Now its IBM!!

[Arjun Shastry]

IBM to shift 5000 jobs to Asia
Source : Hindustantimes
New York, Dec 15:International Business Machines (IBM), the world's largest computer company, will move the work of as many of 4,730 US software programmers to India, China and elsewhere, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday.
The unannounced plan, which the newspaper said it viewed in company documents, would replace thousands of workers at IBM facilities in Southbury, Connecticut, Poughkeepsie in New York, Raleigh, North Carolina, Dallas, Boulder in Colorado, and elsewhere in the United States.
The Wall Street Journal said that about 947 people will be notified during the first half of 2004 that their work will be moved overseas. It was not yet clear how many of the other 3,700 jobs identified as "potential to move offshore" in the IBM documents will move next year or later, the paper said.
Armonk, New York-based IBM, which has about 315,000 employees around the world, has been among companies that have moved traditionally higher paid services jobs to low cost centers such as India in recent years.
The company has said it will continue to build its services business abroad, because it makes IBM more competitive, saves its customers money and frees up funds for other purposes.
IBM did not immediately return calls for comment on the report.

[Tim Holloway]

There's no "now" about it. IBM's been offshoring for some considerable time now.
At best, I'd just say "again".

[Natalie Kopple]

The "parasite" style economic development model, which India is enthusiastically pursuing, is nothing to be proud of or advertise for. Parasite makes its host sick. Parasite eventually dies together with its host.
China is also an offshoring receipient country. However, Chinese seems to be able to view this multinational business practices with self-esteem. Chinese seems to know that they have to build their economy on rocks, not on sand.
[ December 16, 2003: Message edited by: Natalie Kopple ]

[Ajeet Jose]

However, Chinese seems to be able to view this multinational business practices with self-esteem. Chinese seems to know that they have to build their economy on rocks, not on sand.

Any proof of this statement?

[Jim Baker]

Here is another report:
http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/15/technology/jobs/index.htm

[Bhau Mhatre]

Originally posted by Capablanca Kepler:
...

What's the point of posting such news over here? Do you get some kind of enjoyment by adding fuel to the fire? My sincere request to you - stop doing that.

[Ajeet Jose]

It looks like the 'brain drain' to US/west days are over.
Now it is 'Job Drain' to asia/east.

[Mark Herschberg]

Originally posted by Mumbai cha bhau:

What's the point of posting such news over here? Do you get some kind of enjoyment by adding fuel to the fire? My sincere request to you - stop doing that.

We welcome such posts here. This site is founded on the principle of sharing knowledge. When there is bad news, hiding from it won't help us. We talk about jobs and the economy so that we are aware of what is happening and can make more informed choices.
Mark A. Herschberg
Job Discussion Moderator

[San Su]

Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:

We welcome such posts here. This site is founded on the principle of sharing knowledge. When there is bad news, hiding from it won't help us. We talk about jobs and the economy so that we are aware of what is happening and can make more informed choices.
Mark A. Herschberg
Job Discussion Moderator

(** icky stuff removed - PW) 2rd response in this thread. I am with Mumbai cha bhau. These type of posts will increase the hate.
[ December 16, 2003: Message edited by: Paul Wheaton ]

[Bhau Mhatre]

We welcome such posts here.
Job Discussion Moderator

Well, okay, if you say so..
(Apologies to those offended)

[Joe Pluta]

These type of posts will increase the hate.
There is no "hate". I'm one of the most vocal proponents of shutting down visa programs and reducing outsourcing, and I don't hate anyone. I think the companies that abuse visa programs to displace American workers are despicable, and the CEO's that allow such things should be held accountable, but that's a far cry from hatred.
(** icky stuff removed - PW) This is how the debates get personal.
My advice is: if you don't like the discussion, simply stay out of it. And no matter what, try not to take it personally. I have no personal animosity towards anyone, I just want a fair and equitable job market - one that does NOT include having to compete with the entire world for jobs on American soil.
Joe
[ December 16, 2003: Message edited by: Paul Wheaton ]

[San Su]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
These type of posts will increase the hate.
There is no "hate". I'm one of the most vocal proponents of shutting down visa programs and reducing outsourcing, and I don't hate anyone. I think the companies that abuse visa programs to displace American workers are despicable, and the CEO's that allow such things should be held accountable, but that's a far cry from hatred.

