# Is there any benefit of shipping IT jobs to India? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 27, 2010, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976 "2010-03-27T01:15:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976/61 "2010-03-28T21:15:57Z")
> [@krunen](#): > > No, I said “Most countries sometimes go for protectionism and disallow the outsourcing”. I meant that most countries, faced with protests and lobbying, have at some times bowed to pressure and implemented protectionist measures designed to protect their industries from competition from abroad. Sorry if I was unclear. This is especially evident in the defense industry, where most western countries have at times made it impossible for foreign companies to compete. But there are plenty of other examples, like that the EU has had import quotas on Chinese-made shoes. > > Most of these types of rules not only protect national industries from foreign competition, but also makes it illegal or impractical for national companies to do parts of their work in other countries. It disallows outsourcing. Yes, many countries have put up protectionist measures. I’m not aware of any developed countries that have disallowed outsourcing. Putting country of origin restrictions on defense contractors isn’t the same thing as disallowing outsourcing, especially in the context of the discussion happening in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![fruitbat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/58f4c7/32.png) [@fruitbat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fruitbat)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976/62 "2010-03-28T21:16:12Z")
> [@bugme](#): > > xash, I’m not saying that outsourcing isn’t successful for businesses it’s just that I’m concerned with the repercussions it will have on the US job market. At this rate, we wont need US based employees. Where does it end? \*\*I’m not a fan of big government \*\*but here’s where I think Obama needs to step in and do something about it. America doesn’t produce the goods it used to and all of this “source the work for the cheapest possible” is the reason. Once someone does it, everyone else needs to just to stay in business and that sucks. If dictating who companies can hire and where they can hire them isn’t big government I don’t know what is. For all the whining, the impact of these jobs on Indian prosperity is much greater than if those jobs were maintained in the US. In other words the world is a better place for having these jobs in India. ---
**Author:** ![krunen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@krunen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/krunen)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976/63 "2010-03-28T21:41:49Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yes, many countries have put up protectionist measures. I’m not aware of any developed countries that have disallowed outsourcing. Putting country of origin restrictions on defense contractors isn’t the same thing as disallowing outsourcing, especially in the context of the discussion happening in this thread. So you’re saying that putting country of origin restrictions on IT support wouldn’t disallow outsourcing? This stuff about protectionism was a tiny point in my post. The important point was that a government can regulate employment or support the recently unemployed to reduce the immediate pain of outsourcing, and that this can make economic sense. I’d rather discuss that than semantics. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976/64 "2010-03-28T21:47:22Z")
> [@krunen](#): > > No, I said “Most countries sometimes go for protectionism and disallow the outsourcing”. I meant that most countries, faced with protests and lobbying, have at some times bowed to pressure and implemented protectionist measures designed to protect their industries from competition from abroad. Sorry if I was unclear. This is especially evident in the defense industry, where most western countries have at times made it impossible for foreign companies to compete. But there are plenty of other examples, like that the EU has had import quotas on Chinese-made shoes. It makes more sense for the defense industry where there are national security concerns. But as you said, protectionism is more of a response to populist political pressure than good economic sense. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976/65 "2010-03-28T22:10:30Z")
> [@fruitbat](#): > > If dictating who companies can hire and where they can hire them isn’t big government I don’t know what is. For all the whining, the impact of these jobs on Indian prosperity is much greater than if those jobs were maintained in the US. In other words the world is a better place for having these jobs in India. Wait. Can anyone tell me how the prosperity of India or China is supposed to affect me? This may sound cruel or callous: I don’t give a shit about the Indians or Chinese. The general welfare and prosperity of the Indians or Chinese is a responsibility which belongs to their respective government. Not us or private corporations. I never said that I want government to tell companies who to hire; I said that the government shouldn’t give any tax breaks to companies who do so. I also think that these companies that ship jobs overseas should have to contribute a hefty sum to the unemployment kitty box. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976/66 "2010-03-28T23:45:00Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Wait. Can anyone tell me how the prosperity of India or China is supposed to affect me? This may sound cruel or callous: I don’t give a shit about the Indians or Chinese. The general welfare and prosperity of the Indians or Chinese is a responsibility which belongs to their respective government. Not us or private corporations. Well..why should anyone care about your prosperity? ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976/67 "2010-03-29T00:51:35Z")
