponents of it Republicans. And our fight continues.
The exact problem with "free trade" is that - like Marxism - it only works in theory. There is NO country in the world that does not engage in protectionism and market manipulation. Which gives me a real kick every time the World Trade Organization makes noises about unfair tariffs benefitting U.S. products.
I did not claim any of these companies set up here in the US to export products, but to provide the largest consumer markets with tarrif free products, while making more profit for the parent company, while hiring US workers, and displacing workers back in their home country.
I stated that we all, from every single person to every single country tilts the playing field trying to get an advantage. Tarriffs, and imbargos only hurt the industry they were designed to protect by reducing the need to innovate and improve.
How is the government artificially changing the labor force? your claim is with the visa, but again, what is wrong with a company finding the person who will do the most work for the least amount of money? And if that person is from another country, and enters the country legally, pays taxes, supports the local economy, and send money to the mother country, what is wrong with that? This country can not survive as an island isolated from the rest of the world.
Your rally against the visa holders who come here to work is misguided, and your really need to stop rallying against this, and come up with an idea that is workable to save the jobs you say are lost to the government interference.
If a company can fill a job for less expense, then they have every right, and should fill that job with the visa holder. A company is not in business to employ you, but to make a profit for the company, and your are an expense, unless you make yourself an asset to the company, and stay competitive.
Most IT jobs have become a commodity today.
Of course the flipside is, if you catch the crest of a hot new wave you can make a lot of money by being offering your services as a contractor.
My broker told me in early 2000 about a client of his who was one of the first to learn XML. A business with a hot project asked him "What do you need?" He said $1200/hour. They told him he could start right then.
This is especially intriguing to me because it details the theory I'm using in one of my world settings, Tech Surge: Apocalypse or Ascension, where most people most of the time are training for the next cool tech, and then they make their money telling other people how to use it...for a few weeks until the Next Cool Tech is eclipsed by the Nextest Cool Tech.
The problem for the real world is that this supports my statement...this is great if you are insanely gifted with natural talent.
I wonder if we are heading toward a world where the top 1 or 2% in a field can get a job, and the rest have to A)find another field B)Practically give their work away hoping that they will strike it lucky rather like the Music Industry.
Superscalar:
I trust you're not shocked that big businesses lie and whine, and expect us to feel sympathy for their troubles. And we're supposed to bail them out, give them special tax breaks to entice them to come to our community...and then listen to them pontificate about the free market which they have thoroughly corrupted.
Big business doesn't want a free market. They want teh gov't to support the Divine Right of CEO's to make a profit no matter how incompetent, lazy, and greedy they are.
Me, I tend toward being a free market absolutist, but if the other side is going to cheat, I'm not sure I shouldn't.
And yes, cheats hurt the economy. So my cheat will hurt the overall economy, but it will also help to balance out the cheat taken by big business guy who is using his unfair advantage to mess me over.
In other words, we'll give you enough of our money that you don't starve, but keep your grimy Third World hands off the jobs that might provide sustainable economic development.
I think we should also note that you can now buy a pretty decent new car for around 7,000 - 10,000. I don't think that was the case in 1980, adjusted for inflation.
I agree, and the U.S. is the victim of unfair trade practices in virtually every trade relationship we have. We carry all the "free riders." On the other hand, our consumers benefit handsomely from the arrangement, and our businesses are the most competitive in the world.
Europeans like to decry the crass "consumer culture" of the United States, but the fact is that European consumers in general simply cannot afford to live the way we do -- and a big part of the reason is their trade practices.
I've watched my Salary crumple from $127k a year to a mere $15 an hour, working on average a 90 hour week, usually 6 to 7 days a week. And thats more than some of my counterparts make in my area, usually $$13 to $14 per hour.
Almost 2 years of that has been as Contract PM, working only from one contract to the next and getting laid off as soon as a contract is over.
Why?
Because despite my resume, and successes, the industry is horrid. If you want to make a large salary, you'll go to school (on your dime) 6 months out of the year to update yourself on the latest plethra of certifications; or you'll find yourself replaced with newest, younger, and (typically) foreign model.
Even my Director of Operations is on a 5 figure salary. And in in our Region (Arkansas/Missouri)he's above average.
My personal experience with it is the customer care centers my employer has out-sourced overseas. A very un-even thing, at best...the Philipine site is pretty good, and I think this relates to Philipinos learning "American" English, but our Indian site is nothing but a pain in the ass as they don't really understand American idiom and so you have exasperated customers who can't understand the Customer Care reps being transferred around the company until they eventually wind up in our department...what I think will eventually kill this bit of out-sourcing is when some Rep in India takes a bribe to provide personal data to credit card fraudsters (I work at a major financial institution)...the resultant lawsuit after Americans find out that every last bit of their personal information is available in India and elsewhere around the world will be monumental, and will convince corporations that there are some jobs best done inside the United States.
People do get a bit worked up, however - my particular field of work (credit underwriting) is projected to have a net decline in American employment by one third over the next twenty years...I don't lose the slightest bit of sleep over it. A. I was looking for a job when I found this one. B. I'm the very best at what I do, so I'll be the last fired. C. Who in hell wants to be a credit underwriter - or anything else - for twenty years?
At any rate, as labor costs increase overseas, the incentive to outsource will decline - as will the incentive to import workers into the United States as they become more costly. It all works out in the wash provided we don't try to regulate it...supply and demand finds its own level. It might suck temporarily for people dislocated by economic transition, but its better over all if people just allow the transition to happen.