I am not talking about someone who was complaining about visa abuse and I am not saying anyting about it. (** icky stuff removed - PW)

(** icky quoted stuff removed - PW) This is how the debates get personal.

WAIT-A-MIN HERE... May be, for you, what she/he is saying is polite and very civil, but for me (** icky stuff removed - PW)
[ December 16, 2003: Message edited by: Paul Wheaton ]

[Frank Silbermann]

I, personally, am frightened by the possibilities, and frustrated by my declining prospects.
But I agree that it was over-the-line to call India a "parasite economy." A parasite takes from the host and gives nothing back. Off-shore programmers give back useful software. Maybe their software industry is a _dependent_ economy -- servicing American businesses instead of their own. (If our _entire_ economy were off-shored, then they would no longer be vulnerable to that criticism. Would that be _better_?!?!)
Eventually, either the currencies will adjust as did the dollar with the yen so that off-shore programmers will no longer be working for slave wages, or, foreign governments will tax their programmers until they're barely competitive, or the sharp income inequality will cause revolutions overseas, or foreigners will continue working for peanuts and American will no longer have prosperity as a birth-right.
I mean, I'm all in favor of Americans remaining wealthier than everyone else around the world -- but if we ever start relying on law and power to enforce our prosperity then we'll have become the economic oppressors that commies have always accused us of being.

[Mapraputa Is]

Frank: But I agree that it was over-the-line to call India a "parasite economy."
I second that. In any case, this is "Job Discussion" forum. If you want to discuss relative merits of Indian (or anybody else) economic development model (in less inflammatory terms), there is Meaningless Drivel for that.

[Joe Pluta]

(** icky quote removed - PW)
I believe your understanding of (** icky stuff removed - PW). You cannot (** ditto).
The fact that you (** ditto).
Joe
[ December 16, 2003: Message edited by: Paul Wheaton ]

[Joe Pluta]

But I agree that it was over-the-line to call India a "parasite economy." A parasite takes from the host and gives nothing back. Off-shore programmers give back useful software.
This is an interesting point. If an outsourced job actually takes longer and costs more than it would if it were to stay onshore, would it then be a parasitic relationship? Since it's consuming more resources to do the same thing, that's certainly not a beneficial relationship.
This is not to imply that all outsourced works costs more. But at the same time, not all outsourcing projects save money, either.
Joe

[Natalie Kopple]

Sankar Subbiah wrote:
(** icky quoted stuff removed - PW)

Is it a good language to describe the Chinese economy? I am not a Chinese. What do Chinese ranchers think of Sankar's sentence?
[ December 16, 2003: Message edited by: Paul Wheaton ]

[Mapraputa Is]

(** icky quote removed)
I would argue that by the same logic calling an economical model "parasitic" implies that people who work in it are parasites. I mean, "parasitism" doesn't exist as something separated from its agents?
This is an interesting point. If an outsourced job actually takes longer and costs more than it would if it were to stay onshore, would it then be a parasitic relationship?
Doesn't seem like the best word. Usually a host doesn't choose or invite its parasites. What if we say that a process is "less effective?"
(** icky quote removed - PW)
I think his sentiment can be paraphrased as "My advice is: if you don't like the discussion, simply stay out of it." I agree that Sankar's form of expressing is unacceptable, though: "sh*t" word doesn't belong here.
[ December 15, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
[ December 16, 2003: Message edited by: Paul Wheaton ]

[Joe Pluta]