I have read more than one article that say the same thing about outsourcing, it is generally overrated as a cost saving mechanism. [http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/162947/outsourcing\_not\_the\_big\_savings\_firms\_expect\_study\_says.html](http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/162947/outsourcing_not_the_big_savings_firms_expect_study_says.html) > [@](#): > > Companies rushing to outsource their software development for quick savings actually risk significant losses in productivity because developers do not fully understand business requirements, according to the consultants. > > While staff costs may be 40 percent lower in offshore locations, Compass research found these savings were undermined by a 60 percent drop in productivity in operations where the full lifecycle of application development has been outsourced. > > “This means that the decision to migrate development, when you include additional management control, increased infrastructure spend, employee attrition, language, and cultural issues, can end up costing up to 20 percent more than current in-house operations,” said the consultant group. > > Compass analysed over 200 outsourcing contracts, accounting for a total value of more than £3bn over the past two years. At my old job I learned that the bureaucrats in charge can be incompetent (I don’t work in IT, I work in a different field). So I am not surprised if outsourcing is passed off as some amazing way to save money but just ends up destroying the in house talent pool, costing more money, destroying morale, increasing turnover and lowering product quality. It reminds me of the bankers who collapsed the global economy then paid themselves $145 billion in compensation. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976/68 "2010-03-29T00:58:24Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Wait. Can anyone tell me how the prosperity of India or China is supposed to affect me? This may sound cruel or callous: I don’t give a shit about the Indians or Chinese. The general welfare and prosperity of the Indians or Chinese is a responsibility which belongs to their respective government. Not us or private corporations. > > I never said that I want government to tell companies who to hire; I said that the government shouldn’t give any tax breaks to companies who do so. I also think that these companies that ship jobs overseas should have to contribute a hefty sum to the unemployment kitty box. > > - Honesty The argument is that as China & India become wealthier they develop a larger market for US exports which can create US jobs. At the same time they are becoming wealthier they can invest more R&D and manufacturing capability into technologies and devices the world needs. Low cost medical technologies, medical breakthroughs, renewable energy, agricultural breakthroughs etc. Thirty years ago China was dirt poor. Now it is becoming a world leader in development and manufacture of renewable energy technologies. They are also testing an AIDS vaccine. > **[BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China begins HIV vaccine trials](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4344629.stm)** > > China starts human trials of a new HIV vaccine, testing it first on a 20-year-old volunteer. Anyway, in theory/ideal, that is the argument. Down the road China and India will buy more US goods, have less poverty/misery and will contribute to helping to solve global problems in agriculture, energy, medicine, poverty, etc. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976/69 "2010-03-29T02:44:42Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > What makes you think that a corporation would or should for that matter make decisions based on what helps the country? Perhaps because corporate decisions can undermine the economic and political stability of the nation, and it is foolish to expect that your fellow citizens should not be concerned about this? ---
**Author:** ![lee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lee/32/7455_2.png) [@lee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lee)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976/70 "2010-03-29T05:07:37Z")
What I don’t understand is why we have H1Bs still if unemployment is so high. I know many in IT who have been laid off, but there are many, many H1Bs they are competing with for jobs. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976/71 "2010-03-29T05:28:36Z")
We benefit from outsourcing to India in exactly the same way as we benefit from automating our phone switching, automating our factories, using software to replace typesetters, and improving Photoshop so that it takes 1/10 of the effort to retouch a photo than it used to. Each of those things can cost jobs. But ultimately, they are the very things responsible for job creation - our relentless pursuit for efficiency. The market drives us to constantly optimize, improve, automate. This kills jobs in the old, inefficient industries, but creates even more new jobs in the new industries. That’s how capitalism works: creative destruction. But American workers still have large advantages. They have the advantage of living in an advanced country with an advanced infrastructure, an educated population, and high capital investment in industry. For Indian or Chinese workers to successfully compete against an American, they have to be \*better than you in terms of value for dollar. Because they bring with them other costs that must be overcome - long-distance management, communication problems, clashes in expectation, workers that may not have the same values or stability. Unstable governments. Infrastructures that are less capable and less reliable. Longer shipping times. So, man up. You can compete. If not, you’ll have to find new work. It happens to most of us at one time or another. Ultimately, it’s good for the country. It might suck to be you when it happens to you, but at all other times you’re living with the benefits gained from allowing other people to also fail and start again. The alternative was to subsidize them - to pay them more than their worth in the market, and that’s how you kill economic growth and slow down the rate of improvements in the general standard of living. ---
