• Technology
  • CFO.com | US

Reader Opinions on the Offshoring Backlash

Only 5 percent of those who are offshoring today say public disapproval will cause them to cut back.

For years we pushed for a “Global Market.” We now have it. What we forgot was the “Global Economy” that should have accompanied it.

Free markets are to be encouraged. Offshore outsourcing is part of free marketing. Most of it is coming from IT professionals that are being outsourced to India. I am sorry to say that seems to be the result of high cost of IT development during the 1990s and the lack of hard dollar benefits to the company.

Unfortunately there is a market to support these companies and make it worth their while.

It’s shortsighted. Long-term competitiveness is not enhanced by artificially keeping work in a specific location.

This view misses the point that in a global economy, labor and capital are deployed where they can be used most efficiently. Offshoring frees U.S. resources to in turn pursue their most efficient use.

The backlash is highly emotional, not necessarily based in fact.

Overblown hyperbole and fear-driven hysteria. The U.S. economy has gone through many changes over the past century and has thrived. There is no reason to think that this current period of change will be any different.

A company must manage the tensions between sound fiscal and economic policy (including sound macroeconomic policy like offshoring) with public perception and reactions. This can be done by encouraging facts representing the other side to those posited causing emotional reaction, through open discussion of the issues with employees, suppliers, and shareholders, and through living what (one hopes) is a culture of concern for the stakeholders.

In a nutshell, this too shall pass.

I believe that offshoring is the right decision. Companies should always strive to be more efficient. It will benefit the U.S. and the world.

It is needed and necessary. We are fast being eliminated as qualified candidates for high technology!

I agree with the backlash to a point in that it does displace certain skilled jobs in the U.S., and if you are one of these people displaced, it can devastate your livelihood and family. However, a certain amount of offshore outsourcing is and should be a fact of life, but U.S. companies and the U.S. government should work to protect a certain amount of U.S. jobs while also outsourcing to lower cost (let’s say a 50/50 sharing ratio between the two options). The government should provide companies some incentives to make such a strategy palatable.

I believe we need to move jobs oversees only if absolutely necessary to reduce cost and maintain a company’s viability.

It is a complex issue and effects on customer/community relations must be taken into effect. The stagnant economy is a major factor. Also, efficiency improvements have contributed to the issue by decreasing the number of jobs required to perform a specific unit of production.

There is a general lack of understanding of the costs/benefits of this practice. Backlash is unwarranted. Economy demands moving work to the highest-value location — U.S. needs to re-train workforce to deliver even higher-value-added jobs.

The public has not figured out yet that multinational corporations are not “U.S. companies” anymore than they are loyal to any other nation. They have loyalty to their stockholders, affiliates, and alliances only. This is a point that multinational companies are afraid to sell to the public.

Discuss

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *