Outsourcing To India Draws Western Lawyers

[ken_ichikawa]

A lot of stuff (and I can't be bothered to nest the quotes like you)

Building and maintaining robots? Erm this doesn't take into the realms of possibility that robots can build other robots. They can self maintain and or be designed with parts which need no maintainance.

I recall a journal in university around 1999 where chains and cogs could be replaced with a new type of plastic gearbox. There were more parts but it required less maintainance. It worked on a similar principle to the Harrison wooden clocks they were so low friction they NEVER wore out.

There is even a video going round of Japanese robots which can self dock and change their own batteries!

It also does not consider technical singularity whereby robots can start designing themselves in ways the human mind cannot comprehend.

[MongerOfDoom]

Ask Mr Parry / Noodle. I questioned the belief myself as why on earth would they spend £100K installing robots when 5000-8000bht can hire somebody.

Whatever the reason, it is not to save money on humans.

It would not matter if a large proportion of jobs was done by robots. The people who design the robots will want something from the rest of the population in exchange, otherwise there would not be any point doing it. Hence there will always be other jobs.

It may be there will be more people with absolutely no marketable skills whatsoever in the future. There is nothing new about that in principle, and there may be a fair number of jobs for the police and people who design robotised prisons as a result :-)

[MongerOfDoom]

It also does not consider technical singularity whereby robots can start designing themselves in ways the human mind cannot comprehend.

There are limits on the power of computers. Even if it was somehow possible for robots to design and make themselves, there would still be jobs in making sure they achieve something humans consider useful (and later in fighting them for survival).

[Guest Noodle]

Ask Mr Parry / Noodle. I questioned the belief myself as why on earth would they spend £100K installing robots when 5000-8000bht can hire somebody.

Because robots don't laze about in a hammock all day drinking moonshine?

You'll see when you get here. It's a shocker and it chucks the whole Western notion of the developing world as people being worked to death for peanuts (whilst Brits are work shy chavs) straight in the bin.

I collapsed today trying to mix 150kgs of concrete by hand. Can I get a builder round here? No chance. Could I get BIL to do it? Nope, hammock, immobile.

[ken_ichikawa]

Because robots don't laze about in a hammock all day drinking moonshine?

You'll see when you get here. It's a shocker and it chucks the whole Western notion of the developing world as people being worked to death for peanuts (whilst Brits are work shy chavs) straight in the bin.

I collapsed today trying to mix 150kgs of concrete by hand. Can I get a builder round here? No chance. Could I get BIL to do it? Nope, hammock, immobile.

What exactly are you building out there anyway? You should ask Ricky (the stranded guy from before) to give you a hand, the school term in Thailand apparently ends in 5 weeks time and he's got nowt to do.

[cybernoid]

It also does not consider technical singularity whereby robots can start designing themselves in ways the human mind cannot comprehend.

You're nuts.

Anyway, how do you know this hasn't already happened and *we* are the robots? Would explain our inherent desire to slave away for a master. We probably killed our makers, just as well really, they didn't even have any jobs to do like us, lazy sods.

[wonderpup]

It would not matter if a large proportion of jobs was done by robots

Yes it would.

A car factory owner is showing the Union rep his new production line robots. Pointing to one he remarks 'I'd like to see you get one of these machines out on strike.'

The union guy says 'I'd like to see you sell one a car.'

Even if we allow for the existence of a technical elite that design and service the robots they alone could not create enough demand for the goods being produced.

You can't have a mass production society without mass consumers- and people without jobs don't consume.

Yes, we can pretend that making a few people fabulously wealthy will somehow generate demand as they spend it, but consider this extreme example;

Suppose we gave all the money on earth to one man- and further suppose you are a barber. What are the odds on you starving to death long before this one man comes to your country, and to your town and walks into your barber shop for a haircut?

[Guest Noodle]

Yes it would.

A car factory owner is showing the Union rep his new production line robots. Pointing to one he remarks 'I'd like to see you get one of these machines out on strike.'

The union guy says 'I'd like to see you sell one a car.'

Even if we allow for the existence of a technical elite that design and service the robots they alone could not create enough demand for the goods being produced.

You can't have a mass production society without mass consumers- and people without jobs don't consume.

Yes, we can pretend that making a few people fabulously wealthy will somehow generate demand as they spend it, but consider this extreme example;

Suppose we gave all the money on earth to one man- and further suppose you are a barber. What are the odds on you starving to death long before this one man comes to your country, and to your town and walks into your barber shop for a haircut?

Perhaps this is where society needs to catch up with technology/production.

Perhaps we can have cars . . . and hammocks.

[Guest Noodle]

What exactly are you building out there anyway? You should ask Ricky (the stranded guy from before) to give you a hand, the school term in Thailand apparently ends in 5 weeks time and he's got nowt to do.

Trying to fill the cess pit in at the base, turn it into a holding tank. Ongoing nightmare.