**Author:** ![joemama24\_98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ce7236/32.png) [@joemama24\_98](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joemama24_98)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976/72 "2010-03-29T12:21:57Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > I have read more than one article that say the same thing about outsourcing, it is generally overrated as a cost saving mechanism. > > [http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/162947/outsourcing\_not\_the\_big\_savings\_firms\_expect\_study\_says.html](http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/162947/outsourcing_not_the_big_savings_firms_expect_study_says.html) > > At my old job I learned that the bureaucrats in charge can be incompetent (I don’t work in IT, I work in a different field). So I am not surprised if outsourcing is passed off as some amazing way to save money but just ends up destroying the in house talent pool, costing more money, destroying morale, increasing turnover and lowering product quality. It reminds me of the bankers who collapsed the global economy then paid themselves $145 billion in compensation. As a technology consultant, I can tell you I’ve seen a lot of this. The “cost savings” many executives quote are non-existent when you factor in the above. But IMHO, this is not because its an inherently broken model, but because companies don’t adequately prepare to offshore certain functions, or have realistic expectations in terms of what will work and what will not given their business and operations. I’ve seen many companies decide to “offshore” before they have even performed a realistic assessment of how it will impact their bottom line. It’s more of a reactionary thing - “our competitors are doing it, so should we.” If done right it makes a lot of sense, as others have pointed out. One “benefit” I’d like to put forth is that for many companies, offshore resources can provide a headcount “buffer” between periods of peak supply and peak demand. I feel my own company manages this well - rather that costly and morale busting layoffs we simply send less overseas and cut the hours for the offshore folks while the domestic staff keep the lights on. ---
**Author:** ![lee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lee/32/7455_2.png) [@lee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lee)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976/73 "2010-03-29T21:47:57Z")
One scenario I witnessed was an exec announced plans to save money by outsourcing some functions that had been taken care of by a US/European team. This was accompanied by a move to “commoditize” services etc. They promised substantial bonuses to employees to train the outsources and document their duties (and followed through with those bonuses). There was a bump in the stock price after the initial announcement and another bump just after announcements were made that the outsourcing was going according to schedule. They also found that they had to rework some of the ways they did some security tasks that required more than one person present to do things. They lost institutional memory and over the next two years at least one of the employees displaced by this change was contacted at least once a month with someone trying to get support for the outsourced areas and in some of the cases that employee could not discover anyone supporting the function being asked about so they could refer those asking. There are security and service issues that remain unaddressed. The changes impact seemed to grow over the years, instead of being part of a shortlived adjustment period. I think the purpose of the change was to have the stock price bumps which blend into the graph long term. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976/74 "2010-03-30T02:12:58Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > We benefit from outsourcing to India in exactly the same way as we benefit from automating our phone switching, automating our factories, using software to replace typesetters, and improving Photoshop so that it takes 1/10 of the effort to retouch a photo than it used to. > > Each of those things can cost jobs. But ultimately, they are the very things responsible for job creation - our relentless pursuit for efficiency. The market drives us to constantly optimize, improve, automate. This kills jobs in the old, inefficient industries, but creates even more new jobs in the new industries. That’s how capitalism works: creative destruction. > > But American workers still have large advantages. They have the advantage of living in an advanced country with an advanced infrastructure, an educated population, and high capital investment in industry. For Indian or Chinese workers to successfully compete against an American, they have to be \*better than you in terms of value for dollar. Because they bring with them other costs that must be overcome - long-distance management, communication problems, clashes in expectation, workers that may not have the same values or stability. Unstable governments. Infrastructures that are less capable and less reliable. Longer shipping times. > > So, man up. You can compete. If not, you’ll have to find new work. It happens to most of us at one time or another. Ultimately, it’s good for the country. It might suck to be you when it happens to you, but at all other times you’re living with the benefits gained from allowing other people to also fail and start again. The alternative was to subsidize them - to pay