Hogwash. You know how it works: S/he who posits must prove. Now that’s not you, as you’re not holding up the figures as the Truth; it’s the article, which didn’t do its job well. I’ve never even heard the word “insourcing” before, so I think either the article is doing some original thinking without much justification, or it’s total junk.
I really don’t think there are any experts out there, a thought your research seems to confirm. In general, I trust economists and their conclusions about as much as sociologists and theirs; they don’t call it the “dismal science” for nothing. What is more, however, is that talk of outsourcing rarely seems to be fortified with facts, figures, or even a good conceptual model.
I’m asking when this word achieved “reality.” Did you even read my explanation as to why I think it’s stupid?
Google yields 14,700,000 hits for “outsourcing,” but only 128,000 for “insourcing.” Obviously, people are using the word (in comparatively small numbers), but should they be?
Well, what else should we call it? Insourcing seems like a rather obvious extension of the idea. The reason why it’s not used as often is because it’s more intuitive to think of things being outsourced from A to B than insourced from B to A. It’s only really useful when you need to compare the two, otherwise, you just say that India outsourced 3m jobs to the US instead of the US insourced 3m jobs from India.
They call economics the “dismal science” because it often provides a lot of bad news. The market forces caused by millions of people acting in enlightened self-interest tend to overpower attempts to circumvent them because someone thinks it’s “not right” or “unfair”. Just because you don’t like what economists predict does not make it hocus-pocus or mumbojumbo. I trust economists about as much as I trust the weatherman. He might not be right all the time, but if he tells me it’s going to rain, I generally pack an umbrella just in case.
If you want to split hairs over the semantics of “insourcing” or “exsuppling” or whatever feel free to go right ahead. I don’t think it adds anything to the debate.
No, but it helps people who work for companies that do business “insourcing”.
Yes…that is why companies in/outsource. To gain access to expertise that can do the job cheaper, faster and/or better.
What’s fair about you keeping your job when someone can do it at least as good but cheaper? That’s why economics is the dismal science.
[quote=dotchan ]
Speaking of fast food and outsourcing, I hear that Mickey D’s is outsourcing its drive through service to a call center in Colorado or something.
[/quote ]
On the surface this seems ridiculous but if you think about it it makes a wierd kind of sense. You have fewer employees who can handle orders for more Drive-thrus so you have less people sitting idle during off-peak hours. You can maintain a higher level of service because it’s more centralized. All the biological unit in the window has to do is collect the money and hand over a bag of food.
Personally, I think it’s going to make Drive-thrus unnecessarily complicated. But if the end results is better service and lower costs, is it still a stupid idea?