Where is Ricky? Which town?

[ken_ichikawa]

Yes it would.

A car factory owner is showing the Union rep his new production line robots. Pointing to one he remarks 'I'd like to see you get one of these machines out on strike.'

The union guy says 'I'd like to see you sell one a car.'

Even if we allow for the existence of a technical elite that design and service the robots they alone could not create enough demand for the goods being produced.

You can't have a mass production society without mass consumers- and people without jobs don't consume.

Yes, we can pretend that making a few people fabulously wealthy will somehow generate demand as they spend it, but consider this extreme example;

Suppose we gave all the money on earth to one man- and further suppose you are a barber. What are the odds on you starving to death long before this one man comes to your country, and to your town and walks into your barber shop for a haircut?

The fallacy of this is that people think robotisation of the work place can only be used for luxury big ticket items. This isn't true.

Robots can infiltrate down to loads of things. Back in the 1990s the Kara bread factory used to employ people like me, we'd stack the oven bottom buns into twos so the packaging machine could wrap them at the end of the conveyor belt...

The workers were replaced by a clever robot which does this....

I'd like to see people not eat bread..

[MongerOfDoom]

Because robots don't laze about in a hammock all day drinking moonshine?

You'll see when you get here. It's a shocker and it chucks the whole Western notion of the developing world as people being worked to death for peanuts (whilst Brits are work shy chavs) straight in the bin.

I collapsed today trying to mix 150kgs of concrete by hand. Can I get a builder round here? No chance. Could I get BIL to do it? Nope, hammock, immobile.

I only spent a week there a couple of years ago, but the locals were perfectly subservient in exchange for small amounts of cash. I am pretty sure there would have been no shortage of "takers" if my sweaty body had the urge, either. I can't see that most people would prefer that to mixing some concrete, but I did not really have enough time to understand the culture in detail :-)

[ken_ichikawa]

Trying to fill the cess pit in at the base, turn it into a holding tank. Ongoing nightmare.

Where is Ricky? Which town?

I don't actually know, its got a Chaing in it (its got this dead curly wurly script in it) and it is somewhere near the Laos/Burmese border, he's quite happy having been fed dog regularly and been called Farang constantly. In the end his dad didn't go out and rescue him.

Edited August 5, 2010 by ken_ichikawa

[Guest Noodle]

I only spent a week there a couple of years ago, but the locals were perfectly subservient in exchange for small amounts of cash. I am pretty sure there would have been no shortage of "takers" if my sweaty body had the urge, either. I can't see that most people would prefer that to mixing some concrete, but I did not really have enough time to understand the culture in detail :-)

It's bizarre, a strange culture and a strange economy. Still no idea how it really works, others say the same who've been here two decades plus and have businesses.

Example. Next door they went potty making these silly little fireworks they sell, only for about two months they must have been working at least 8 hours a day! That's paid for an extension, a new perimeter wall and a new bathroom.

Dunno. Beats me.

[MongerOfDoom]

Even if we allow for the existence of a technical elite that design and service the robots they alone could not create enough demand for the goods being produced.

The suggestion that manufacturers need employees so that someone would buy their product is plainly absurd. It might help, but if you get rid of both the employees and the production capacity they buy up, there will still necessarily be a lot of product left over that others buy.

Suppose we gave all the money on earth to one man- and further suppose you are a barber. What are the odds on you starving to death long before this one man comes to your country, and to your town and walks into your barber shop for a haircut?

There will be other people who will want to barter something in exchange for a haircut, just like in Argentina during the crisis.

[Guest Noodle]

The suggestion that manufacturers need employees so that someone would buy their product is plainly absurd. It might help, but if you get rid of both the employees and the production capacity they buy up, there will still necessarily be a lot of product left over that others buy.

There will be other people who will want to barter something in exchange for a haircut, just like in Argentina during the crisis.

Wonderpup is thinking along the lines of Henry Ford, I believe.

[MongerOfDoom]

Wonderpup is thinking along the lines of Henry Ford, I believe.

Yes, I have heard that idea attributed to him. Whether he said it or not, it is plainly wrong. Anybody who cannot see it should consider some natural resource, say oil. It needs a bit of effort to drill for, but suppose the workers are willing to be paid in oil and there is plenty left over. Now how come anyone can afford to buy it?

[Guest absolutezero]

Plan B? I'm already on Plan G already!

At least you had a plan B.

[huw]

If you want to avoid being outsourced to the developing world then make sure you either:

1. Perform a role that cannot be easily commoditised and adds extra value. Many companies have repatriated their customer service or IT functions because they realised that with outsourcing they lost the extra value they received from their own workers. My friend works for a law firm that has just outsourced some support functions to an Indian company. They decided not to outsource her research role because (I suspect) it was felt her knowledge of the firm, its clients, its work and the subject area could not be effectively transferred.

2. Perform a role that physically requires you to be there (i.e. nurse, hotel manager, postman)

What proportion of the workforce do you reckon could get into such positions? (considering both the individuals' capacities, and the demand for those roles)

What happens to everyone else?

Is it possible to run a modern economy and society based purely on the contributions (tax and otherwise) of those with non-transferrable knowledge?

As for the "physically present" roles -- where will all the UK demand (=desire + capacity to pay) for nurses, hotel managers, and postmen come from?

[wonderpup]

The suggestion that manufacturers need employees so that someone would buy their product is plainly absurd. It might help, but if you get rid of both the employees and the production capacity they buy up, there will still necessarily be a lot of product left over that others buy.

The problem is that one man's redundant worker is another man's best customer. Imagine that a wonderful new robotic technology was invented that would allow almost everyone to be replaced by cheap robots. You, as a company owner, think this is great and immediately sack all your employees- this makes perfect sense.

But a month later your sales figures have fallen off a cliff and you ask the sales guy 'What's going on- why no sales.' And the guy says 'Well, you know how we sacked all our workers- it seems everyone else did the same thing. So now all our customers are out of work they can't buy our stuff.

There will be other people who will want to barter something in exchange for a haircut, just like in Argentina during the crisis.

So you don't think that giving all the money on earth to one guy will create a massive trickledown effect that will flood the economy with demand? I tend to agree- after all, just how many haircuts does one guy really need a year? Even if his hair grew really fast it's unlikely that he could sustain the current population of barber shops world wide.

[Pindar]

AN obvious one that falls into both categories is construction worker. Yes they can get equipment and material form overseas but at the end of the day the items need to be installed insitu.

Not true. A robot can be remotely controlled by somebody who'll work for less, to do the same work as a local human for a fraction of the cost. Simplez.

[kingsgate]

Can't help feeling people like Mr. Wheeler have been swept up in the offshoring craze. With unemployment running at 10% (20% in some areas) in the US, and huge amounts of empty property, he could have replicated this model closer to home - by setting up shop outside of Detroit for example.

I wouldn't employ anyone from anywhere near Detroit.

Indians are clever, Detroitians are stupid.

This is why people outsource their offices to Delhi and Mumbai, not Cape Town.

[kingsgate]

pure capitalism: capital flows globally and jobs go the same way. It's like water, going the path of least resistance.

Only when the UK (and the rest of the west) will be poor enough to compete with the Chinese and Indian minimum wage workers will we get some jobs back.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that we'll have to wait until the Chindians become wealthy enough to export unwanted jobs. It's a downward spiral

Soon we will be stepping over families of chavs sleeping in the street and sh1tting in the gutter outside our offices! (maybe at least they won't be obese!)

Is this a good thing or not?

They don't earn any more than their Indian equivalent, so why do they deserve a better lifestyle than an unemployed penniless beggar in India?

Answers on a postcard please!

[Pindar]

The very notion that we in the west are somehow more deserving of good schools, healthcare, infrastructure and a safety net is rapidly evaporating as the reality sets in that the government *really* doesn't give a $hit about you or your outdated sense of civic entitlement.

It (the government) became fat off the spoils of economic activity, but like an overweight blood sucker, it eventually killed its host and forced productive enterprise to seek places where there is less red tape and where taxes and the overbearing state are minimal.

To get the kind of activity back that brought us to where we once were, would mean reversion to a sort of pre-industrial era, starting over with as much exploitation and child labour as we could stomach.

There is no cosy alternative where workers are treated fairly and output is high. There is just a bunch of shrewd people who take advantage of a much larger number of less shrewd people.

The state acts to police this managed exploitation by denying land rights to people en masse, so as to force them to "work for a living" (a.k.a slavery). This process is being repeated in un/underdeveloped nations yet we shudder with a hypocritical moral outrage.

What we should really be doing is demanding the right to preserve our dignity through land ownership reform so that we can at least sustain ourselves and benefit from some of the technological advances that have been afforded us in the last 100 years. There is no point in letting the advances in standard of living go to waste if all it would take for mature western democracies to sustain their standard of living into the future would be to be free from the shackles of debt, accrued during an era where servicing that debt was still viable. The wealth is in human capital and human ingenuity yet through a dictatorship of debt, humans are condemned to a life of underemployment or worse, all for the vanity and greed of the ruling bureaucratic and banking elite.

[Big Orange]

I wouldn't employ anyone from anywhere near Detroit.

Indians are clever, Detroitians are stupid.

This is why people outsource their offices to Delhi and Mumbai, not Cape Town.

With that sort of attitude don't come crying to me when the rest of the United States of America becomes fallow like Detroit has, with the whole heavily corrupted, decaying capitalist system no longer functioning since it moved practically everything to Asia while angry mobs storm the mansions and rebel tanks level Wall Street to the ground.

[Britney's Piers]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5064665078176641728#