them more than their worth in the market, and that’s how you kill economic growth and slow down the rate of improvements in the general standard of living. If the US has a relentless pursuit of efficiency we should enact single payer health care which will save $300 billion a year in overhead and $100 billion a year in bulk negotiations. Also the recent health care bill involved reforming the student loan industry to cut out the middle man, saving $60 billion over 10 years. > **[Single Payer: Vast Savings on Bureaucracy and Profits - MR Online](https://mronline.org/2009/04/29/single-payer-vast-savings-on-bureaucracy-and-profits/)** > > Testimony of David U. Himmelstein, M.D. before the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee, at the hearing on "Ways to Reduce the Cost of Health Insurance for Employers, Employees, and Their Families," 23 April 2009 Mr. Chairman, members... > [@](#): > > A single payer reform would make care affordable through vast savings on bureaucracy and profits. As my colleagues and I have shown in research published in the New England Journal of Medicine, administration consumes 31% of health spending in the U.S., nearly double what Canada spends. In other words, if we cut our bureaucratic costs to Canadian levels, we’d save nearly $400 billion annually – more than enough to cover the uninsured and to eliminate copayments and deductibles for all Americans. > > By simplifying its payment system Canada has cut insurance overhead to 1% of premiums – one twentieth of Aetna’s overhead – and eliminated mounds of expensive paperwork for doctors and hospitals. In fact, while cutting insurance overhead could save us $131 billion annually, our insurers waste much more than that because of the useless paperwork they inflict on doctors and hospitals. Imagine what the US could do if we only spent 11% of GDP on health care like France, Germany or Canada instead of the 17% we spend now. That would free up a trillion dollars that would have gone to health care to go to other investments. But even if we couldn’t get that, a universal public administration/funding system would, if done right, give doctors more productivity and lower administration. Failing that, finding ways to reform and unify private administration is needed. Either way you need a strong public presence. The point is that efficiency comes from the public sector just as much as the private sector. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976/75 "2010-03-30T02:16:23Z")
> [@lee](#): > > What I don’t understand is why we have H1Bs still if unemployment is so high. I know many in IT who have been laid off, but there are many, many H1Bs they are competing with for jobs. Because you can pay a H1B visa holder less and an employer has more leverage over them. [http://www.workpermit.com/news/2005\_10\_26/us/us\_h1b\_visa\_holders\_earn\_less.htm](http://www.workpermit.com/news/2005_10_26/us/us_h1b_visa_holders_earn_less.htm) > [@](#): > > Nonetheless, Miano’s report shows that wages paid to H-1B workers in computer programming occupations had a mean salary of $52,312, while the OES mean was $67,700; a difference of $15,388. The report also lists the OES median salary as $65,003, or $12,691 higher than the H-1B median. > > When you look at computer job titles by state, California has one of the biggest differentials between OES salaries and H-1B salaries. The average salary for a programmer in California is $73,960, according to the OES. The average salary paid to an H-1B visa worker for the same job is $53,387; a difference of $20,573. > > Here are some other interesting national wage comparisons: The mean salary of an H-1B computer scientist is $78,169, versus $90,146 according to the OES. For an H-1B network analyst, the mean salary is $55,358, versus the OES mean salary of $64,799. And for the title “system administrator,” there was a $17,478 difference in salary between the H-1B mean and the OES mean. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976/76 "2010-03-30T03:55:20Z")
> [@krunen](#): > > I wasn’t just talking about the IT industry. There’s lots of protectionism around, especially in defense and agriculture. It’s not so much protectionism as impractical. Working on a US defense contract more often than not requires US citizenship. Irrespective of the obvious security issues, outsourcing such jobs overseas would be illegal. As for agriculture, sometimes the nature of the job makes it impractical. While we import quite a bit of food from overseas, for some food products, importing makes no sense from a business sense, nor a customer service view. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976/77 "2010-03-30T05:19:06Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Imagine what the US could do if we only spent 11% of GDP on health care like France, Germany or Canada instead of the 17% we spend now. That would free up a trillion dollars that would have gone to health care to go to other investments. But even if we couldn’t get that, a universal public administration/funding system would, if done right, give doctors more productivity and lower administration. And what if health care costs don’t scale linearly? There’s no reason why they should. The bureaucracy to handle 300 million people may be more than 3 times as big as one required to handle 100 million people. Also, Americans spend more on health care because they are wealthier than the other countries you mentioned. They also spend a greater percentage of GDP on pet toys and recreational vehicles than other countries do. Excellent health care is a luxury - especially if you want it in timely fashion. Other countries that have kept their health care spending down have done so in part by rationing. And even so, Canada’s health care costs are exploding. Our Liberal party, which is supposed to be somewhat to the left of the Conservatives, is floating the notion of campaigning on privatizing health