I would argue that by the same logic calling an economical model "parasitic" implies that people who work in it are parasites.
(** icky stuff removed - PW) The concept that the model is parasitic does not imply that the workers are parasites, but that the model itself is; specifically in this case the poster was saying that the Indian economy draws from the American economy without giving anything back. Nothing was said directly or indirectly about Indian workers, although it takes a certain degree of emotional maturity to understand this difference.
The problem in this forum is that ANYTHING said that is even vaguely anti-Indian seems to immediately foster personal attacks on the person making the statement. (** icky stuff removed - PW) And it's sort of sad, really, that nobody can say anything without being lynched.
Those who consistently devolve the conversation into obscene, derogatory personal statements reflect poorly on those who do not engage in this behavior. Those who condone such behavior only prolong it.
Joe
[ December 16, 2003: Message edited by: Paul Wheaton ]

[San Su]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I think his sentiment can be paraphrased as "My advice is: if you don't like the discussion, simply stay out of it." I agree that Sankar's form of expressing is unacceptable, though: "sh*t" word doesn't belong here.

Please accept my sincere apology for using that word in a public forum.

[Joe Pluta]

Doesn't seem like the best word.
Actually, it's quite descriptive if it is accurate. We're not discussing whether you like the word, Map, we're discussing its accuracy. The fact that the word may have some negative connotation should not preclude its use. If we were to do that, then most of the regular posters in MD would need to find other ways to spend their time.
Joe

[San Su]

Originally posted by Natalie Kopple:

Is it a good language to describe the Chinese economy? I am not a Chinese. What do Chinese ranchers think of Sankar's sentence?

So, is it a good language to describe the Indian economy as "Parasite"? First of all, Indian economy doesn't survive because of outsourcing. Secondly, US companies are opening development centers in India and hunt for programmers with attractive salaries(in Indian terms). No one is arm twisting the US companies to come to India. If you have problem with someone, deal with them directly, instead of attacking other persons.
[ December 15, 2003: Message edited by: Sankar Subbiah ]

[Joe Pluta]

I think his sentiment can be paraphrased as "My advice is: if you don't like the discussion, simply stay out of it."
How nice of you to putting my word into Sankar's mouth. This is a really annoying tactic, Map, especially since that's absolutely not what Sankar said. Sankar's post said that he does not consider calling a statement mindless to be a personal attack, and he doesn't care if I do think so - he is saying that I am wrong in my assessment, and that he will not listen to my arguments to the contrary.
This is a completely different concept than advising someone to not participate in a discussion whose topic they don't enjoy. If you're going to compare me to someone else, I'd appreciate you at least doing it correctly.
Sheesh.
Joe

[Ranga Sreenivasan]

Originally posted by Natalie Kopple:
The "parasite" style economic development model, which India is enthusiastically pursuing, is nothing to be proud of. Parasite makes its host sick. Parasite eventually dies together with its host.
China is also an offshoring receipient country. However, Chinese seems to be able to view this multinational business practices with self-esteem. Chinese seems to know that they have to build their economy on rocks, not on sand.

Classifying a nation as being parasitic is not in good taste. Its a fact that a lot of software jobs are being sent to India. This trend will change sooner or later depending on how fast the costs to develop software in India rise. When that happens, these same jobs that you are talking about will go to countries that offer the same services at a cheaper price (for now that's China, Russia).
Its true that the Indian economy has benefitted enormously because of the software industry. But keep in mind that its not built only on that industry. And to say that its built on sand is inaccurate at best.
[ December 15, 2003: Message edited by: Ranga ]

[Joe Pluta]

So, is it a good language to describe the Indian economy as "Parasite"? (...) If you have problem with someone, deal with them directly, instead of attacking other persons.
Good, bad or indifferent, Natalie has a right to her opinion of the Indian economy. She said nothing about you, Sankar; she didn't even know you existed until you posted your derogatory and obscene message. Unlike you, she attacked no specific person or persons.
You may feel her opinion is unwarranted, and if so you should feel free to argue facts. But you had no right to attack her personally, since she had said nothing about you. I really hope you understand the distinction I'm making here.
If not, that's okay. I'm done. I've really said all I can say about this. Everybody I know learned this sort of stuff in kindergarten, and while we occasionally forget it, it's really just basic civilized conduct.
Joe

[San Su]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Good, bad or indifferent, Natalie has a right to her opinion of the Indian economy. She said nothing about you, Sankar; she didn't even know you existed until you posted your derogatory and obscene message. Unlike you, she attacked no specific person or persons.

She said nothing about me in person. But she attacked a whole countries economic model which is effectively attacking the country itself. I am one of the person who thrived in that "parasite" economy. So, her comment indirectly affected me. So, are you saying, personal attack is not acceptable but a general attack/targetting a group is acceptable? I stand by my statement. It is a mindless response.

[Joe Pluta]

Sankar: So, are you saying, personal attack is not acceptable but a general attack/targetting a group is acceptable? I stand by my statement. It is a mindless response.
Since you asked, I will respond and be VERY clear about this. It is absolutely acceptable for someone to have a negative opinion about a government, a country, an economic practice, a concept, a programming technique, even a religious belief, without it being a personal attack.
I can, for example, say that I think extreme programming is a horrible programming technique, and I am not saying anything specific about its proponents.
To take such a statement and respond with a personal attack on the poster is NOT acceptable. It presupposes that everybody has to worry about your feelings whenever they make a general statement. This simply isn't the case. Since Natalie said nothing about you, the fact that you were annoyed means that you need to address her statement, not Natalie herself.
By calling Natalie mindless (you also sarcastically used the word "genius"), you are insisting that your feelings are more important than her opinions. If you really think that's the case, then your actions could be considered immature and self-absorbed.
Because otherwise, what you are saying is that the entire world better say nothing bad about any group you, Sankar, belong to. Anybody who does is mindless. And this is probably an unrealistic world view.
Okay? My .02 on the issue. Other people may have other opinions.
Joe

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Ranga:
...

Ranga,
Welcome to JavaRanch. We don't have many rules here, but one that we do have is a naming policy. Please edit your display name to comply with this policy. Failure to do so may result in the closing of your account. Thanks in advance and we look forward to seeing you around the Ranch.

[Jason Menard]

If somebody feels that a person has characterized something inaccurately, then why not simply respond with facts pointing out how that characterization is wrong? Characterizing an economic model as "parasitic" is not a form of personal attack the way I read it, however it's possible it may be an inaccurate characterization. If somebody believes that this is the case, wouldn't it be far more productive to present facts showing why the economic model is not "parasitic", or challenge her on her claims, instead of simply flinging invectives? It's called discussion, and this is something that has been known to occur occasionally when people have a difference of opinion.
[ December 15, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Jamie Robertson]

how about if you disagree with natalie's comments, try to introduce a new model in which you feel describe's india's economic model more accurately. Prove or provide ideas which dispute the model/analogy put forth by natalie.
let's all just try to get along!

[Mapraputa Is]

Joe: And you would be arguing entirely incorrectly. The concept that the model is parasitic does not imply that the workers are parasites, but that the model itself is; specifically in this case the poster was saying that the Indian economy draws from the American economy without giving anything back.
Definitely it's not without "without giving anything back". And it's not that the "victimized" side didn't choose on its own free will. Calling this kind of relationship parasitic unfavorable (for one side) hides this difference and unnecessarily provokes people's emotional reactions, although it takes a certain degree of (sarcastic remark removed - Map.).
People's understanding of meaning of "parasites" comes in great degree from biological notion of parasitism. You could as well claim that there is no such thing as "parasites", but only certain abstract relationships, yet the word exist and designates those who are involved in this model in this specific role. In other words, when you call relationship "parasitic", this indirectly implies certain consequences, if even you did not mean them.
The problem in this forum is that ANYTHING said that is even vaguely anti-Indian seems to immediately foster personal attacks on the person making the statement. If you want to continue having open discussions, you should seek to minimize this behavior. Instead, you are fostering it by misreading and misrepresenting civil, non-personal comments.
"Instead" is an incorrect word -- I communicated my position about Sankar's choice of words too, which fact you (pesonal remark removed. - Map). The rest of discussion is relatively civil, so I do not see any problem here, besides the fact it is on the borderline or belonging to this forum, but that's Ok. "misreading and misrepresenting" is your opinion, which means it is open to discussion.
[ December 16, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Actually, it's quite descriptive if it is accurate.
Actually, my idea was that it was *not* accurate.
We're not discussing whether you like the word, Map, we're discussing its accuracy.
I do not like this word because I do not think it is accurate, Joe.
The fact that the word may have some negative connotation should not preclude its use.
It should, if the connotations are not justified and inaccurate, and this is what we are discussing, right?