care in whole or in part. [Cite.](http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5idqAAayPy4xjlpiG-mribyjwYQ1g). > [@](#): > > Dodge, a former deputy finance minister, told the Montreal conference it’s time to re-think the program, the cost of which is increasing at seven per cent a year - twice the rate of growth in the economy. > > He told delegates there are “really only four” options to rein in health spending: > > -Impose or increase dedicated health-care taxes or levies. > > -Reduce the scope of medical procedures covered by public health insurance, forcing people to buy private health insurance for services not covered. > > - Introduce “significant” co-payments. > > -Continually reduce the quality of services provided - letting wait times increase and limiting drug coverage, for instance - and allow people to buy upgraded, private health care. In other words, “so-called two-tier medicine.” And I don’t believe the American government can run health care as well as the Canadian government does. For one thing, we give our provinces a lot of autonomy, so health care policies can be varied according to the needs of each province. For another, our Parliamentary system is less susceptible to special interests and regulatory capture because we enforce strong party disciple so individual members’ votes cannot be purchased. As a result, we are culturally a lot less focused on what our local representatives bring home from Ottawa in the form of perks. It takes a huge wealth transfer like our equalization payments or the National Energy Plan before we really even notice. That leaves bureaucrats more free to allocate resources without political interference. Every time the U.S. sets up a large entitlement program it screws it up. Your education system is a mess. Your public unions are out of control. Your social security and medicare programs are insolvent. You’re racking up debt way, way faster than GDP growth, and doing nothing about the impending demographic freight train coming your way. I have no faith at all in your government’s ability to set up and manage something as complicated as a national health care program. It will be a jigsaw puzzle full of special exemptions, giveaways and handouts, and payoffs to special interest groups. > [@](#): > > Failing that, finding ways to reform and unify private administration is needed. Either way you need a strong public presence. > > The point is that efficiency comes from the public sector just as much as the private sector. To me, the obvious solution is that the people themselves must pay for their own health care to the greatest degree possible consistent with a certain amount of safety net. Probably catastrophic coverage insurance. The only thing that will truly control health care costs is the market. Prices have to rise when health care resources are scarce. Anything else will result in shortages. The best functioning systems in the world are ones in which the public is at least somewhat responsible for their own health care. Singapore has one of the best and most fiscally stable health care systems around. They do it with a combination of health savings accounts, catastrophic insurance, and government subsidies for low income people. Overall, two thirds of all funding comes from private sources, with one third coming from government. This is basically the system many economists on the right and left had been proposing for years in the U.S. Notice that several of the proposals the Liberals are making would make our system look a lot like Singapore’s. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976/78 "2010-03-30T08:34:50Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Because you can pay a H1B visa holder less and an employer has more leverage over them. > > [http://www.workpermit.com/news/2005\_10\_26/us/us\_h1b\_visa\_holders\_earn\_less.htm](http://www.workpermit.com/news/2005_10_26/us/us_h1b_visa_holders_earn_less.htm) Another reason H-1B holders might, on average, be paid less that U.S.workers is that on average, they are at an earlier point in their careers. After a few years, the ones who are still in the U.S. are green card holders and aren’t counted in the H-1B worker stats anymore. It is a legal requirement of the H-1B category for an employer of H-1B workers to pay them the prevailing wage for the position and geographic region, either according to a prevailing wage determination by the Dept. of Labor or according to a wage survey that meets statistical criteria specified by regulation, or the wage paid to U.S.workers in the same position and at the same level, whichever is higher. Eva Luna, Immigration Paralegal ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976/79 "2010-03-30T09:18:17Z")
> [@Rigamarole](#): > > I _hate_ calling Indian call centers for support (whether technical or otherwise), not because they’re Indian but because they sit there reading off a script and when you ask them a question that’s not on there they’re completely flabbergasted. They have no critical thinking skills whatsoever, as this is not what they are trained to do. They’re also so far removed from the issue that the chances they have much more knowledge about it than you do are pretty remote anyway. It’s a total waste of time. Sounds to me like much of my experience with the lower levels of helpdesk generally. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976/80 "2010-03-30T11:13:14Z")
i have a top manager friend who noted, in response to my observations about such offshoring, that it wouldn’t last – the overseas standards of living are rising anbd that will obliterate their price advantage. But I couldn’t help noticing that 1.) this process is likely to take a very long time 2.) In the meantime, it’s devastating trained and jobless people in the US 3.) No one is offshoring _his_ job. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-benefit-of-shipping-it-jobs-to-india/533976.md?page=5)