[Mapraputa Is]

How nice of you to putting my word into Sankar's mouth. This is a really annoying tactic, Map,
I found your manner of discussion (personal attack removed - Map.), Joe.
especially since that's absolutely not what Sankar said.
Close enough.
Sankar's post said that he does not consider calling a statement mindless to be a personal attack
You said the same about the comment under discussion.
and he doesn't care if I do think so - he is saying that I am wrong in my assessment, and that he will not listen to my arguments to the contrary.
And you say that those who disagree with your notion of "personal attack" should stay away from discussion.
This is a completely different concept than advising someone to not participate in a discussion whose topic they don't enjoy.
Another wording, ruder, which is no good of course, but I do not see any principal difference here.
If you're going to compare me to someone else, I'd appreciate you at least doing it correctly.
I do my best. Any time we compare two non-identical things, there is some difference to be hidden by comparison. In this case, I see more similarities. Or maybe it's that I expect more from "my" side of discussion.
[ December 16, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Joe Pluta]

I do not like this word because I do not think it is accurate, Joe.
It's really not relevant whether you "like" the word or not, Map. If it's inaccurate, feel free to post your disagreeement. But it in no way a personal attack. I know you don't want ME to be right, but Jason and Jamie are saying the same thing. Surely we're not all three wrong and you right?
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

I found your manner of discussion equally annoying, Joe.
How? All I said was that Natalie wasn't attacking anyone personally, and Sankar was. How the bejeezus did that get YOUR undies in a bundle? Other than you just like being annoyed with me.
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

JP: especially since that's absolutely not what Sankar said.
MI: Close enough.
Uh, no. No it's not close enough, not by a long shot. Quote me exactly or don't quote me at all. I think we've proven regularly that your assumptions about what I say are as often wrong as right. So if you're gonna quote, quote verbatim. We'll have fewer misunderstandings .
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

And you say that those who disagree with your notion of "personal attack" should stay away from discussion.
And here's a prime example of you misreading me once again. My statement about staying away from the discussion was in response to someone who said they didn't want the subject of jobs being outsourced being brought up (which Mark himself said was a perfectly valid topic for this forum). I said that if they don't want to discuss outsourcing, then stay away from the discussion.
This has NOTHING to do with the later argument about personal attack.
Please, please, PLEASE take the time to read the comments in context, Map! It would make this sooooooooooooooo much less contentious. Of course, it's interesting that whenever you misread me, it's always in a negative light . God forbid you should EVER misread me in a POSITIVE fashion :roll: .
Joe

[SJ Adnams]

just wanna throw in my 2c worth for the "parasitic country" country model.
(** icky part deleted - PW). if we pay indians with $$ or UKP then the indians must spend the $$/GBP on US/UK goods & services (or invest in UK/US companies or gov bonds). This is classic interational economics where both sides are winners.
/2c
[ December 16, 2003: Message edited by: Paul Wheaton ]

[Al Newman]

I wish to throw in my 2 cents worth on the original topic....
When I read headlines like this the first thing I ask is Is this anything new? Or is it a rehash of old news merely announced to give the impression that IBM is doing something about the stock price so that some PR hack can hang onto their job for a while longer?
I don't know the answer to that question. What I do know is from direct experience. My company is working with IBM GCS on a large project, and my impression is that IBM GCS is seriously undermanned. They have had great difficulty bringing in the numbers needed for the project on a timely basis.
My impression is that if the economy continues to grow IBM will be hiring bigtime next year. They may do the outsourcing thing at the same time (the two actions aren't incompatible). But I don't see their headcount falling next year.

[Jason Menard]

On the plus side, this move by IBM has certainly helped out some people by narrowing their choices by one less company when evaluating products for purchases, such as app servers.